User talk:No-Fx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

See: User talk:Michael/ban

See also: Jimbo Wales on Michael hard ban

Please don't use misleading edit summaries when editing pages. Thank you. Martin

Please add to list of re-incarnations of banned user User:Michael, User:Weezer etc etc. ho hum. quercus robur 21:54 16 May 2003 (UTC)

have you looked at his edit history, he's claiming in his summaries that many of his edits are reverts attributed to other users...

21:46 16 May 2003 2003 in music (Reverted to last edit by MyRedDice. Stop editing this page now! Leave it alone forever!) 21:43 16 May 2003 2003 in music (Reverted to last edit by Notheruser) 21:42 16 May 2003 2003 in music (Reverted to last edit by SGBailey) 21:41 16 May 2003 2003 in music (Reverted to last edit by JohnOwens) 21:38 16 May 2003 2003 in music (Reverted to last edit by JeLuF)

quercus robur 22:08 16 May 2003 (UTC)

Soft banned for misleading edit summaries and for probably being a pseudonym of user:Michael who has been hard banned - see user talk:Michael/ban.

Evidence for being a pseudonym:

  • very similar interests
  • similar style of editing
  • similarly misleading edit summaries.

If you are not Michael, some guidance on how to clear your name is given at meta:bans and blocks. If you are Michael, please respect the terms of your hard ban.

Oh, it's definately Michael. Not only has he been posting his catchphrase "Zoe, you're fired!", he's moved his list of albums from his older user names. User:No-Fx/List of albums was moved from User:George Washington/List of albums; before that it had been at User:Weezer/List of albums. -- Infrogmation 16:07 21 May 2003 (UTC)

give me a link showing this & I'll leave it in. Otherwise I'll continue reverting it. Koyaanis Qatsi

I think if you're going to be accepted around here, you're going to have to start verifying what you put in, and try to make an effort to contribute bits that are verifiable and NPOV. Koyaanis Qatsi

I think I've uncovered Michael/Weezer/No-Fx/et al.'s true identity. -- John Owens

from user talk:Zoe

Why are you deleting User:No-Fx's (or Michael's) articles? they don't look like vandalism or junk entries. Anyway it looks stupid that this person spends so much time working on his pages with the knowledge that someone will probably delete them later (He also writes them with a nice wiki-layout, so they look pretty good, aesthetically) -- Rotem Dan 02:36 21 May 2003 (UTC)

From what you're saying, and from what i've seen, it seems that this user likes to "own" what he writes, and wouldn't compromise for that (rejecting the basic idea of a wiki and peer-review, e.g "you're fired"). Maybe what he needs is his private site where he can put whatever he wants. Maybe we'll give him his own namespace like Michael:Crass where he can put his own versions (or "forks") of articles? at least he wouldn't be spending his time for nothing, and the rest of the contributors won't need to babyseat what he does all the time. -- Rotem Dan 02:52 21 May 2003 (UTC)
I don't get the mass deletion though. Fine, he likes to own the pages, which I agree is not productive behaviour, but since there was useful information there, or at least information useful as a starting point, shouldn't they have been left, or reverted? I know I made an edit to one page No-Fx wrote, to bring it in line with what I thought (and think) to be the standard for album stubs. Plus, shouldn't the pages have been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and left for a week? I've already ranted more about this here so I won't repeat myself more. -- Jimregan 23:43 21 May 2003 (UTC)
RD, they are vandalism and they are junk entries. Michael delights in adding these things. He doesn't know half the stuff he writes about and just makes stuff up. (Either that or else he lies deliberately.) He refuses to discuss things on talk pages, and flat-out deletes things he doesn't like, including things on talk pages pointing out his errors. He is one seriously sick puppy, and one major pain in the arse. The trouble with Michael's entres is that he hides his lies/monomaniacal mistakes (whichever they are) in amongst stuff that is actually correct, and no-one except an expert in that particular field can tell the difference. In 5 minutes flat, Michael can enter enough stuff to a series of articles that it would take you or me hours to go through it all, checking sources, and disentangle the truth from the lies.
He has been banned from the 'pedia by the full official process and after many people went through hell bending over backwards trying to persade him to act reasonably. Look at the tortured edit history of Crass for just one example. (Go back 500 edits or so - this has been going on for months.) The only way to deal with Michael is to revert on sight. That is the policy: revert and/or delete everything Michael "contributes" because no-one has the time to comb through it trying to sort out the truth from the untruths, and if they do (for trust me this has been attempted time and time again) Michael and his Cast of 1000 Aliases mess it all right up again.
Agreed, Michaels entries are junk, even the 'correct' ones, as one has no way of knowing whether they are correct or not... As well as the blatant vandalism and abuse directed towards other users, he deliberately adds little inaccuracies (and it IS deliberate, he will persist even when the person who actually formed the band tells him that he's wrong, see Talk:Crass), for example changing the dates of when a band has formed or released a record, or subtley altering the titles of songs on an album. the Crass example just happen to be one that I know about. I know alot about Crass as they were a very important band in my life and I'm still friends with some of the ex-members, so I know when Micheal is posting something inaccuarate, however I've no idea whether the information he adds about other bands or records is true or not, but it's safer to assume that it is another falsehood.
To Zoe; (after all this IS your talk page!!!) I'm sorry that you have chosen to no longer be involved in reverting this persons damage though as it means the rest of us have to be even more vigilant! However I do understand how wearing it is... Hopefully after a suitable 'time out' period you will feel ready to once again enter the fray! Cheers quercus robur 09:00 23 May 2003 (UTC)
Zoe, you have my full and complete support for your actions. It is utterly impractical to deal with Michael in any other way, and I stand 100% behind you. Tannin 00:02 22 May 2003 (UTC)
(In response to the note on my talk page.)
On the contrary, thank you for doing so much to help keep Wikipedia nonsense free, Zoe.
Was it Thomas Jefferson who said it? - The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Or possibly, if I can mangle another great American thinker, that should be: The tree of knowledge must be watered, from time to time, with the blood of patriots and vandals. ... Well, anyway, watered with sweat of editors and the tears of vandals. Or something. Tannin

