I just want to reiterate my full support for Zoe on this one. Zoe (and several other good Wikicitizens) have been implementing a soft ban on our misguided friend with the dynamic IP. People, we *can't* implement a hard ban. At least not without banning several good and useful contributors as well. On the whole, much as I'd like to see the back of our socially-challemged friend, I'd rather contribute to a Wikipedia that had Micheal around than a Wikipedia that managed to ban him only at the expense of banning Danny as well!
If Mav's suggestion of complaining to AOL works, then great! But I won't hold my breath for that.
The soft ban is the answer. Zoe and about six or eight others (incuding me) have taken to ruthlessly reverting *everything* that Michael posts. We don't bother reading it or tying to work out if it contains a shred of fact or not (with Michael's stuff, this is damn near impossible anyway - in 10 minutes he can post up enough of that devilishly twisted mixture of fact and fiction to keep two or three copy-editors busy checking on "facts" and correcting 50% of them for several hours). None of us have time for that idiocy: the only sensible way to deal with Michael is to revert on sight and without compunction. Three clicks and the 'pedia is idiocy-free once more, and *you* are back to working on something *useful* again.
Best of all, because it only takes a few moments and hardly any thought at all to blanket-revert Michael edits (excuse me while I shout this bit) ... WE REVERSE THE BURDEN OF LABOUR! For the first time, it's harder for him than it is for us. Instead of *us* taking hours to clean up the mess that *he* creates in mere minutes, when we just revert Michael unread and on sight, we can undo his many minutes of creative vandalism in just a few seconds. I know he's a determined little horror, but no-one can push that sort of load uphill for too long.
Hell, if I was Tsar Jimbo, I think I'd un-ban his user names in the hope that he started posting as "Michael" or "No-FX" again - 'cause that just makes it easier to spot Michael edits and revert them. Anything he can post in an hour, Zoe can rollback in three minutes flat.
Or me. Or Quercus. Or *you*.
Let's all pitch in, people. Think of it as an experiment in psychology. How long would *you* keep on making contributions to the 'pedia for if every single edit you ever made was reverted without coment inside of ten minutes? Tony Wilson (Tannin)