I just think I'll note: I'm not really that worn down. So far I've blocked at least 6-7 CheeseDreams accounts. However, this should have been seen to be a problem when the following edit happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=7165...
Note the comment in the history. "Remove inusefor tag. Haven't finished, but really tired now. Will sort out the mess tommorrow." Then, check the state of the article!
Yet when I reverted back due to an editor going into an EXTREMELY controversial article (even before CD edited this it was controversial!) and just taking away all the material.
I think that this diff really says it all about the whole situation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=7203... (before CheeseDreams and after CheeseDreams).
TBSDY
John Lee wrote:
I just thought I'd point out something from [[User:UninvitedCompany]]'s user page - Wikipedia is a hundred times smaller than MSN. When we're that big (which could definitely not be too far in the future), we'll have a hundred CheeseDreams-like editors. True, we'll have a hundred times more editors than we do now to clean up the mess, but the question is, will we be able to put up against a hundred editors using tactics like CheeseDreams? I am not necessarily advocating Nicholas' proposal, but we should bear in mind that a minute saved is a minute earned. A minute spent reverting CheeseDreams could be a minute spent adding references to an article or a minute spent wikifying a decent new article. CheeseDreams' tactics of attrition are wearing us down, and it's doubtful whether a hundred times more editors would be capable of dealing with a hundred CheeseDreams.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])