No he is not hard banned for life. He will, however, probably get a
month >ban
the moment he comes back due to the fact that he broke the terms of his week-long ban a few times. That is in the enforcement section of our
(the >AC's)
ruling on the issue.
Violating a week long ban is one thing. Running a script to vandalize wikipedia repeatedly until we cave in for to his demands is something else. Assuming Jimbo posts the full header to confirm it wasn't faked, then I don't see we even need an AC ruling. This is simple vandalism. We block vandals all the time.
Theresa
I am trying to get an arbitration ruling on this as part of Wik2. Better evidence that the vandal bot is actually Wik would be helpful.
Fred
From: "KNOTT, T" tknott@qcl.org.uk Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:36:36 +0100 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] [wik1234@fastmail.fm: Quagga's vandalism]
No he is not hard banned for life. He will, however, probably get a
month >ban
the moment he comes back due to the fact that he broke the terms of his week-long ban a few times. That is in the enforcement section of our
(the >AC's)
ruling on the issue.
Violating a week long ban is one thing. Running a script to vandalize wikipedia repeatedly until we cave in for to his demands is something else. Assuming Jimbo posts the full header to confirm it wasn't faked, then I don't see we even need an AC ruling. This is simple vandalism. We block vandals all the time.
Theresa _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
I am trying to get an arbitration ruling on this as part of Wik2. Better evidence that the vandal bot is actually Wik would be helpful.
I'm not sure this is really something the arbitration committee needs to deal with. If Wik ran a vandal bot, I assume there's a consensus to ban him. So it seems to be simply a matter of facts (was the vandal bot Wik or not?), and the arbitration committee has no particular knowledge that the general community doesn't have when it comes to deciding that issue.
-Mark
On Wednesday, June 16th, 2004, at 09:50 Delirium wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
I am trying to get an arbitration ruling on this as part of Wik2. Better evidence that the vandal bot is actually Wik would be helpful.
I'm not sure this is really something the arbitration committee needs to deal with.
I agree.
If Wik ran a vandal bot, I assume there's a consensus to ban him.
Well, it's clear and established policy (for once), so, yes.
So it seems to be simply a matter of facts (was the vandal bot Wik or not?), and the arbitration committee has no particular knowledge that the general community doesn't have when it comes to deciding that issue.
The evidence available, though circumstantial, is rather significant.
Yours,
I think it would be hard to imagine a legitimate reason to run a vandalbot - there doesn't seem to be much room to argue that a user who does this should not be banned. Mark R.
--- "James D. Forrester" james@jdforrester.org wrote:
On Wednesday, June 16th, 2004, at 09:50 Delirium wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
I am trying to get an arbitration ruling on this
as part of Wik2.
Better evidence that the vandal bot is actually
Wik would be helpful.
I'm not sure this is really something the
arbitration committee
needs to deal with.
I agree.
If Wik ran a vandal bot, I assume there's a
consensus to ban him.
Well, it's clear and established policy (for once), so, yes.
So it seems to be simply a matter of facts (was
the vandal bot Wik
or not?), and the arbitration committee has no
particular knowledge
that the general community doesn't have when it
comes to deciding
that issue.
The evidence available, though circumstantial, is rather significant.
Yours,
James D. Forrester Mail: james@jdforrester.org | jon@eh.org | james.forrester@orange.net csvla@dcs.warwick.ac.uk || [[en:User:Jdforrester]] on Wikipedia IM : ICQ:15108888 | MSN:jamesdforrester@hotmail.com | YM:Jdforrester
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
--- "KNOTT, T" tknott@qcl.org.uk wrote:
Violating a week long ban is one thing. Running a script to vandalize wikipedia repeatedly until we cave in for to his demands is something else. Assuming Jimbo posts the full header to confirm it wasn't faked, then I don't see we even need an AC ruling. This is simple vandalism. We block vandals all the time.
Admins have always had the ability to deal with simple vandalism. So WHOEVER the vandalbot is run by can be blocked by ANYONE right now. If that is Wik, then he has banned himself permanently - no need for the AC to issue the ban. The the AC *may* have to decide if this person is in fact Wik - but that is all.
-- Daniel
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail