Encyclopedia > User talk:Michael ban

Article Content

User talk:Michael/ban

< User talk:Michael

See also: Jimbo Wales on Michael hard ban (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-May/003890)

Table of contents

1 NOTE: For a list of Michael's known aliases, see here (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Michael%27s_pseudonyms)

1.1 Solution for Michael edits
1.2 Michael is back, and he is getting smart!

2 From Votes for Deletion

NOTE: For a list of Michael's known aliases, see here (http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Michael%27s_pseudonyms)

Michael,

False attributions of comments on talk pages is a bannable offense. Also, the validity of the information you've entered into the Grammy pages has been called into question. Entering fake information, if that's what you're doing, is also a bannable offense.

It's very important if you want to stick around and help with the wikipedia, that you answer inquiries on your talk page, and that you work in a positive and co-operative fashion.

Jimbo Wales 12:01 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Michael is altering other users' comments, misleadlingly attributing his own comments to others, at Talk:Crass - needs to be watched. Enchanter

This is probably the same user I banned in February -- see User talk:64.175.250.205 and the not-banned IP User talk:64.175.250.115 for some history. Tuf-Kat

Michael, not only did you add TBA to the article again, but you attributed a quote to Danny. I don't think you realize how easily we can find out who made a quote. The page history records everyone who edits, and what their edits were. Danny didn't even touch Talk:Jimmy Eat World. You made this change without being logged in. That doesn't mean you can break Wikipedia policy. You are on the path to being banned. If you want to stay on the Wikipedia, it's important that you understand what Jimbo wrote at the top of your talk page. You should work in a co-operative fashion with others, and you must respond to your talk page.

--cprompt

Michael and Weezer have been banned. See Jimbo's message on the mailing list (/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-April/002296). Michael, please note this includes edits under any user name, or under no user name -- sannse

The latest of which is User:UPSyNDROME. -- John Owens 22:49 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Add User:NOFX to the list. -- John Owens 10:55 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

User:UPSyNDROME appears to be another weezer/michael manifestation. S/he claims to be a 'big fan' of michael/weezer at any rate (check the history of hir talk page) and is doing similar edits at Talk:Crass again...quercus robur 22:23 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Weezer (alias Michael) is back as George Washington. Leave plenty of space for the list of vandalism to follow. STÓD/ÉÍRE 21:57 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Weezer is vandalising Talk:Crass again. I thought he was banned now? quercus robur 09:27 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)
- He is - his accounts have been locked. But although he signed as "Weezer" he wasn't logged in and was editing from an unbanned IP (205.188.209.139 (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=205.188.209.139)). If he continues editing from this IP we can block it for a while - but it is an AOL number so, as I understand it, he won't often get the same number again -- sannse 10:25 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)
- which the address of an AOL proxy so blocking this address may result in many users being blocked -- F1lby 16:25 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)
  - Note: I pasted the end of Sannse's quote above back where it was after F1lby chopped it off and put his own name & attribution there; that's why it may look like I was trying to pass my comments off as someone else's. -- John Owens 15:33 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Michael/Weezer is back as 67.121.168.185, and adding more horribly mangled English to articles. His user contributions are here (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=67.121.168.185). -- goatasaur
- Jeez. That guy has more identities than Saddam Hussein has lookalikes. STÓD/ÉÍRE

205.188.209.77 (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=205.188.209.77) just blanked zoe's talk page. Probably Michael/Weezer in a fit of pique quercus robur 01:40 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

Example page history from some of the Michael pages I'm deleting at present. Tannin 09:37 30 May 2003 (UTC)

(cur) (last) . . M 05:16 30 May 2003 . . Tannin (Reverted to last edit by Hephaestos)
(cur) (last) . . 05:11 30 May 2003 . . Michael/Crass (I will continue reverting this page. So fuck you)
(cur) (last) . . M 21:54 29 May 2003 . . Hephaestos (Reverted to last edit by Dante Alighieri)
(cur) (last) . . 21:54 29 May 2003 . . Michael/Crass (Reverted to last edit by Dante)
(cur) (last) . . M 21:49 29 May 2003 . . Dante Alighieri (Reverted to last edit by The Anome)
(cur) (last) . . 21:49 29 May 2003 . . Michael/Crass (Yes!)
(cur) (last) . . M 21:47 29 May 2003 . . The Anome (Reverted to last edit by The Anome)
(cur) (last) . . 21:47 29 May 2003 . . Michael/Crass (You three ar e all fucking fired!!!)
(cur) (last) . . M 21:44 29 May 2003 . . The Anome (Reverted to last edit by Dante Alighieri)
(cur) (last) . . 21:44 29 May 2003 . . Michael/Crass (FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11)
(cur) (last) . . M 21:43 29 May 2003 . . Dante Alighieri (Reverted to last edit by JohnOwens)
(cur) (last) . . 21:43 29 May 2003 . . Michael/Crass (FUCK YOU!, I said!)
(cur) (last) . . M 21:42 29 May 2003 . . JohnOwens (Reverted to last edit by Dante Alighieri)
(cur) (last) . . 21:41 29 May 2003 . . Michael/Crass (I said, f**k you!)
(cur) (last) . . M 21:36 29 May 2003 . . Dante Alighieri (Reverted to last edit by JohnOwens)
(cur) (last) . . 21:35 29 May 2003 . . Michael/Crass (The sixth album by Blur)
(cur) (last) . . M 22:32 28 May 2003 . . JohnOwens
(cur) (last) . . 19:41 27 May 2003 . . 205.188.209.43 (The third album by Blur)

