Delirium-
I'm not sure I'd call it
"vandalism". He was adding an obscure site to
the page that you did not think should be listed
I don't care about his so-called "fork". I don't care about his website,
which has the trollish name "slashdotsucks.com". I have no problem with it
being listed, as it evidently uses our software. At the time of his
listing, however, the page on Wikipedia was already deleted, so all there
was in the list was a red link "McFly". He refused to provide a URL in
spite of being asked to do so several times in the edit comments. He
reverted other people's removal of the site. And he added it to the
official list of "Wikimedia projects" once.
At this point I asked him calmly to stop adding a site without providing
any evidence for its existence, as information in Wikipedia needs to be
verifiable and helpful to the reader. His reply:
"No."
He continued to add his site to the list, so I decided to ban him.
Evidence for its existence was provided later (a URL added by Tim
Starling); at that point I immediately unbanned Anthony.
I consider my actions in this matter absolutely justifiable, and I find it
extremely silly to talk about such a triviality. Anthony plainly only used
the page for trolling purposes, and I see no reason why we should tolerate
that kind of crap.
I also disagree that protection wasn't an option.
Any contributor is
supposed to be able to edit, say, [[Gdansk]]
That's not quite the same. It's hard enough to get people to list their
sites on the official list at all. The last thing we need on that page is
an edit war and a protection notice. If it was at least an edit war about
something that reasonable people can disagree on -- but his edits were
pure vandalism, plain and simple.
Regards,
Erik