--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller(a)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