I would hate to use Danny, who is a superb contributor, and many other potentially excellent contributions. What I would suggest is 1. Wiki FORMALLY requests that AOL produce a solution to the Michael problem, with the threat that if they don't , all AOL users will be blocked and the blocking of AOL will be PUBLICLY announced to the media in a publicity blitz, in which it will be accused through negligence of placing wikipedia and other websites in danger from vandalism. That formal request come from Jimbo to SENIOR figures in AOL. To balance the threat, Wiki must make it clear that it will work with AOL to do what it takes, if AOL is willing to act. That should offer a methodology whereby, to avoid public criticism, AOL can back down and work of a solution. If they don't, it must be made clear that Wiki WILL act. That will require a professional media campaign, with Jimbo and others available to brief the media on why this extreme action is being taken. Press releases should be released to all news organisations, including AP, Reuters and the main print and broadcast sources in the US. The BBC in particular should be targeted. AOL is currently mounting a major PR campaign in the UK. Having criticism of it on the BBC both locally and internationally would be something I suspect AOL would be desparate to avoid. The effects of this campaign would be three-fold: (a) to leave AOL in no doubt but that wikipedia is deadly serious about its threat; (b) That AOL risks damaging its own reputation, and having other websites also publicly criticising its behaviour (there is a lot of unhappiness out there with AOL. One credible encyclopædia attacking AOL may well lead to other websites too going public on their problems with AOL); (c) the campaign would earn widespread coverage for wikipedia, identifying itself as a credible, serious encyclopædia that will not tolerate vandalism and will not allow its reputation to be damaged by the arrogance and poor standards of any provider. 2. A specific date, perhaps two weeks or a month from the issuing of the press release, is stated at which point a ban will be imposed. In the intervening period, a message is prominently displayed on the main page and if possible in a banner on other pages, stating that because of AOL's negligent refusal to offer a means to control vandalism to the site, AOL users will no longer be able to enter the site from 'x' date. 3. A separate page be created explaining in detail /why/ this decision is being taken, with suggestions to users like Danny as to how to change provider, making it clear that wikipedia is not accusing AOL users of vandalising site and that the problem with AOL, not them. 4. A message is created which will show up after the cut-off date to AOL users trying to access the site explaining why they cannot gain access. The chaos with Michael and others cannot continue. And the threat from isolated nutters targeting the site is likely to increase as the site grows. So this problem needs to be confronted now, rather than left drift until we have a far bigger problem later on, one which could turn good users away on frustration. JT _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus