User talk:Mike Garcia

The Warning

You're still banned, so please avoid editing the articles until that changes. I'm glad that your changes have been accurate and good and that you've been nicely filling out edit summaries, but until either Jimbo Wales or the Arbitration Committee decides to unban you, your edits are at risk of being reverted.

Anyway, this is just a suggestion, and I won't revert or delete your edits myself as long as they're accurate. Guan aco 20:27, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Good. Because, I don't like it when people revert my edits. Also, I know i'm still banned. -- Mike Garcia 20:29, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edits on Hollywood Potato Chip

The track times added to Hollywood Potato Chip were inaccurate [1] according to Allmusic.com. I know that you were just reinstating your old edits, but if you add any more inaccurate information, I will have to start reverting you. Guan aco 20:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just so you know, "dab" stands for disambiguation. Don't use it unless that's what you're doing. Thanks. Guan aco 20:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I won't add anything inaccurate. So that I won't have my edits reverted after all. -- Mike Garcia 20:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where to get recording dates from infoboxes

Where do you get the recording dates for all the infoboxes? Do you just guess, or is there a site or book with this information? Guan aco 21:00, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just think sometimes or guess or something like that, yeah. -- Mike Garcia

If you don't know, just use "???". That's better than adding information to an article that could be incorrect. Guan aco 21:08, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that one before. I think I can do that when I make new articles soon. -- Mike Garcia 21:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bad Religion

According to Allmusic.com, '80-'85 was released in 1990, not 1991. Can you explain this edit? Guan aco 21:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but, 1991 was stamped on the tray card and disc, even on the re-issued version like Against the Grain, it said it on there too, but the orginal was ok (1990). There must be a confusion on that one same as what I did on Against the Grain. -- Mike Garcia 21:31, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You're right. [2] But it's best to go with the earliest release and to use a source like Amazon, Rolling Stone, or Allmusic. Guan aco 21:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

When, the page '80-'85 is created we'll just put the confusion like I did on Against the Grain. -- Mike Garcia 21:41, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is the confusion you mentioned why Against the Grain (album) has both Category:1990 albums and Category:1991 albums? You should only use one "xxxx albums" category per article. Choose the one that's in the infobox. Guan aco 21:49, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, I just took it off. It was there a long time ago, Category:1991 albums before I moved it to Against the Grain (album) -- Mike Garcia 21:52, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. There's some more information on the proper style for these articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. Guan aco 21:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You've been editing some lists to say that Against the Grain was released in 1991. [3] [4] [5] Why? Guan aco 22:01, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, don't worry. I'll try my best and fix a few mistakes that are linked to it. -- Mike Garcia 22:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I can't just not worry. The album was released in 1990. Guan aco 22:08, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know that. If any article like that says 1991 on it i'll just put the right year, that's all. So that, there won't be any mistakes. -- Mike Garcia 22:09, 25 Aug 2004

But you put the wrong year when you changed 1990 to 1991. Guan aco 22:11, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Let's not talk about or worry about it anymore. I just put the right year on it. -- Mike Garcia 22:12, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

5½ stars out of 5

Why did you write that Seventh Son of a Seventh Son earned 5½ stars out of 5 when it really only earned 4½? It's impossible for an album to earn more than 5 stars from Allmusic.com. This really looks like one of your typical pranks, but no one thinks it's funny. If you want to create articles with jokes, please do so in pages like User:Mike Garcia/Sandbox, Wikipedia:Sandbox, and User:Mike Garcia/Seventh Son of a Seventh Son. Guan aco 23:55, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, i'll do it right next time I create an infobox on any album. -- Mike Garcia 23:57, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Please remember not to do anything silly in articles, because it just hurts Wikipedia's credibility when people look up an album and later find out that the article is wrong. Guan aco 00:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and I just fixed two errors in the The Colour and the Shape infobox that you added. If you can't make an effort to add only correct information, please don't edit Wikipedia. Tuf-Kat 00:06, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

An e-mail from Danny

Hi Mike. I just sent you an email. Danny 02:31, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I just wrote back. -- Mike Garcia

An e-mail from Nick

I also sent you an e-mail Mike.--Plato 01:09, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know. I just read it already. -- Mike Garcia 15:10, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question

In which year did the anarchist punk band Crass form? quercus robur 23:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just 1977. -- Mike Garcia 01:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Discussion from the village pump

