Talk:List of ethics articles

142.177.92.220 is a banned user of Wikipedia. That is why his edits were reverted. --mav


 * was he banned for writing bad articles ??? John Stewart


 * Partly. But mostly for being very rude and making threats. --mav


 * Was he rude or making threats in the edits he made today ?


 * It doesn't matter. The owner of the place, Jimbo Wales, has stated that any edits made by this user are open to instant reversion. See. http://www.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-March/009407.html --mav


 * Oh, but there, it is written there are open for reversion. So anyone has the right to keep them when one think them good no ? Also, it is not written open for deletion...Were is that place you gave the link too ? I thought Wikipedia was working on consensus, or is there a administration ?


 * But the only way to revert an article to be an edit link again is to delete it. --mav

Simply put, can we discriminate people based on their IP address? I mean some people have a permanent address but some don't. Quite unlikely but he might be a different guy than one who did things that is the reason why he was banned. -- Taku 05:13 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)


 * But, is he being rude or threatening here ? And what does that mean he was "partly" banned for making bad articles ? Was he banned for making bad articles or for being rude ? Is there an example of bad articles he made ? I saw Maverick149 deleted some of them, could we have a look at them to see how bad there are ?


 * He is banned. End of story - but I have better things to do than get into a revert war here. --mav


 * Look at the guys contributions. He outed himself after responding to an FYI by me. --mav

--

So, you delete articles on sight, just because one day this guy has been rude, and because Mr Wales has said his articles could be reverted (not deleted), (just as any other article by anyone by the way) Maverick 149. You are losing your time just for revenge then ? Very curious. Well, I disagree with that. If an edit is good, wikipedia should keep the edit. If the edit is bad, Wikipedia should remove the edit. That is very simple. That is what I will do.John Stewart


 * That is a rather sweeping generalization to make at such an early point in your userhood. --mav


 * if there is a owner, and the owner has some very strict policy, wikipedia should follow this policy. Other points should be commonly decided. I see there is a vote for deletion page here, why are not the articles of this user just added to this list, so that anyone can judge if the article is worth keeping or not ? Is not that the reason why the page is there ? John Stewart


 * Because the user should not have been able to create the articles in the first place. Ergo they should not exist and allowing them to exist encourages the banned user to continue editing (making the ban meaningless). The only reason why this person's IP hasn't been blocked is because of the fact that the guy edits with a different IP every time in the 142.177 range. --mav 05:48 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)