I disagree with Gerard about the approach to use here. To deny thousands (millions?) of AOL users the right to contribute to wikimedia projects because of some guy who tried to create a word called "exicornt switch" would be a mistake. To justify it because we supposedly receive very little benefit from AOL is typically elitist. If said user were blanking out whole useful sections of wiktionary or launching DOS attacks or something else that would affect the end user (whom I doubt is affected by the addition of nonsense words such as this), then maybe a temporary block would be in order. Until then, I think wiktionary editors need to suck it up and delete these pages as they come along. Wikipedia is great precisely because it strives to not privilege one group of users over another. Let's keep it that way.
On 3/19/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It may be disproportional, but the disruption of this vandal is also disproportional to the benefit we get from AOL. There is no other method available to prevent this sorry sod somewhat. It would help if we could put some bumbs on the road making vandalism less easy. It would also help if we could go to the police.
Thanks, GerardM
On 3/19/06, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
2006/3/15, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
Seeing as the user comes from AOL, I can't help but agree.
Unless AOL changed it policy recently, I think him being from AOL is a good reason NOT to give a site-wide ban. AOL uses, or at least used to use, variable IP-numbers. Any blocking would thus block other AOL users just as likely as the perpetrator himself. And to block all of AOL for this seems widely disproportional to me..
-- Andre Engels, andreengels@gmail.com ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l