Is there a reason that banned user Michael is being allowed to edit Wikipedia? The note on his user page from Jimbo suggests that nothing has changed, and I see now he's adding a lot of info to various album pages, which as I recall was the behavior that precipitated banning in the first place. I don't see an open apology anywhere, or any other indication that he's satisfied any requirements which would allow him to return, and in the absence of a proclamation by Jimbo or the AC (and frankly, as a member of the AC, I don't even know if _we_ could end his ban), shouldn't this user account be banned like all the rest? Can anyone help me understand what's going on? Jwrosenzweig 17:01, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to the Block log, it seems that whenever Michael is blocked, Guanaco unblocks him. Example:

23:27, 24 Aug 2004 Guanaco unblocked "User:Mike Garcia" (Please don't block this account. Michael can create as many accounts as he wants whenever he wants. Contact me personally if you really feel the need to block him.)

I suggest you take the matter up with Guanaco. There is supposedly a way to deal with rogue sysops. Doppelgänger 20:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The only advantage I see to unblocking the account is this: if Michael edits only as Mike Garcia, the nonsense he writes will at least be collected in one place, rather than scattered between any number of AOL proxies and sockpuppets. Thus his errors can be corrected, reverted, flagged as such, or deleted with relative ease. However, Mike Garcia is editing fast (64 edits today, around 150 yesterday) and little is being done about the reams of false information he must have inserted by now. —No-One Jones 20:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Earlier I picked one of the new Michael articles by chance, and it had a wrong release date - I believe amazon more than Michael. Thus he does all the same as he did before Jimbo banned him long time ago - inserting wrong information all over again and again. And I cannot see any excuse to all those users and admins he insulted, annoyed, kept off from productive work with his vandalism while being banned. While I cannot believe why this guy does not understand he is not wanted here even though being shown him for one-and-a-half year already - allowing him doing the same harm on the credibility of wikipedia as he did before is inacceptable. And Jimbo's word that he is still banned should answer all questions. andy 20:41, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[6] -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:50, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The AC has the power to unban permanently banned users after a year. The e-mail sent by Jimbo Wales confirming Michael's ban status was sent in May 2003. Guan aco 01:25, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Some comments on Michael. For two years, people have attempted to block Michael. It hasn't worked. Period. It has been going on for two years. Meanwhile, everytime he is blocked, I am blocked too. Why? Because Michael uses AOL, and I happen to use AOL. Wi will not get into an argument with anyone about whether I should be using AOL or not. That is no one's business. The fact is that I do, as do many millions of people around the US. Are we going to ban them all to deal with one user, Michael? I would hope not, especially since we have seen that banning him has not worked for two years. So, what do we do about Michael? Over the past week, I have contacted him. He is currently in discussion with Jimbo, so that we can find a way to possibly incorporate his edits in some manner in Wikipedia. From what we have been told, Michael is 14. That means, this all began when he was 12. He is a kid, and he was a kid then. Personally, I want to believe Michael is trying to reform. I think he has a lot to learn, and a lot of growing up to do. No, I do not think we are a babysitting service. On the other hand, I do think we have a problem, we have had this problem for a very long time (more than most users have even been around), and none of the attempted solutions has worked so far. Let's try another way. There are many compromises I can think of. Put a notice over articles that Michael edits, which will be removed once his edits have been verified. Allow him to make a limited amount of edits a day. Allow him to edit in his user space. Have him get his edits verified by a trusted user. Just continuing this blocking spree is not working, it ends up hurting established users (including myself--I had to unblock myself to make this edit), making it impossible for a large group of potential new editors to come on board, and infuriating Michael and potentially resulting with him going on a new vandalism spree. Since it hasnt helped yet, I doubt it will help now. The zero-result is certainly not worth the cost. Spending an afternoon deleting edits, even after other users have verified them or edited them, is certainly not worth the cost. Banning a 14 year old for the rest of his life is not worth the cost. Frankly, I am very annoyed. Danny 23:12, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He seems to intentionally put the wrong release date on albums - I just fixed a couple of his errors on Social Distortion. I think with his history here, it's safe to say that he is still a bad faith editor. Keep him banned. Rhobite 23:53, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