I haven´t much followed the course of the michaelism disease, but I think there is still some stuff to be looked after. I stumbled on Yuri Ruley and it seems that User 24.130.213.242 replaced the correct year of birth with another year (as far as I can tell from some googling, I am usually not that involved with this kind of knowledge). The same user has left many other edits and some of his contributions are marked (top). Is this user proven to be Michael? Or would his contributions have to be fact-checked before reverting? Kosebamse 20:06 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Those of us watching out for Michael of late have noticed the 24.130.xx.xx users. I would say that it's premature to say that this is a proven Michael IP range, but I'd certainly keep my eye on it. --Dante Alighieri 20:18 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Actually, the edit summaries (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.130.213.242) for this user show it's definitely Michael. Only he says this stuff. But very little of it seems to be still at the top of the pages. Evercat 20:23 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Re: "Why erase my articles? Stop! -- User:Michael/Crass" -- because you've shown a pattern of being consistently, adamantly, and wilfully wrong, and fact-checking your work is for most people more trouble than it's worth. Koyaanis Qatsi 16:19 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Whatever it's worth, a couple of weeks ago I've (somewhat jokingly) suggesed on zoe's talk page to give michael his own wikipedia namespace, such as Michael:Crass for his version of Crass, or Michael:1998 in music[?] for his version of 1998 in music. At least he won't work for nothing (and repeatidly get raged by his pages deleted), and programmers can set the Robots.txt file so his namesapce won't be indexed by google and such. Just a suggestion, could turn a bad idea, though.. -- Rotem Dan 16:31 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Michael looks to be using 205.188.209.72 (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=205.188.209.72) also -- Jimregan 22:25 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Someone with knowledge of the subject may wish to check Mudhoney; creator & only editor is 205.188.209.72 (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=205.188.209.72), an isp # used admittedly by Michael (see the history of Talk:The Feeding of the 5000 for confirmation). -- Infrogmation 20:57 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What is the policy of deleting blank entries such as this one created by Michael Candlebox (album)[?]? I just want to make sure this is something acceptable to do, before I delete it. MB 20:13 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

As nobody else had edited this article, its arbitrary deletion was uncontroversial. However, deleting articles that someone else has edited (beyond blanking/reverts) is more controversial, with strong opinions on both sides. Martin 00:42 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Solution for Michael edits

Alright, there seems to be some disagreement as far as what should be done with pages that Michael has made/worked on, but others have worked on as well such as St. Anger. Zoe seems to think we should delete the articles all together, b/c Michael's name is in the history. Now, while I can understand why we don't want Michael's name anywhere on the wiki, it isn't fair to other users for us to delete articles they have contributed to. What should we do about these situations? Would it be acceptable to delete Michael from the history? Zoe seems set on making sure any record of his contributions are removed permanently. While I don't blame her, I don't think it is a solution for everything. MB 00:49 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

As I wrote on User talk:Camembert, those who wish to undelete articles should instead salvage the non-Michael parts of it that they want to keep, and re-create the article from scratch. That keeps Michael out Wikipedia's history. Say with me: Ignorance is strength.... --Eloquence 01:39 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Michael is back, and he is getting smart!

