What do you suggest? I am very open and willing to learn. Michael refuses to discuss why he insists on putting false information into articles. That's why he was banned in the first place.
Zoe
--- Brion Vibber vibber@aludra.usc.edu wrote:
On Thu, 22 May 2003, steven l. rubenstein wrote:
Brion, I think that ultimately, you are right --
vigilance and patient
deletion or reversion is the only way to deal with
such a troll. But even
reverting crap is a form of swatting. If the
question is whether we simply
ignore someone and let them do what they want, or
act in some way against
vandalism, it seems we all agree on some form of
action.
The question is, what form. From context it seems
like you are arguing
against banning. Well -- and I raise this as a
general question, not just
concerning No-FX -- would you ban under any
circumstances?
Oh, sure; indeed I have made bans where it seemed appropriate. A visit to [[Special:Ipblocks]] will show that. But repeatedly "banning" the same person over and over, when proven ineffective with that person, is rather pointless. The social effects of the ban haven't discouraged the person (indeed, perhaps encouraged them), and they've found a way around the very simple technical effects of the ban.
Obviously a change in strategy is required if we want to do anything other than re-ban Lir and Michael all day long. To continue to use the same strategy that we *know* is ineffective is neurotic.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com