User talk:Michael/Proposal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The discussion from the village pump has been moved to User talk:Mike Garcia. Comments made here should be relevant to the proposal.

---

My comments on the proposed solutions, corresponding to each point above:

1. No plural. Mike Garcia gets one account, one only, and the others should remain blocked so that we don't have to monitor them.
2. Agreed, restriction to one account absolutely must be a condition for Michael if we are to consider unbanning.
3. I have no real opinion about whether it should be 10, 20, 50, or whatever, but experience with bans for violating the 3-revert rule shows that "day" must be defined precisely if we want to impose such a condition. In light of point #4, this should also clearly state "edits to articles".
4. Yes. Should also address whether or not any other consequences accompany excessive edits. Presumably not blocking, but maybe something like if he exceeds his quota, not only do the extra edits get reverted, but his quota for the next day gets reduced by one.
5. Fine, with the understanding that he still needs to comply with normal policies regarding user and talk namespaces.
6. It will be determined - who determines?
7. Good.
8. Also very necessary.
9. With the understanding that Danny and Guanaco are acting in a position of advocating for Michael's interests, and specifically not in a capacity where they are empowered to make decisions to change any of these conditions.
10. Seems like a reasonable timeframe to me.

One final issue I think should be addressed - I don't know in what way exactly Michael has expressed "contrition", but various people have suggested that before being accepted by the community, Michael needs to personally apologize to some of the people who have taken the brunt of his most offensive vandalism. That would certainly include Hephaestos, maybe Zoe also (that's before my time), and perhaps others as well. --Michael Snow 21:08, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is a commendable amount of effort people are going to to accommodate this vandal. If only we could just lean on AOL and have them cut the guy off for misuse of his account. Trilobite (Talk) 21:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Michael Snow's comments are in line with my contention. Michael should not be allowed to edit a single line on Wikipedia until he expresses contrition and, in particular, apologizes to Hephaestos (is Hephaestos still with us?) I think he should also apologize to Zoe, but since she isn't with us any more, maybe I won't be so strong on that. But until and unless he does say "I'm sorry", he shouldn't be given any more chances. RickK 22:01, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos has edited recently, but probably rather less prolifically than he once did. --Michael Snow 22:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your point number one, other accounts should not be blocked if they cause too much collateral damage on innocent AOL users. This should be the case until such time that the automatic IP blocks can be fixed to stop allowing blocked users to engage in this denial of service attack. I also think that it's too much of micromanagement for the board to get involved in reviewing this. I'd rather see it reviewed by the arb committee, the mediation committe, a subset of this, a specifically chosen group of people, or Jimbo himself. Dealing with problematic users should not be a board activity. anthony (see warning)

It is clearly stated in #2 (original version) and #3 (current version) that Michael may not edit except through his Mike Garcia account and not anonymously. Hoever, there is no stated penalty should he violate this rule. Should such action automatically incur a re-banning? Or would a lesser penalty be appropriate? Just a thought. JHCC 19:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps edits he makes under other accounts should be treated as though they were from a banned user and reverted in the same way those of other banned users sometimes are? Angela. 03:59, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)