Michael has made edits (I'm pretty sure) under the following ip addresses. He keeps changing his ip, so be on the look out for 152.163.25x.x and similar ip's. Here are some of the ip's I have seen him using, please help revert, delete, fix: 152.163.253.34 (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=152.163.253.34), 152.163.252.33 (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=152.163.252.33), 152.163.252.100 (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=152.163.252.100), 152.163.252.133 (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=152.163.252.133), 152.163.252.36 (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=152.163.252.36). Could we temporarily ban this ip range? MB 18:37 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I fear we can't ban this range. Banning this is banning all of AOL. -- JeLuF

And your point is? Jordan Langelier ;)

I've been going through this ip range for a while, and I am finally deciding to give up on this for the day (Unfortunately Michael appears to have more time to create these articles then I have to check them). Here are 2 ip's which appear to have edit's of his but I don't feel like checking right now: 67.121.191.90 (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=67.121.191.90), 24.130.213.242 (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.130.213.242). Maybe someone can have a look at these edits. Thanks. MB 20:58 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Maybe some programmer will write an auto-revert/auto-clouding bot, so an administrator would be able to set it to some IP, say, 152.163.252.36, and every change of that IP would be auto-reverted/clouded? (this can be amusingly abused though ;) -- Rotem Dan 10:33 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Michael appears now to be claiming to be Eddie Van Halen: see User:Eddie. I believe this to be unlikely. The Anome 07:46 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Some suspected Michael IP addresses:

IP address: 24.130.213.242 ==> Host name: c-24-130-213-242.we.client2.attbi.com, which appears to be AT&T in Canada
IP address: 64.12.96.42 ==> Host name: cache-mtc-ab05.proxy.aol.com
IP address: 205.188.208.169 ==> Host name: cache-dh05.proxy.aol.com

Most of the others appear to be AOL proxies.

Michael is a liar, eh? Well, Martha Stewart allegedly lied and Bill Clinton certainly lied. And we don't need liars on Wikipedia, do we? LOL -- User:Rickyrab

Just fyi, User:Rickyrab is a guy...just pointing that out.

From Votes for Deletion

Conflict (band)
- It's been suggested that this should be deleted, and then Quercus should recreate the article, thus erasing Michael's name from the edit history. Discuss? Martin 01:10 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- If that's what people want to spend their time doing, then I'm not going to stop them, but it certainly isn't a process that should be required. Michael's name - along with the name of other banned users - is in the history of hundreds of articles. Removing them from the history doesn't acheive anything. The article can stay as it is - time is better spent on other things. --Camembert
- I know the "consensus" is that this Michael character is the Devil incarnate and that in order for us all to escape eternal damnation every trace of him must be erased from the face of the Earth, but I still think articles should be judged by their content not by their authors. GrahamN 15:15 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  - Indeed, articles should be judged by their content. One of (alas, not the only) problem with Michael is that he's been a wealth of misinformation, bad dates, etc. Any Michael article that has been checked for accuracy by someone else with knowledge of the subject or takes the time to look up appropriate references is fine. I don't think it's a matter of erasing all reference to Michael's name from the face of the earth so much as Michael's dreadful error rate that motivates the movement to revert anything he does. As many have said before, if you want to follow along after him with the considerable job of cleaning up his messes, do so, as that seems to be what his articles need. -- Infrogmation 20:19 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    - So, you agree with me. Somebody had cleared up any alleged mess that our friend may have made of Conflict (band). The article was fine, so it should never have been deleted. GrahamN 17:53 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
      - For the record, it was me that 'cleared up' the Conflict page, as I remember it it was actually deleted whilst I was in the process of editing the page. I found the page, saw it was the usual mass of michaelisms and half-truths and commenced to put the record straight. When a few minutes later I looked at page history the Micheal (or whatever he was called that day) edits were gone, therefore somebody had deleted the page whilst I was working on it. BTW, I agree that it is probably sound tactics to delete Michaels pages on sight, regardless of whether they 'appear' to be accurate, it's the 'half truths' and insidious (and deliberate) little 'mistakes' that cause so many problems. With hindsight I certainly would have removed Michaels version of the Conflict discography which at first I left intact quercus robur 22:47 11 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  - If articles were to be judged only on the content, not the author, then we wouldn't be enforcing bans on people writing articles. A ban means they are 100% prohibited from contributing to wikipedia. It is that blunt. If they are banned, by definition they are not entitled to put anything on wikipedia; not one word, not one comma, not one full stop. If they still are allowed to, that makes, wikipedia, Jimbo and all other wiki users a joke, with our bans being as phoney as a three dollar bill, and with banned wikipedians being treated exactly the same as wikipedians who aren't banned. There may be some theoretical justification for some leeway being given to a banned person coming back a second time if they show a different standard of behaviour, to allow them show a change in behaviour. But for a multiple banned user, there can be no question of letting them contribute anything (irrespective of the quality) unless they discuss their situation first with Jimbo and are unbanned. In fact no professional organisation would even be having this discussion. Any work by a Michael character would go straight into the bin unopened. That is what should be happening to anything contributed by Michael from the moment a hard ban was imposed - everything he touches should be undone, everything he creates should be deleted automatically, sending the clear message 'if you want to contribute to wiki, clear it with Jimbo. If you don't, nothing you do with be accepted. Everything will be binned on sight. FearÉIREANN 01:52 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    - I disagree with this rant. Wikipedia should be an open, democratic place, not an authoritarian dictatorship. GrahamN 17:53 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    - Just to be clear - the article as it stands includes no content whatsoever by Michael. Everything he added to it has been removed. His name is still in the history, however, and it's been suggested that it be deleted and recreated from scratch so as to remove his name from the history. I don't see the point in that - as I say, the name of several banned users is still in edit histories of hundreds of pages, and removing them achieves nothing. So long as there's nothing of his in the article, I don't see as there's a problem. --Camembert
- There doesn't seem to be much support for deleting the article just to get Michael's name out of history. I recommend this entry be declared "resolved" and moved to user talk:Michael/ban some time in the next 24 hours. -- Tim Starling 05:52 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
  - What's wrong with writing it anew and leaving it with an edit summary "Fact-checked, cleared up misapprehensions" or something to that effect? That's what I did with the stub for The Real Thing, and since I remembered the album it took only a few minutes. I doubt that clearing Michael's name from all the edit histories is a good use of our time, or--for that matter--even possible. He's quite persistent. Koyaanis Qatsi 06:48 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
    - That's what was done in this case. Martin 20:04 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

