The assessment of The Register as being quite a fan of controversy is pretty much accurate - but it's of course true of much of the mass media (and perhaps human nature? a digression.....) - leaving aside the fact that I believe the article is actually pretty fair and accurate, perhaps the more important thing to do is to quickly realise that this really is of interest to people. This is a function of both the nature of the behaviour, and the profile of Wikipedia nowadays. Two journalists have contacted me to date concerning these events, and personally, whilst it may blow over, I feel there is a possibility of the story 'going mainstream' - our (your?) ability to react calmly, sensibly, and openly could be important - I'd consider it to be.

To briefly comment about some of the replies concerning my interest / behaviour at the moment - JZ said he finds it odd that I would like to help still, having been banned. From my perspective, I find the fact that I have been banned a little odd - I still care just as much as last month if the 'Socrates' article says 'Socrates is a clown nigger' - it just really really pisses me off.

I've noticed what I consider to be an unsustainable trend to permanently label people 'trolls' or 'enemies' - it isn't the accuracy of the label which worries me, it's the permanence (I don't believe I deserve it, either). I see circular reasoning being employed to define me as a troll, then criticise me for being one. This can only ever work if such a thing (a troll) can empirically exist. btw. - I'm not interested in 'wedge' issues, or banging on unduly here - I am glad that the list I am now emailing quickly fixes the vandalism that pops up on my watchlist (and are very very helpful and pleasant about it too.....)

best, PM.