--- Tony Wilson <list(a)redhill.net.au> wrote:
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)
Hum..."reverting" on sight is one thing. Anyone really
wishing to work on one of his article can go dig it
up.
However, "deleting" on sight is another matter. Would
you (that is a plural you, not you specifically
Tannin) consider please, blanking his articles instead
of deleting them. Then, either list the blanked
articles on the vfd in case anyone would wish to work
on them, or let them blank (which would make them
appear next time the "short pages" is working again).
I think it is more respectful to do this way. And
blanking them hardly take more time than reverting
other articles with history. Plus, blanking them is an
action everybody wishing to help 'yous' can do, while
deletion on sight is necessarily a unilateral decision
from a sysop.
Thanks for reading me
Anthere
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com