By the way, why do you consider Punk, etc., to be alias of Michael? What evidence do you have of certain usernames purporting to be those of punk-rock fans being those, instead, of banned user Michael? I'm acting as a Devil's Advocate[?] here, because we need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. User:Rickyrab

Actually no - the requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt was created as a counterweight to the ability of a court to compell evidence. Wikipedia has no such ability. Martin 19:57 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I can't speak for the Punk name specifically, but quite often he signs his vandalism "Michael" even logged in from his other aliases. --Dante Alighieri 04:10 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

And I can't speak for anybody else, but.

"Michael" was banned for his behavior. I don't think anybody here has a personal grudge against "Michael the person", whoever he or she may be; however, he was banned, hard-banned, for his behavior. Therefore, anybody who shows up here acting like "Michael" will be dealt with.

If "Michael", whoever he/she is, ever happens to show up again, and act like a civil, well-meaning contributor to the project, he/she won't be "dealt with." Such is the anonymity of the Internet. But when another Michael shows up, she/he will be dealt with. Such is the policy of Wikipedia. We will not put up with people who are obviously out for nothing but destruction on these web pages. - Hephaestos 04:20 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Does anybody have any theories about Michael's motivation for persistently adding disinformation to Wikipedia? Is he just a nutter with a grudge and too much time on his hands, or might it be something altogether more sinister? I am convinced that Wikipedia has fantastic potential to become the premier global information resource, run by and for the ordinary people of the world, free from censorship. No doubt I will be accused of paranoia and eejjithood again, but I know that the USA has committed itself (and huge amounts of taxpayer's money) to an attempt to achieve "full-spectrum dominance" of the world. Information is explicitly part of the spectrum of things they want to dominate. Just a thought. GrahamN 14:13 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If michael were a government agent engaging in some kind of psyops activity I think he'd be picking articles with a bit more relevance than punk bands that split up 20 years ago... I can just see the head of the CIA chuckling to Bush, "ha ha we've got them suckers believing that Crass formed in 1976 and that their live bootleg was released in 2001, not 1993, that'll screw them pinko subversives..." nah, I think you credit him with a trifle too much significance... But on the other hand... quercus robur 21:32 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, but on the other hand maybe you are underestimating the power of the wiki. It seems to me that if Wikipedia became even slightly more widely known, then it could well become monstrously expensive to sustain the huge army of professional propgandists who would be needed to make this site toe any party line. "Their" only hope would be to achieve "wikicide[?]", either by making the whole project fail, or by transmuting it into something else - something far less free and democratic. One way to do this might be to manufacture a consensus among wikipedians that in order to defend ourselves against the terrible threat of vandalism we must hand significant powers to an elite band of self-appointed autocratic vigilantes. I think our best defence against anything of this kind is simply to recruit as many new Wikipedians as we possibly can. For example, we could launch a co-ordinated campaign to post to hundreds of different special interest message boards asking for help in writing particlular articles. GrahamN 03:38 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That's how I'd do it. Manufacture a threat, then lead the discussion so that the only "reasonable" response to the threat is seen to be the one that takes the "wiki" out of "wikipedia"...

Don't think it'll happen though. Martin 09:39 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Looking up one of Michael's apparent IPs gives "adsl-64-175-249-48.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net". This looks like a dynamically-assigned block of IPs -- however, PacBell's abuse desk will probably be more responsive than AOL's. The Anome

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

Search Encyclopedia

Search over one million articles, find something about almost anything!