Fennec Foxen wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 15:16:20 -0700, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
I just read through it. It looks like an honest
expression of views in
the Wikipedia namespace. Nobody is being attacked. What is there about
the post that "provokes conflict"? Surely this is not an opinion that
would merit banning.
Without commenting on whether or not this is honest or bannable or
anything like that... this looks like it belongs on Meta.
Perhaps so, but putting it on the wrong project is not a bannable
offence. What the appropriate project should be is arguable either way.
Now, regarding the "banned user", I believe
standard practice (at
least on certain hard-banned users - Michael... 142? if not everyone)
is to revert everything they do on Wikipedia, whether or not it is
good, valid, right, wrong, misleading, or enlightening.
Be that as it may you said before that it was his first post. That's
inconsistent with his being a banned user.
The implication in the preceding post seems to be that
it's obvious
via this page history that the user in question is in fact a user who
is already hard-banned.
There's nothing obvious in it at all. That post was slightly more than
11 days after the previous one. That's a flimsy excuse for evidence.