[WikiEN-l] Re: Wik's Vandal Bot

[Fred Bauder]

The argument is that it is not necessary, after all, he is gone. There is no
longer any doubt that it is him.

Fred

> From: Theresa Robinson <robinst at MIT.EDU>
> Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:40:11 -0400 (EDT)
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wik's Vandal Bot
> 
> Just wondering, is the argument that the current vandalism behaviour is
> not a bannable offense, or that it isn't necessarily Wik?  If the first,
> wow is the AC ever tolerant.
> 
> moink
> 
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Fred Bauder wrote:
> 
>> Wik still has lots of clout. The arbitration committee even now is not
>> willing to ban him indefinitely. Still in wet noodle mode...
>> 
>> Fred
>> 
>>> From: Denni <dwindrim at shaw.ca>
>>> Reply-To: dwindrim at shaw.ca, English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:31:30 -0600
>>> To: WikiEN <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>>> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Wik's Vandal Bot
>>> 
>>> When the action of one user has an impact such as this on an entire
>>> community, then there should be reasonable consequences. Certainly a
>>> hard ban, whether for three months or one year or life would not be
>>> inappropriate. It is time to kill the clowns.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l