end from user talk:Zoe

If you're going to put those overformatted tables in for discographies, could you at least use the <tr> tags for each row, instead of just the </tr>? :p -- John Owens 21:44 22 May 2003 (UTC)


note: this was simultaneously discussed on the wiki-EN mailing lists: see [1], etc
As he's taken to posting obscenities on Zoe's user page, shouldn't the 'soft ban' now be hardened??? Not that he won't just mutate again... quercus robur 21:53 22 May 2003 (UTC)
I agree Slrubenstein
Can I second this suggestion quickly enough? -- John Owens 21:56 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Shouldn't this suggestion be at User talk:Michael/ban or User talk:Weezer/ban, though? Or maybe User talk:No-Fx/ban? -- John Owens 22:01 22 May 2003 (UTC)
Um, is he already banned? If so, does there need to be an extensive discussion to ban his new account? (sorry, Michael is before my time) Evercat 22:05 22 May 2003 (UTC)
I believe there is currently a softban on FX; are we sure that FX = Michael? Slrubenstein
Positive. See above. Anyway, he's still altered Zoe's user page to claim that her interests are 'oral sex', which I think warrants a ban anyway. quercus robur 22:10 22 May 2003 (UTC)
No doubt at all. -- John Owens 22:10 22 May 2003 (UTC)

To hell with the "soft" ban. Such behavior is so utterly outside the bounds of normal adult civilized behavior that I see no reason at all to give any warnings or any second chances. I've blocked No-Fx, and he will remain blocked until he either shows specific and convincing contrition, or until somebody else gives me a good reason to let him back. LDC

I think the soft ban worked pretty well. Most edits by this user were quickly reverted, a few were kept at the discretion of wikipedians, and we didn't waste any breath arguing over the subject, or having to re-explain the situation to newcomers. In particular, the soft ban meant that people could revert edits by Michael without checking them, substantially reducing the overhead. The only real problem was new articles, which can't be reverted. I'll go list them all on VfD, if no-one beats me to it. Martin
Is it just me, or has LDC's block of the No-Fx account proven completely ineffective in either punishing this guy for his "uncivilised" behaviour, or in preventing him from editing wikipedia? In fact, it seems counter-productive because we've lost the accountability of having Michael's edits associated with a single account. Seems to me that we were better off before... Martin
I agree. I made the same argument against blocking User:Michael in the first place, for all the good it did me... --Camembert
I take your point but still feel that it is important to take a principled stand against against the raw misogyny he has directed against Zoe. This is the behaviour that is truly beyond the pale and a clear message needs to be sent by the wiki community that we are prepared to be be supportive of each other against this sort of personal abuse. In this respect the banning of NOFX is symbolic of this co-support, even if we do know that he will just resurface again in a few days under another identity. quercus robur 08:15 26 May 2003 (UTC)
Your use of the future tense is slightly misleading - he resurfaced and edited from an IP address mere hours after the blocking of his account. I think there are better ways to show one's distaste for vandalism and support for Zoe than this block. Martin
However he also posts anonymously even when he is using a username I've noticed. quercus robur 19:31 26 May 2003 (UTC)
That's true, but it was at least possible to catch some of his edits (maybe even most of them) by checking under his login name. I'm all for taking a principled stand, but I think we can do that just as well by reverting his stuff as we can by blocking him (we have to revert in any case when he comes back under a different name). But it's not such a big deal - as I say, we've got a lot of reverting to do either way :) --Camembert

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/-/User_talk%7ENo-Fx_7e0c.html"