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@MIT.EDU Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 14:40:11 -0400 (EDT) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@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@shaw.ca Reply-To: dwindrim@shaw.ca, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:31:30 -0600 To: WikiEN wikien-l@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@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l