"Daniel Ehrenberg" <littledanehren at yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:20030531230332.77432.qmail at 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 at bomis.com> wrote in
message news:20030530183331.C27690 at 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
