Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Something Bitchin' This Way Comes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Created by hard-banned User:Michael under his latest pseudonym of User:Mike Garcia. I have been deleting and reverting vast quantities of this user's work today, but this article has been "vetted" by Guanaco, and normally I would just delete it because Wikipedia policy written in stone by Jimbo on this one user is to delete all of Michael's work even when others have modified it, I don't want to get into a p*ssing contest with Guanaco on this one -- I've had too many bad dealings with him and would rather get support from the community on deleting this. Please note: It is JIMBO'S decision that Michael is hard banned, it is JIMBO'S decision that all of Michael's work be deleted or reverted. RickK 21:45, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep #Danny 23:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC) comment moved off main VfD page
• Keep. This is my work as much as it is Michael's. Guanaco 23:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Unsure. I think RickK is doing the right thing listing this. On the one hand the policy is quite clear, all Michael's contributions are to be simply erased. That's what a hard ban means. On the other hand, this seems to now be a good article. No vote for now. Andrewa 00:02, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd rather judge the article on its on merits rather than the politics of who initiated it. If it's an acceptable article on its own merits, what would the point be of deleting it -- to recreate it again in more or less the same appearance? (Sigh, the ghosts of internet projects past now haunt me.) KeithTyler 00:14, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the main reasons for the decision to delete/revert all of his edits was that it was nigh-impossible to go through all of his edits and fact-check them on a case-by-case basis. However, this article has been vetted by an established user, and I feel that it should be kept. (But if Jimbo says it goes, it goes.) -Sean Curtin 00:25, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
• You might want to delete this entirely, removing Michael from the edit history, and then recreate it, not by restoring the deleted text but by copy and paste. Assuming it is all accurate right now. Adam Bishop 00:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Michael may be banned, but he still has the right to attribution. Guanaco 04:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • What? No he doesn't, he's banned! He shouldn't have anything attributed to him if he is supposed to be reverted/deleted on sight. Adam Bishop 07:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

      It's a basic concept of academic honesty, if not the GFDL, that we should try to follow. Guanaco 15:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, I assume Guanaco would not take credit for it unless he was sure it was factually correct. Everyking 01:10, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • You assume wrong. Guanaco would do anything to make me look bad. RickK 04:44, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

    In that case, you should show that it has at least one inaccuracy. Guanaco 04:52, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    I have no idea if it's correct or not, and it's not my need to have to do so. Michael is on auto-revert, no discussion. RickK 05:12, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

    I am not on auto-revert, so if you delete my edits, you should show that there's something wrong with them. Our banning policy states that "if a user does knowingly reinstate an edit by a banned user, they have taken responsibility for it, in some sense, so there is no benefit in reverting that edit again, and there is the risk of causing unnecessary conflict amongst the Wikipedia community." I have taken responsibility for the content of the article, so there is no benefit in deleting it. Guanaco 15:40, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I originally was of the 'take them one at a time' opinion, but having wasted the last hour or so researching this issue, now understand the reasoning behind the hard-ban/auto-revert policy of Jimbo. The article has one possible minor inaccuracy (can't be sure without the actual album in my hand), and one major inaccuracy. Just doesn't seem worth wasting so many people's time on. Niteowlneils 16:53, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • What is the major inaccuracy? Everyking 19:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    There were two bands called Lock Up. The earlier of the two released Something Bitchin' This Way Comes, and the later band released Pleasures Pave Sewers and Hate Breeds Suffering. This article linked to Pleasures Pave Sewers as if it had been created by the same band. This mistake wasn't Mike's fault, and it was an easy one to make. He probably copied the information from allmusic.com, which contains this inaccuracy. I have fixed our article and have submitted a correction to allmusic so this hopefully won't happen again. Guanaco 03:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. This seems to now have become a test case. If it's allowed to stay, then IMO we are endorsing the actions of users who verify and edit Michael's work rather than deleting and reverting it, thus circumventing the ban. So reluctantly, it must be delete. Andrewa 01:28, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • sigh- seems there are alot of short memories around on Wikipedia these days... Why is everybody debating the 'should he stay or should he go' around Micheal when a quick look through the edit history of Crass by Micheal and his many alter-egos plus several related articles from a while back should remind everybody of just how destructive, bloodyminded and mischeivious (and sometimes unfortunately subtle in his disinformation) this character is. The hard ban is there for a reason, shame everyone has forgotten what that reason is. quercus robur 01:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The history of "people-who-have-been-given-second-(and-third)-chances" is indeed rather completely dismal. It only takes one Pandora to open this particular box, while all can "enjoy" the sorrows she releasess. - Nunh-huh 04:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I still don't follow what this now-gone user's destructiveness has to do with deleting an article that has been shown to be largely accurate. Is he gone, or isn't he? And whether or not he is gone, how does that affect the content of this article? (And how does letting this article be kept - as opposed to deleting it -- lead to further damage?) KeithTyler 00:05, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

