At 02:21 AM 6/1/2003, you wrote:
Perhaps I should be a little more
explicit. I would like Michael to leave
the project, I think he has outstayed his welcome and I trust nothing
that
he writes. Unless a definite policy is made regarding what to do
with
Michael's edits is made, or unless Jimmy Wales tells me not to, I am
going
to continue reverting Michael's contributions without discussion with
him.
There IS a definite policy. Here is the link to the WikiEN-l message
where Jimbo confirms (again) that Michael and all of his derivatives are
HARD-banned.
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003890.html
Check here for Wikipedia policy on users who are hard-banned.
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/bans_and_blocks
I interpret this, especially given Jimmy's language: "Sysops and
developers can take whatever steps are necessary to make this
technologically effective", to mean that Michael is not meant to be
allowed to make ANY edits to the Wikipedia. Thus, if anyone reverts
another sysops reversion of Michael's edits, I would take this to be in
violation of Wikipedia policy. As someone else suggested (I believe it
was Zoe), if the material that Michael adds inspires you do to your own
research on a topic and add in information on your own, under your own
name, so be it. Nevertheless I believe that this would have the
unfortunate result of further encouraging Michael.
In order to resolve this issue, I am asking someone with developer access
to explore ways to permanently ban Michael (and his IP-hopping
alter-egos) from the Wikipedia. As, I believe, this will be extremely
problematic, I suggest we follow Anome's suggestion from the Vandalism in
Progress page and contact AOL's abuse division. I am not comfortable
doing this as a representative of the Administration at Wikipedia unless
I receive general support for it. I would much prefer Jimmy or someone
with developer access to make that call, but I also don't wish to burden
them.
Furthermore, I believe that it may be possible to pursue legal action
against Michael (which could potentially force AOL to turn over his user
information, which would probably stop Michael even if we didn't follow
through with the lawsuit) either under the DMCA (unauthorized access of
computer networks) or civilly under libel laws (he has made MANY libelous
statements in my opinion). This, while admittedly extreme, could help us
put an end, finally, to Michael's reign of irritation, and save many of
us valuable time and energy... not to mention frustration.
Thoughts?
-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain
their neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
-Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321