It's not our call. This is the only editor that Jimbo has specifically hard banned. He does not want him here. And he should not be allowed to put one word on a page until he apologizes to all concerned, ESPECIALLY to Zoe and Hephaestos. Rick K 23:55, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree with Rick. Micheal is banned. The problems that Danny is having are caused by people trying to block michael. (I've been guilty of this in the past) I agree that blocking him does more harm than good and fully support Guanaco's unblocking. What we should be doing is reverting micheal. Reverting everything he touches is the only way to deal with him because he writes far too much for us to keep up with him if we check everything for accuracy.And anyway he is banned, so none of his edits should be allowed to stand. Theresa Knott (The token star) 00:03, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And I completely agree with Theresa. There are far more of us than there are of Michael, so I believe that we can keep up with the task of reverting all of his edits without too much problem. I'm hoping, hoping, hoping that soon Wikipedia will get some sort of per-article banning capability so that banning Michael from editing album articles won't affect everyone else on AOL so much. Bryan 00:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is impossible to keep up with his edits unless he edits with an account. And he won't edit with an account if we use it as a way to easily revert all his edits. The amount of edits he makes is much too large to keep track of if he edits anonymously from AOL proxies, and we can't block all of AOL, so the only option is to come to a compromise. Danny has suggested several very good ways we could work with Michael.

Our goal is to build an accurate and neutral encyclopedia. That is why we're here, and that is why Michael is banned. That is now why Michael should be conditionally unbanned. Guan aco 01:21, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Michael typically edits quickly, often from IP addresses, and has entered IRC in the past declaring himself explicitly to be "The Wikipedia vandal." He is not reforming. He is not reformable. He wants to destroy Wikipedia, and has admitted as much. He is destructive. He is very hard to track - he edits music articles, which is a very broad base, and about 50% of his information is accurate, making it prone to passing a sniff test. Keeping up with him and fact-checking his material is time-consuming in the extreme.

I'm sorry if it screws over some AOL users. But I'm very, very hesitant to accept a solution that lets such an active and destructive force remain unchecked. Snowspinner 01:01, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

The solutions that have been proposed would not leave Michael unchecked. They are designed to make him want to make accurate edits, and he would know that he would risk being rebanned if he were to violate those terms. Guan aco 01:21, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So, wait, let me get this straight. Because banning Michael was ineffective and he could get around it, we should let him back because the threat of a ban is going to be meaningful to him? You've already said the ban is ineffective - and Michael knows it as well. The threat of being rebanned is meaningless.

Furthermore, I don't understand why Michael is being given some kind of "chance." He has declared his intent to vandalize and disrupt Wikipedia. He has demonstrated his intent to vandalize and disrupt Wikipedia.

Some people do not come to Wikipedia with any intention of helping build an encyclopedia. Some people get their kicks disrupting and vandalizing other people's projects. Michael is one of those people. We should not waste our time giving him chances. We shouldn't have to waste our time reverting him either, but sadly, we do. Snowspinner 02:17, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

It's a question of values. Guanaco wants to find a solution that allows WP to work and lets Danny and who knows how many other AOL users to contribute (and some of my best friends are AOL users!). You apparently are more concerned with punishing Michael than with finding a solution that helps WP function.

Again, it's a matter of values: some philosophers would agree with you that punishment, even punishment that "destroys the village in order to save it", is worthwhile because it enforces moral absolutes. Others would argue for utility. Or even for reform rather than punishment. It's all a matter of values; and de gustibus non est disputantum, your values are as legitimate as anyone else's. Contrawise, their values are as legitimate as yours too. -- orthogonal 03:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not respond to posts by this user Snowspinner

The threat of being rebanned is not meaningless, because he does not like when his articles are deleted and his edits are reverted. He wants his edits to be kept. If we keep him banned, he'll make over 100 edits per day and we'll revert/delete about half ot those. If he's unbanned, he'll only as many edits as we let him, and we'll verify all of them.

The identity of "Michael" in the IRC channel has not been confirmed. It was from AOL, but there are a lot of people from AOL. Anyway, since then, he has apologized for what he has done and Mike Garcia has offered explanations and apologies about inaccuracies when questioned.

Michael wants to contribute, or he would not have created so many articles. There are serious problems with what he does, and he has played jokes in articles in the past, but no one has suggested that he not be watched. Giving him a chance could waste some of our time, but it would waste a lot less than constant reversion. Guan aco 03:45, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) (edit conflict)

