[WikiEN-l] Re: Another Type of Inadmissible Evidence

[Anthere]

Just as in justice, a jugdement declares someone guilty (or innocent) first

Which set somehow a range of punishement, depending on the crime

then the points in favor of the accused are examined. and help to decide 
on which side of the range of punishement he will be.


Fred Bauder a écrit:
> I think we need to consider what they destroy and how without consideration
> of what good things they have done. In other words, if some one is accused
> of destructive behavior, evidence that they wrote a good article or were
> polite in some other context is inadmissible evidence. After it is
> determined that we are dealing with someone who regularly transgresses, then
> as we consider remedies we might consider all the wonderful things they did.
> 
> Fred
> 
> 
>>From: Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
>>Reply-To: anthere8 at yahoo.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:26:55 +0100
>>To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
>>Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration progress report #2
>>
>>
>>
>>>Basically the same question as above; when are people "highly detrimental to
>>>wikipedia"? The current policy, by my interpretation, states that someone is
>>>highly detrimental to wikipedia if their personal attacks are extreme. Which
>>>is obviously far from a clear-cut answer.
>>
>>But the practice is that someone is highly detrimental to Wikipedia,
>>when the sum of what he brings is lower that the sum of what he destroys.
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>WikiEN-l mailing list
>>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>