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)