I think it's just incredibly foolish to offer any degree of trust to Michael. He's a solidly clever vandal. That's been proven. But trusting him is asking for trouble. He's hard banned, and he's hard banned for a reason. He's sufficiently hard banned that Jimbo has said he should be reverted even on Jimbo's user talk page. And that was quite recently. Unless Jimbo feels like reversing that ban, which, recently, he's shown no evidence that he does, I think that Michael is hard banned, and that he should be reverted on sight. Snowspinner 16:53, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that blocking him is not working; people have alleged that the article 2004 in music has been damaged by his anonymous edits, for instance. So I would say the rational thing is to let him have his new account, and we can be sure that people will be very wary of his edits and check to verify them. Otherwise, people don't know any particular article has been edited by Michael and they may just assume good faith. Certainly I am not prone to fact-checking every little thing an anonymous contributor adds to an article, as long as the edit looks generally legit. But if I saw Mike Garcia had made the edit, I definitely would check. Everyking 01:23, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Have you read Jimbo's comments on User:Mike Garcia? This is the only person Jimbo has specifically banned. Who made Danny and Guanaco God that they can make this decision unilaterally? And how dare Guanaco list me on Vandalism in progress for reverting Michael's additions, in following what is the only consensus standard for Michael's behavior? And how dare he threaten me with blocking for doing so? Rick K 04:29, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

So here is a proposal: blocks on IP addresses should (1) prevent anons at those addresses from editing, (2) prevent new account creation from those addresses. IP blocks should not prevent people logging into existing accounts and editing. Thus, all of AOL's IP space can be blocked if necessary and Danny can still work. If Michael tries to use an account that he has already created, that will be noticed and the account will be blocked. Finally he will be unable to edit without going outside AOL. --Zero 07:05, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll try to bring some fresh eyes to the problem. Wikipedia:List of banned users includes several users who have been banned by Jimbo, so Michael is not a special case. Regarding blocking User:Michael, Wikipedia:Banning policy states: Account blocks: The primary account of any banned user, if they have one, is blocked for the duration of the ban. If the banned user creates "sock puppet" accounts to evade the ban, these may also be blocked (the times can vary). It seems clear from that statement than any admin can block Michael or Mike Garcia at any time. However, it also says we need to try to avoid inconvenience or aggravation of any victims of mistaken identity. So, if banning Michael causes us to block all users from AOL, than we've serously tipped the scale in the direction of inconvenience for innocent victims. Allowing established logged in users from AOL to edit while hindering new accounts or annon edits is also bad, as we've cut off a potentially huge pool of new editors.

Appeals for bans are possible, however, the ArbCom can not innitiate such an appeal. The policy states: Users who have been permanently banned may, if they wish, appeal to the arbitration committee or Jimbo Wales after one year. That clearly places the responsibility to start the process on the banned user. Until Michael asks the Arbitration Committee to overturn his ban, they have no authority to do so, and neither do individual arbitrators. I do not know if Michael has asked the committee to commute his sentence, but clearly Jimbo has not lifted the ban. At this point, Michael remains banned, users (including sysops and arbitrators) should not be inviting him to edit, and all his edits may be reverted by any user without discussion. However, when dealing with Michael, or any banned user for that matter, it is best to be polite; no one bennefits from hasty words typed in anger or frustration. Try to immagine how you would feel if you were the banned user.

The above is the opinion of Gentgeen, who is solely responsible for it's content. 07:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think we are confusing two issues here.

Should Michael be hard banned?

This is a matter for Jimbo. Guanaco and some others above seem to be questioning this, and some of their actions seem to circumvent the ban. This worries me a great deal.

How should the ban be enforced?

This is something I'm happy to see debated here, and I can support the actions and arguments of Guanaco and others in trying to make the ban effective. Andrewa 16:00, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Andrewa. Michael is banned by Jimbo's authority, and only Jimbo and/or the Wikimedia Board of Trustees have the authority to reverse that ban. However, ban is not the same thing as block. Blocks are a technological means used for, among other things, enforcing formal bans. Danny makes a good argument for why we should not use blocks to enforce the ban on Michael. For a long time we blocked all of Halifax, Nova Scotia to deal with a banned user, and I don't think that was a good idea either.

However, Michael is still banned, and I believe the essential aspect of a ban is that he is not allowed to contribute to Wikipedia. So regardless of whether we try to block his accounts, all of his edits, especially to articles, can and should be reverted, with no further justification necessary. --Michael Snow 23:19, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A note from Jimbo on Mike page (update of the current situation). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User%3AMike_Garcia&diff=5519053&oldid=5511001

Please, all of you, do not block Mike, as this would block other aol users. Mike is still banned, but not blocked because of the technical implications. Apply the current ban by reverting edits if you wish but keep it nice :-)

SweetLittleFluffyThing 15:16, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So, when Mike Grant comes in this evening or tomorrow and starts making more mass additions, and I spend another hour to revert all of his changes, will Guanaco come back and re-revert what I did as he has done the last couple of days? And then will Guanaco list me on Vandalism in Progress again? Rick K 20:43, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)