reconsider indefinite ban? |
reply |
||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Are we sure that's a static IP? There have been multiple starmen.net vandals, operating from different IP numbers--for example, 204.94.152.112. I'm not sure an indefinite ban will do much more good than a temporary ban, but it might prevent other users from using Wikipedia. Please reconsider. [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] 05:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
Are we sure that's a static IP? There have been multiple starmen.net vandals, operating from different IP numbers--for example, 204.94.152.112. I'm not sure an indefinite ban will do much more good than a temporary ban, but it might prevent other users from using Wikipedia. Please reconsider. [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] 05:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
||
:Actually, I've been thinking about putting it on Vfd anyway. My only concern is that "if I give in, the terrorists will have won". But you're right, this is out of hand, and it's a site with an Alexa rating of 60,000. [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] 05:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 05:10, 25 March 2004
NOTE: IF YOU ARE ANONYMOUS, AND POST ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE, YOU WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION.
chat
rick, do you have the ability to visit the IRC area? Kingturtle 06:58, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Rick, email me your email address. I want to send you some information. Kingturtle 07:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
RickK, I agree it's definitely questionable stuff, so I think it is good to raise it with the larger community. I'm actually quite surprised it hasn't been brought up before, and that there are only three real edits to that page. Fuzheado 07:00, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please check Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Hcheney so you can make an informed decision on my Request for Adminship --Hcheney 17:37, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Kobe Bryant's accuser
RickK, can you please provide a source to back up the claim that it is illegal to reveal the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser? So far as I know, it is perfectly legal. -- Seth Ilys 03:52, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
IIRC, the name has been broadcast on radio, published in the tabloids, and litters thousand of websites, yet there has been no legal action taken. I looked around extensively before working on the article myself, and found no evidence that it was illegal to divulge the name; just contrary to the custom of the US mass media. I'm restoring the page until someone comes up with substantive evidence that it's illegal. Solid information on this case and her is hard to come by; Wikipedia should be a source for solid facts that are hard to find in other places. We don't delete copyvios without deliberation, and we shouldn't have deleted this so quickly either. - Seth Ilys 04:07, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I believe that we should have the content because it's verifiable facts, and it's a matter of public interest, and because we shouldn't rush to censor ourselves. In short, it's encyclopedic. Many people might consider masturbation or List of sex positions bad taste, but we wouldn't delete them (I hope). -- Seth Ilys 04:12, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Discussion has been moved back to Vfd. -- Seth Ilys 04:20, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Indefinite ban of 68.48.43.61
Are we sure that's a static IP? There have been multiple starmen.net vandals, operating from different IP numbers--for example, 204.94.152.112. I'm not sure an indefinite ban will do much more good than a temporary ban, but it might prevent other users from using Wikipedia. Please reconsider. Meelar 05:04, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, I've been thinking about putting it on Vfd anyway. My only concern is that "if I give in, the terrorists will have won". But you're right, this is out of hand, and it's a site with an Alexa rating of 60,000. Meelar 05:10, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)