4,994
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 252:
Line 252: + +
→[[User:Tmtoulouse]] blocked?
:Also his only "vandalism" was on talk pages. Surely that's insufficient. He didn't even post to Andy's page after Andy told him not to. Surely that indicates no ''mens rea'' to commit vandalism. And, the reason - "conspiracy to commit vandalism, abuse of powers" - seriously? That sounds like a reason to block Conservative, not a guy who was a sysop for all of two hours. -'''<font color="#007FFF">[[user:AmesG|Ames]]</font><font color="#FF0000">[[user talk:AmesG|G]]</font>''' 10:53, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Also his only "vandalism" was on talk pages. Surely that's insufficient. He didn't even post to Andy's page after Andy told him not to. Surely that indicates no ''mens rea'' to commit vandalism. And, the reason - "conspiracy to commit vandalism, abuse of powers" - seriously? That sounds like a reason to block Conservative, not a guy who was a sysop for all of two hours. -'''<font color="#007FFF">[[user:AmesG|Ames]]</font><font color="#FF0000">[[user talk:AmesG|G]]</font>''' 10:53, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
'''Re block times:''' in [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2042231,00.html this newspaper article] about Wikipedia, an admin who reverts large quantities of vandalism says "The standard way to stop a vandal is to 'revert' their changes and leave a warning on their personal user page. Most then lose interest, but if they persist Knott will block them for a limited period, say 31 hours, or longer if they are a repeat offender. 'We tend to keep blocks short and sweet, and that seems to work.'" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)