Well, this gets to my other point. I haven't checked my watchlist this morning, but
I'm assuming that the person who made this crazy rant -- who was blocked until late
last night for 3RR and other bad behaviors -- is going to come back full speed if he
hasn't already. I have no reason to believe he won't continue to make the same
crazy rants. It's one thing to remove somebody's offensive talk page comment
that's 5 months old, but what if they're still banging on about it? Do we then
get into the practice of actively censoring someone's speech? Are we to be expected
to come behind this person and simply erase that portion of his comments every time they
get made?
K.
----- Original Message ----
From: Matt Brown <morven(a)gmail.com>
To: Katefan0 <katefan0(a)yahoo.com>om>; English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 11:11:37 AM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] More Seigenthaler fallout
On 12/13/05, Katefan0 <katefan0(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I'd like to reiterate that the information I am
assuming he's unhappy with wasn't backed up
by sourcing, it was just a crazy rant about his relationship with UT and his book being
biased.
We can't stop crazy rants and we can't go around deleting each one
from article histories - removing them from the current version should
be enough in almost all cases.
In many cases we should consider removing them from the article's talk
page (but not its history).
-matt