I don't know. Maybe some help with the vandalism instead of getting attacked for doing the right thing?
Rick If I came across as if I were attacking you I apologise. It was not my intention. Let's not fight among ourselves eh?
Maybe not have people unblocking him when he's destroying people's pages?
Who unblocked him? I've been blocking every proxy he uses. So have several others.
Anything he can do can be sorted out. Let's not get emotional about it. He's been banned for a week, let's enforce that ban. He's said he'll leave for good. Great! He's far more trouble than he is worth IMO. Let's just let him go. I can't help but feel quagga is enjoying the fight and doesn't want Wik to go. I feel that Quagga is not in any way acting in the best interest of wikipedia.
Theresa
On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:59:43 UTC, "KNOTT, T" tknott@qcl.org.uk wrote:
He's been banned for a week, let's enforce that ban.
Does this mean that at the end of the week, he comes back unbanned? I find that completely incredible, if true(*). How many times must we appeal to the Supreme Court to get a user banned permanently when he immediately violates a ban that the AC spent vast amounts of deliberation on? Just how meaningless *is* and arbitration decision? We seem to be exploring the limits.
(*) Say it ain't so.
--- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:59:43 UTC, "KNOTT, T" tknott@qcl.org.uk wrote:
He's been banned for a week, let's enforce that ban.
Does this mean that at the end of the week, he comes back unbanned? I find that completely incredible, if true(*). How many times must we appeal to the Supreme Court to get a user banned permanently when he immediately violates a ban that the AC spent vast amounts of deliberation on? Just how meaningless *is* and arbitration decision? We seem to be exploring the limits.
Absent a 142.177/EoT/24-type range block directed at the ISP and city a person edits from, it is not possible to prevent somebody from editing (even then they could edit from another computer or switch their ISP). So all we can do is block reincarnations as they come up. The AC ruling also has provisions for what to do in case of violations. However, the AC is not a police force - it is up the the Admins to enforce the ruling and for the users to inform the Admins.
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:23:57 UTC, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com wrote: ...
Does this mean that at the end of the week, he comes back unbanned? I find that completely incredible, if true(*)....
Absent a 142.177/EoT/24-type range block directed at the ISP and city a person edits from, it is not possible to prevent somebody from editing (even then they could edit from another computer or switch their ISP). So all we can do is block reincarnations as they come up. The AC ruling also has provisions for what to do in case of violations. However, the AC is not a police force - it is up the the Admins to enforce the ruling and for the users to inform the Admins.
No problem. Sorry if I gave the impression I was complaining about the enforcement; I realize that enfore\cement must be a PITA for the admins. I was just concerned with what happens when he has had 7 days of putting everyone through this; and I've no problems with Martin's answer on that point.
He is banned for 1 week after his last attempt to log on. So long as he keeps tying to log in his week has not started. In my opinion...
Fred
From: "Dan Drake" dd@dandrake.com Reply-To: dd@dandrake.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 17:56:41 +0000 (UTC) To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] RE: Wik's vandalism and threats
On Thu, 27 May 2004 13:59:43 UTC, "KNOTT, T" tknott@qcl.org.uk wrote:
He's been banned for a week, let's enforce that ban.
Does this mean that at the end of the week, he comes back unbanned? I find that completely incredible, if true(*). How many times must we appeal to the Supreme Court to get a user banned permanently when he immediately violates a ban that the AC spent vast amounts of deliberation on? Just how meaningless *is* and arbitration decision? We seem to be exploring the limits.
(*) Say it ain't so.
-- Dan Drake dd@dandrake.com http://www.dandrake.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
He is banned for 1 week after his last attempt to log on. So long as he keeps tying to log in his week has not started. In my opinion...
IMO as well. Admins should continue to block Wik each time he tries to subvert the ban. They should also document their efforts so that the AC can look at the evidence to see if Wik's activity is a breach of the AC ruling. When/if Wik comes back after a week of no edits, then he may get banned for a month because of his attempts to subvert the week ban. Per the enforcement ruling here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik2/Decided...
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
It's fine, Theresa, I didn't think your comments were an attack.
Guanaco and Fennec unblocked him the first night he was starting his vandalism spree.
I agree with your statements about Quagga.
Note that some anon has been posting anti-Wik comments on the edit summaries of inconsequential edits he's been making to articles Wik edited, and trying to claim that I am supporting him. This is not true.
RickK
"KNOTT, T" tknott@qcl.org.uk wrote:
I don't know. Maybe some help with the vandalism instead of getting attacked for doing the right thing?
Rick If I came across as if I were attacking you I apologise. It was not my intention. Let's not fight among ourselves eh?
Maybe not have people unblocking him when he's destroying people's pages?
Who unblocked him? I've been blocking every proxy he uses. So have several others.
Anything he can do can be sorted out. Let's not get emotional about it. He's been banned for a week, let's enforce that ban. He's said he'll leave for good. Great! He's far more trouble than he is worth IMO. Let's just let him go. I can't help but feel quagga is enjoying the fight and doesn't want Wik to go. I feel that Quagga is not in any way acting in the best interest of wikipedia.
Theresa
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger