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

[Anthere]

--- 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)

Hum..."reverting" on sight is one thing. Anyone really
wishing to work on one of his article can go dig it
up.

However, "deleting" on sight is another matter. Would
you (that is a plural you, not you specifically
Tannin) consider please, blanking his articles instead
of deleting them. Then, either list the blanked
articles on the vfd in case anyone would wish to work
on them, or let them blank (which would make them
appear next time the "short pages" is working again).

I think it is more respectful to do this way. And
blanking them hardly take more time than reverting
other articles with history. Plus, blanking them is an
action everybody wishing to help 'yous' can do, while
deletion on sight is necessarily a unilateral decision
from a sysop.

Thanks for reading me

Anthere

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