Forum:How to handle an inconsistent editor?

User:AKR619 confuses me. On the one hand he does make useful, small edits. If you look through his contribution history, there are examples of occasions on which he'll add a useful category to a page, or make a grammatical improvement to an article. But when he adds anything more than a word or two to an article, it's usually a rambling mess that reads more like he's trying to take the mickey. He's been given a few suggestions on his talk page, but he doesn't seem to be improving. Check the edit histories of Australia, Steven Moffat, Matt Smith, Russell T Davies, God, Stephen Fry, Carol Ann Ford, Distress signal receiver, the examples on his talk page, and many others for samples of his recent work. I think if all his edits were like these, we'd easily suspect him of vandalism. But, as I said, there are times where he does something useful.

So the question is, are his minor edits of enough value to have to constantly monitor and fix what he does when he gets his hands around a whole paragraph? Since he has been warned about his "sins" on his talk page — and has failed to improve — should we ban him? Or is there some way to "rehabilitate" him? I'm l'm loathe to suggest banning any user, but on the other hand I'm not too thrilled about spending time cleaning up things that read like intentional, well, vandalism.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  03:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)