--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Tannin presented "Michael case" as an experiment
of
soft banning. IP banning and deletion on sight are hard ban
tools.
RainClouding, instant reversion and blanking are
soft
ban tools. I think an experiment has to be done completely or not done at all.
The question is: Why do you want to use that strategy? In order to make sure that Michael creates no harm, or to prove a point about banning in general? If it is the latter, you've lost me: I believe in hard bans and think they should continue to be used. I'm willing to agree on a compromise here, that is, to use a "soft ban" because it may be more effective here.
This is beacuse, if we want to prevent Michael from doing harm, we should employ the most effective strategy. It has been argued somewhat persuasively that it would not be wise to ban Michael again and again, and to continually revert his edits instead. This may be worth trying. But the "let's blank, not delete" argument does not fall into this category of argument. It is a more philosophical notion about the treatment of vandals in general which I do not agree with, at least not in this form.
Well. We may disagree on that. Perhaps that does not necessarily imply who is the one, between you and I supporting the Best choice ? Another good point in soft banning is that everyone can participate (as Tannin pointed out, I think what he did was proposing people to join the reversion team, am I right ?). That is good to strenghtening a community. Deletion on sight, is not, ahma. Is not that also the goal of blacksheeping ?
Please, would you explain which would be the best form to your opinion ?
Michael is a vandal. You may think that some of his pages are worth salvaging. Unfortunately, this seems to be more ideology speaking than actual experience with Michael's edits. His articles are grossly factually inaccurate and the last thing we need are people going around willy nilly and restoring pages which they "think" are OK, but which they haven't really bothered to check (Michael's articles usually contain a lot of wrong titles, dates etc.).
The Point is Michael is not really active on the same time zone than I. And since his articles are deleted on sight, it would be quite difficult for me to judge whether they can be salvaged or not. Right ?
So I don't think I can be of ANY help here.
Also, what I was proposing was not to restore deleted pages, but rather to blank them. If the pages were first blanked and later deleted, they would not need to be undeleted, right ?
If I dare add, the only page which was restored was a request from Jimregan. If I understood well, Jimregan checked the facts and found them accurate.
As for myself, I *trusted* Martin when he told me most of Michael edits were not good to be kept, and have not asked for any further undeletions.
The fact the pages are going to be deleted anyway
is
"your" opinion.
Michael is a banned user, this is not an opinion, it is a fact. He was banned for virtually all violations of our rules that are possible. He was never unbanned. We have merely modified the method by which we enforce this ban. Please do not use the willingness of sysops to go along with this approach to promote a general anti-ban agenda.
I had the very unhealthy idea perhaps that another point of view could be proposed. But if seen as a manipulation of a sysop, I should indeed not try to challenge the current ban agenda. Apologies.
More respectful? Towards whom? Michael, who has insulted virtually every Wikipedian who has tried to talk
to
him?
You know quite well the "toward whom" is not only adressed to Michael.
No, I do not know that. Do you see it as disrespectful if articles by a known vandal are deleted?
I am sorry, but I think I already explained my position on this on the en. I don't think it is really worth explaining it again here. I fear you are not in the mood to read it :-(
I for one find it absolutely acceptable to delete new Michael- pages on sight and encourage sysops to do so --
but
only if it is certain that he is really the author.
only if it is certain, right. And only if the edits are bad, right.
No on the second point. We have already determined that Michael's edits are not worth the trouble. Will you go to the search engines and check every single date in a discography, every little factoid about a band's history? If you're not willing to do this work, you should not talk about "bad edits". If you are, make a promise now, and I will hold you to it. For every Michael edit and every claim.
I think my very initial proposition a couple of hours ago, was not restoration of his edits, but blank of his edits. So ? Perhaps I was not clear ??
I am not worried of the rift. I am worried of
errors.
Everything can be reverted. This will not be necessary in the case of a known, banned user, however.
I also think you are on the verge of saying I will
be responsible of subsequent errors.
See above. The last thing we need are more unchecked pages by Michael. It will take years to go through the ones he has already created and check them for errors.
Regards,
Erik
I think blank pages do not need to be corrected for errors. Besides, my comment here was clearly not about content errors. You were saying that I would be responsible for degradation of relationships between sysops and non sysops. I stronly trust the majority of sysops. You included, even if I disagree with you here. However, my survival instinct forbid me to trust everyone just because I am said I must trust them.
Amicalement
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com