I agree with Theresa; even though it is quite slower and burdening, it really is more honest (assume good faith until the user proves he cannot be trusted).
Anyway, the thing is really annoying.
Pedro.
* KNOTT, T tknott@qcl.org.uk [2004-05-11]:
Calm down Danny. You are overreacting.
Firstly you don't need quickpolls, and you don't need to go through speedy deletions.
But you don't need to be so harsh either. This is just some kid mucking about. We deal with this kind of thing all the time. (well I do anyway) I go through a procedure
Talk page. You must warn them on their talk page first. It's
only polite. Tell him he can't take down wikipedia, so give up. Invite him to contribute properly.
Talk page again. Stern warning this time
delete nonsense articles and protect real ones as necessary,
explain what you are doing
Block for 24 hours
Block for longer if necessary
I rarely get to stage 5
-----Original Message----- From: daniwo59@aol.com [mailto:daniwo59@aol.com] Sent: 11 May 2004 12:18 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] I just blocked someone for 9999 hours 1 more thing
I also propose doing this without pontificating about it for six months. That is six months of potential damage to Wikipedia.
Danny
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l