"Daniel Ehrenberg" <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:20030531230332.77432.qmail@web41809.mail.yahoo.com...
I don't think the blanket reverting efforts
directed
at Michael are good. I went through the contrabutions
of 24.130.213.24x (those of you reverting know who I'm
talking about) and many, if not most, of his edits
were useful and even factual. I will be un-reverting
all of his useful edits, but only after fact checking.
--LittleDan
Do not un-revert. Jimmy Wales made it quite clear what he expects us to do
about Michael, in a message to this list only yesterday (in my time zone).
Here's what he said:
"Jimmy Wales" <jwales(a)bomis.com> wrote in
message news:20030530183331.C27690@joey.bomis.com...
Dante Alighieri wrote:
> This is an open request, but it is specifically aimed at Jimbo. Can we
have
> a clear and definitive answer on Michael and his
pseudonyms and
his/their
ban status?
Michael and all his derivatives are banned from Wikipedia. Sysops and
developers can take whatever steps are necessary to make this
technologically effective.
Also, can this be posted on the Wikipedia so that
it can be
easily linked to?
I assume this email message, via the archvies, will be sufficient.
> The current situation requires that we direct people to
> Michael's ban talk page and that they then link to the No-Fx page and
the
Weezer pages.
I am, as are others, spending too much time defending our
actions when we delete Michael's garbage. Thanks.
He's banned, and if he wants to be unbanned, he can email me for a
friendly chat, or join the mailing list to state his case.
--Jimbo