He never really left. I think it would be wise to read User:Michael to fully understand why people are so upset about the hard ban being essentially overruled. Mike H 00:08, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Otherwise just throw away all rules, give this project over to the trolls and POV cranks, and the rest of us can go home. Jallan 14:51, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 15:16, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Necrothesp 15:53, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 13:11, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Jesus, this is disappointing. We're going to delete an article -- only to to recreate the exact same article in its place. Whatever. I don't care about Michael or Guanaco, or politics. What is the primary goal of Wikipedia -- to have accurate articles, or to have articles that are free of internal politics? Maybe someone could please fill me in, as I'm sort of new, and had gotten the idea that it was the former. Sigh. KeithTyler 18:48, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
• What about changing the edit history, to attribute Michael's changes to a non-existant/blind/generic user? Or attributing it to his IP? Rhymeless 21:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I read User_talk:Michael/ban, and I can't say that knowing the history explained to me why his history requires that an accurate article has to be deleted simply because his name appears somewhere in the edit history. In fact, quite the contrary -- plenty of comments throughout that article agree that, for example, 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. (User:Infrogmation) Now, the link in that article to a mailing list about the details of the ban ("Jimbo's letter to the mailing list") is broken, so I don't know the details of it. I do feel, from what I've seen so far, that the matter has become so terribly religious that a lot of people simply won't view the subject beyond the edicts they've been passed. I for one mourn the deletion of articles that are contentually acceptable. Regards, KeithTyler 00:20, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Comment. Mediocre articles that anyone can write are not a big loss when it means people do not have to put aside what they would like to be doing and check every single fact in an article or edit by a person who makes up information again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and finding it some of it bogus again and again and again and again and again and again and he won't stop and he won't stop and he won't stop and he won't stop and he won't stop and he won't stop. Jallan 02:46, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fundamentally I agree with that principle, however, that concern isn't an issue here as the article in question just so happens to have already been checked. Deleting it now won't undo the work already done in checking it. Which is why I feel that if that justification for deleting an article can no longer be benefited from, we should return to a principle of article quality on its own merits. Comments in the Michael ban article say as much as well. ... And I'm sure there's a better place for me to be prattling on about this principle than here, and would appreciate if someone could help point me there. KeithTyler 04:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete - Michael is hard banned, and his work is to be removed on sight. The correct link to the Jimbo post is [1]. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:17, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Delete and rewrite —siroχo 02:24, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Hard-banned user, and for a reason. This article was revived and vetted by an admin, then still found to be innacurate. Vintage Michael. Until/Unless Jimbo says otherwise, this article should be deleted, as well as User:Mike Garcia, the known reincarnation of a hard-banned user. SWAdair | Talk 08:26, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure if this should be deleted or not, but I am quite sure that if it remains (or is deleted and then replaced) Michael should be given credit, even if he is a bad guy. -- SS 21:06, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: created by hard-banned user, plus it's a content-free article. I'd vote to delete it even if User:Michael weren't involved. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:35, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Michael has been unbanned, so the reason for this listing no longer applies. Guanaco 20:53, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have restored this page, as it was deleted out of process with even less than a two-thirds majority. Guanaco 21:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see 13 Delete votes vs. 5 Keep votes. Care to re-count? RickK 21:08, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I see 6 keep votes. I wouldn't have any serious objections to you relisting it as a new VfD candidate, however. Guanaco 21:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)