[WikiEN-l] Michael's continued vandalism

[Dante Alighieri]

At 05:43 PM 6/7/2003, you wrote:
>On Sat, 7 Jun 2003, Dante Alighieri wrote:
>
> > Just in case any of you out there think that Michael is "misunderstood"
> > or reformed or just not getting a fair shake, I'd like to inform you all
> > that Michael has started his death threats again.
>
>Interesting edit summaries he writes! But just as a note of pedantry,
>telling someone to die is not a threat, but a command...

Just picture him shouting "Just die! Alright! Yes! Fucking die! Now! " 
while he has his hands around your neck. Now that's pretty threatening. 
(and yes, I'm familiar with the imperative mood) ;)


>But seriously, is this really a productive use of anyone's time:
>
>http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Taang%21_Records&action=history
>
>?
>
>To revert one of Michael's edits when you *know* that he's just going to
>revert it straight back again is an exercise in futility. Can anyone put
>forward any cogent argument for doing something that you know perfectly
>well will be undone as soon as you've done it?
>
>Why not do the following:
>1. Leave notes on the developers' talk pages, asking if they could block
>whatever user account he is then using;
>2. Wait until that has been done;
>3. Go to his user contributions page and revert all his edits in one fell
>swoop?
>
>That would save a lot of time.
>
>Oliver

... and then he would create another user account, and another, and another....

This has been discussed COUNTLESS times. The general consensus is that 
immediate reversion is the preferred course. Sooner or later he gets tired 
and we're Michael-free for a few hours. To paraphrase Curran, the condition 
upon which Jimbo hath given liberty to openly edit Wikipedia is eternal 
vigilance.


-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their 
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321