Since his articles are deleted on sight, it would be quite difficult for me to judge whether they can be salvaged or not. Right ?
That completely misses the point. Whether they can or cannot be salvaged is irrelevant. It could be a 100% accurate, well written thought-provoking masterpiece, but still it should be deleted. The content is irrelevant. The issue is that this is a multiple banned user who has vandalised user pages, issued threats and then sidesteps Jimbo's ban by getting on and doing the same thing over and over again.
Leaving a single letter that he contributed to wikipedia undermines the entire project, because it sends the message to him and to other banned users that they can circumvent the ban and get away with it. Only a scorched earth policy of 100% removal on sight will stop him. If he finds that the hours he spends adding stuff are 100% wasted because everything he touches is undone, every article he writes is binned automatically, that will force him to do one of two things:
1. If he wants to be a serious contributor who can add things on to wiki and have them left on wikipedia rather than deleted, he HAS to contact Jimbo, discuss the situation with him and get the ban lifted.
2. If he is simply interested in screwing wiki around as a joke, a blanket deletion policy will show him that he is wasting his time and effort. If he is (a) ignored completely, and (b) everything he does is shot down and binned on site, he will eventually give up in frustration. It may take a week, a month but eventually this tiresome vandal with get the message. There are only so many times he can devote hours and hours to working on things only to find every minute was wasted because everything he did was binned on sight.
Allowing anything he works on to be treated with the same respect as everyone else's articles makes a mockery of the ban. Today's Michael article may be 100% accurate. Tomorrow's 80% accurate, 20% complete bullshit. Next Friday's 100% accurate, Saturday's 50% accurate 50% completely made up. In the meantime serious contributors end up having to babysit this vandal, double-checking everything he writes. And all the time he is laughing his head off at our gullibility and wonder how many times in how many new personæ can he get onto wiki and plant rubbish in among the facts. We already have DW back causing chaos in his behaviour, Adam/Lir/Vera Cruz/Susan Mason/Dietary Fiber is back again pulling the same stunts as he pulled elsewhere.
Unless a ban is 100% enforced, with 100% deletion of 100% of the contributions of 100% of banned trolls (particularly those with a history of muliple identities and multiple bans) you will never drive banned users away or force them to contact Jimbo and get the ban lifted. To treat such users in the same manner as we treat ordinary decent serious contributors is to insult the 99% of users who are not banned and take this project seriously. They, not Michael, should be our first concern. Wiki should be the home of proper contributors, not a rest home for vandals and trolls whose behaviour is simply encouraged by attempts at appeasement.
JT
_________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus