I think we need to consider what they destroy and how without consideration
of what good things they have done. In other words, if some one is accused
of destructive behavior, evidence that they wrote a good article or were
polite in some other context is inadmissible evidence. After it is
determined that we are dealing with someone who regularly transgresses, then
as we consider remedies we might consider all the wonderful things they did.
Fred
From: Anthere <anthere8(a)yahoo.com>
Reply-To: anthere8(a)yahoo.com, English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:26:55 +0100
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration progress report #2
Basically the same question as above; when are
people "highly detrimental to
wikipedia"? The current policy, by my interpretation, states that someone is
highly detrimental to wikipedia if their personal attacks are extreme. Which
is obviously far from a clear-cut answer.
But the practice is that someone is highly detrimental to Wikipedia,
when the sum of what he brings is lower that the sum of what he destroys.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l