Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
He did not edit disruptively. Anything else he
may have done happened off
Wikipedia. Some participants in this discussion are of the opinion that no
off site actions should be taken into account in the banning of Wikipedia
users.
While I think almost everyone will agree that off site actions are
*different* from on-site actions, and should certainly not be treated in
the same way, I have so far found no persuasive argument that *no* off
site actions should be taken into account in the banning of Wikipedia users.
As an example, once upon a time a particularly demented and evil person
posted photos of my family (wife and little girl) with disgusting
insults on a website attacking Wikipedia. He posted links to a
quicktime movie of my house, and made ominous suggestions about my home
address and his "followers". I was out of town and frightened enough to
have Terry go and spend the night on the couch guarding the family.
That person is permanently banned from Wikipedia, period. I don't think
anyone disputes the ethics of this. (Fortunately, he was arrested on
felony charges in an unrelated matter, and as far as I know, he's in
prison now.)
I consider the Amelekite case to be in the same genre, although slightly
(but only slightly) less obvious.
--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l