Wik wrote (in a post forwarded by Jimbo):
I made the mistake of trusting your word; you gave a supposedly final warning to Quagga, but didn't follow up on it. Therefore I'll now give you the final warning: if Quagga isn't banned within 24 hours, I'll start a script which does everything automatically including changing proxies as needed, so don't hope that I will tire of it; nor is there anything else you can do against it. It will run until Quagga is banned. Too bad you don't understand any other language.
So you all know, there is vandalism going on right now which has the following characteristics:
*the entire content of a page is replaced with the content: "==Stop vandalism, or suffer it yourself.==" *said edits are made to prominent community pages including the village pump, VfD and Goings-on, and to the talk and user pages of several prominent users (Jimbo, Heph, RickK) as well as Quagga *the edits are being made a more-or-less regular intervals, not all in a splurge - I'd guess they're in the region of about one per minute *each edit is made by under a different username *blocking the usernames is having no effect (I suppose because a different IP is being used for each edit)
Clearly, this could be related to the Wik-script mentioned here.
The vandalism itself is quite easy to spot and rollback, but if it really is a script and this goes on for hours or days, it's going to get supremely irritating.
I don't have an opinion on what we should do. This is just for information.
Lee (Camembert)
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:36:36 +0100, Lee Pilich lee@audiblerecords.com wrote:
I don't have an opinion on what we should do. This is just for information.
For one, can we have an official-type *decree* from someone that Wik is *hard-banned* for life, under the same terms as Michael, 142, etc?
Jimbo seems to have already provided this: "The usual. The threat here is direct and warrants a permanent ban. I can confirm this email to be that of user Wik, because he emailed me using this account before he was banned, etc. The two are adequately associated"
-Snowspinner On Jun 15, 2004, at 7:48 PM, Fennec Foxen wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:36:36 +0100, Lee Pilich lee@audiblerecords.com wrote:
I don't have an opinion on what we should do. This is just for information.
For one, can we have an official-type *decree* from someone that Wik is *hard-banned* for life, under the same terms as Michael, 142, etc? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wednesday 16 June 2004 02:58, Phil Sandifer wrote:
Jimbo seems to have already provided this: "The usual. The threat here is direct and warrants a permanent ban. I can confirm this email to be that of user Wik, because he emailed me using this account before he was banned, etc. The two are adequately associated"
It is very easy to forge From: field of an e-mail. I would like to take a look at entire header. (Or, Wik could be asked did he really wrote that.)
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:48:07 -0400, Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:36:36 +0100, Lee Pilich lee@audiblerecords.com wrote:
I don't have an opinion on what we should do. This is just for information.
For one, can we have an official-type *decree* from someone that Wik is *hard-banned* for life, under the same terms as Michael, 142, etc? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't know if WIk deserves a life ban, that seems a bit extreme... however, if he is resorting to simple vandalism, maybe it's needed in this case.
--- Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote:
For one, can we have an official-type *decree* from someone that Wik is *hard-banned* for life, under the same terms as Michael, 142, etc?
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.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 21:55:04 -0700 (PDT), Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote:
For one, can we have an official-type *decree* from someone that Wik is *hard-banned* for life, under the same terms as Michael, 142, etc?
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.
... Things like this, Phil, Sandifer, is why I would prefer any long-term ban be couched in unambiguous, official-sounding language. ;)
although perhaps with some qualifiers ("until further notice" etc) which would allow those who made the ban to remove it if circumstances warranted it.