RE: [WikiEN-l] [wik1234@fastmail.fm: Quagga's vandalism]

From: "KNOTT, T" <tknott(a)qcl.org.uk> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:36:36 +0100 To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] [wik1234(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Delirium

8:50 a.m.

New subject: Wik's Vandal Bot?

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

James D. Forrester

3:12 p.m.

New subject: Wik's Vandal Bot?

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.

Mark Richards

17 Jun 17 Jun

2:23 a.m.

New subject: Wik's Vandal Bot?

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(a)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(a)jdforrester.org | jon(a)eh.org | james.forrester(a)orange.net csvla(a)dcs.warwick.ac.uk || [[en:User:Jdforrester]] on Wikipedia IM : ICQ:15108888 | MSN:jamesdforrester@hotmail.com | YM:Jdforrester _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)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

Daniel Mayer

16 Jun 16 Jun

5:58 p.m.

New subject: [wik1234@fastmail.fm: Quagga's vandalism]

--- "KNOTT, T" <tknott(a)qcl.org.uk> wrote:

...

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

7285

days inactive

7286

days old

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

5 comments

6 participants

tags (0)

participants (6)

Daniel Mayer
Delirium
Fred Bauder
James D. Forrester
KNOTT, T
Mark Richards