[WikiEN-l] User Michael and ways to deal with him

[Daniel Ehrenberg]

I would help, but how do you tell that it is michael's
work without reading it?
--LittleDan

--- Tony Wilson <list at 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)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com