I just think I'll note: I'm not really that worn down. So far I've
blocked at least 6-7 CheeseDreams accounts. However, this should have
been seen to be a problem when the following edit happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=716…
Note the comment in the history. "Remove inusefor tag. Haven't finished,
but really tired now. Will sort out the mess tommorrow." Then, check the
state of the article!
Yet when I reverted back due to an editor going into an EXTREMELY
controversial article (even before CD edited this it was controversial!)
and just taking away all the material.
I think that this diff really says it all about the whole situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historicity_of_Jesus&diff=720…
(before CheeseDreams and after CheeseDreams).
TBSDY
John Lee wrote:
I just thought I'd point out something from
[[User:UninvitedCompany]]'s
user page - Wikipedia is a hundred times smaller than MSN. When we're
that big (which could definitely not be too far in the future), we'll
have a hundred CheeseDreams-like editors. True, we'll have a hundred
times more editors than we do now to clean up the mess, but the question
is, will we be able to put up against a hundred editors using tactics
like CheeseDreams? I am not necessarily advocating Nicholas' proposal,
but we should bear in mind that a minute saved is a minute earned. A
minute spent reverting CheeseDreams could be a minute spent adding
references to an article or a minute spent wikifying a decent new
article. CheeseDreams' tactics of attrition are wearing us down, and
it's doubtful whether a hundred times more editors would be capable of
dealing with a hundred CheeseDreams.
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])