Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Account suspensions

(Redirected from Wikipedia:Policy enforcement notifications)
"WP:Policy enforcement" redirects here. Not to be confused with WP:Enforcement policies.

Note: Some discussion about account suspensions is done at WP:ANI. If you can't find specific information here, take a peek there too.


Status:     unlocked This account suspension log serves as an open (publicly visible) place where admins can record actions relating to policy enforcement, without having to resort to e-mail, instant messaging, and other closed (private) channels.


Current

edit

User:Stephan KŒNIG

edit

This user seems to believe that Wikipedia talk pages are his own personal blog and that Wikipedia is also a site to store personal images. For the past several months this user has continually posted blog-like, irrelevant and often incomprehensible messages to Talk:Bill Haley and other pages, and apparently has also exhibited his behavior on the French Wikipedia. He has been warned numerous times by myself and other admins to post constructive material, but appears to not understand. He is also a chronic uploader of images (mostly relating to Bill Haley) which he seems uninclined to add to articles (and I've lost count of how many times a bot has notified him an image is lacking a licence tag). Most recently (within the past 2 weeks) this user has begun using rotating, anonymous IP addresses (such as User:81.245.68.169 to post his ramblings - which he signs, by the way so identification is easy - and now seems to prefer doing this rather than using his User Name. Suffice it to say he has tried a lot of patience.

Examination of his discussion page will require going into deleted files as he deleted all warnings, etc. on his talk page around the time he decided to go anonymous.

I have placed a 24-hour block on his latest IP address (81.245.68.169) though I expect that not to do much good. I have also blocked his user name for 1 week. I have informed him that I will treat him as a vandal if his behavior continues. Technically he hasn't performed explicit vandalism, but I would say he is in violation of WP:DISRUPT. 23skidoo 02:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Followup. Upon the expiry of his one-week block, this user proceeded to vandalise the Bill Haley article -- the first time he has been seen doing this (explicitly, he blanked parts of the article and inserted a "F*ck ya" message. I have suspended his account for one month and will be observing closely to see if he starts sock-puppeting using anonymous IP addresses. If he does, I will upgrade his account suspension to indefinite. 23skidoo 20:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally you added one of my two photos taken in Liege in May 1974. In Belgium the image is under license to Creative Commons

Attribution noncommercial Share Alike/Partage à l'Identique 2.0 Belgium. Stephan KŒNIG...

User:Jamaissur

edit

Jamaissur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Twenty four hour block for disruption. User was warned several times to refrain from personal attacks, and incivil and sarcastic edit summaries. El_C 11:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty one hour block for continuing to employ incivil edit summaries. User was again advised to aim toward dispassionate edit summaries. El_C 12:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forty eight hour block for continuing with (whether proclaimed as "heartfelt" & otherwise) sarcastic, mocking innunedo (was warned of this). El_C 10:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 4 days for what appears increasingly to be an harrasment campaign against Jews. User will have one more chance to demonstrate his/her aims here are not designed to achieve antisemitic propagandist ends. Otherwise, an indefinite block appears imminent. El_C 03:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 8 days since disruptive edits (per above focus ) continue. Since there was a lengthy pause in editing, refraining from indefinite block at ths time, but as mentioned, it does appear imminent, as the user's misconduct largely follows the pattern, albeit slightly more understated. El_C 23:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Known_Wikipedian

edit

Known_Wikipedian (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)

The persistent Combat ration vandal. Creating an account now to get around sprotect of the article. Comes from an obviously small dynamic pool in the 141.154 range. See some of the previous vandalisms from the following list, among others:

Wikibofh(talk) 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kingjeff

edit

Kingjeff has been disrupting WikiProject Football on an almost daily basis for some time. After a nomination of his failed to pick up any votes on the football article improvement drive, he immediately renominated it and told lies about there being a discussion that showed that it was going to pick up more votes. Not an enormous problem, so the people at WPF let the renomination stay. It still didn't do well so he used a sockpuppet (User:Hargreavesfan) to vote for it. He then nominated articles with ridiculous frequency, using his sockpuppet to vote for some of them. Other sockpuppets appeared at the same time (this had not happened before on this project) although there isn't proof that they're directly linked to Kingjeff.

He found an article I'd been working on and split it up into sub-articles that would have been unlikely to survive an AFD (breaking the harassment guidelines), was rude to User:Johan Elisson and listed him on AN/I when he responded, went an admin outside the project to ask him to "deal with" Elisson (showing the admin his side of the story only) and generally tried to deal with criticism by going to people outside the project and acting as if the other users were bullying him (nobody was).

The block might seem long, but this is his fourth block since December and his last one was for a week for harassment, so I don't think a shorter one would serve any real purpose. CTOAGN (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roller2k, et al.

edit

Roller2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tyrer_UK1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

CharlesWes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Judi20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Joshuabell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Contributions limited to uploading a highly offensive picture of Muhammad and adding it to the article. El_C 07:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tim handscomb

edit

Tim handscomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Suspected stalking of Carly Kirkwood; few if any useful edits. Blocked indefinitely. El_C 01:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:JackSarfatti

edit

JackSarfatti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has returned to making legal threats. [1]. I have blocked his account pending withdrawal or resolution of the threats. -Willmcw 00:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joshuaschroeder

edit

Joshuaschroeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

  • 18:47, 22 November 2005, Ed Poor blocked Joshuaschroeder (expires 18:47, 23 November 2005) (contribs) (Unblock) (disruption: redirects and page moves with no discernable reason)
    • I have tried many times to discover why Joshua continues to use the move function and/or redirect keyword to eliminate information relating to the topic of evolution. His explanations do not wash, and his actions are tantamount to censorship.
    • He appears determined to keep out of Wikipedia any information related to POVs which he disagrees with: a kind of POV-pushing in reverse. Uncle Ed 18:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked him as Ed blocking him after being personally involved in disputes with him is improper. You should have asked for assistance from an outside admin.

First you block Dunc yesterday, now JS. Should I be worried too? Because you seem to have lost it and are on a blocking rampage against anyone who's opposed you on creationism-related article. FeloniousMonk 19:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're over-generalizing - or is it a guilty conscience? ;-)
Believe me, I check with other admins / MedCom members - and have even asked arbcom members about this. I can show you the IRC logs. Uncle Ed 02:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do so. Thank you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see Joshuaschroeder's contribs any longer; is this normal for a User page deletion? If so I find it insulting to a contributor; resigned or not. - RoyBoy 800 08:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He requested a name-change to ScienceApologist so all his contributions now appear under that name. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised that Joshua received a 24-hour ban. His point of view was the same in a number of other contentious articles, such as Talk:Redshift and Talk:Plasma_cosmology where he removed several items of information, despite peer-reviewed references and expert opinion. His editing of another article Electric Universe Book was frankly, a hatchet job. --Iantresman 10:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nor am I surprised Joshua tried to keep you in check. I find the following from Talk:Redshift a good executive summary: "Both Joshua Schroeder and Ian Tresman are correct." After reading the entire thing, and getting to the bottom and seeing: "However, do you mean the definition of redshift on the main article page?" after an insane amount of back and forth I'm not exactly impressed by you either. Essentially he removed things from articles that were best put in other minority view articles (meaning he wasn't simply removing/deleting things); and maybe he did do a hatchet job on the Electric Universe, but it is clear to me he was a knowledgable contributor. - RoyBoy 800 18:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he has left Wikipedia, having branded himself an "apologist". I regard this as an admission that he has been promoting a POV - probably that science is right about evolution. When he abandons his desire to "keep all other POVs in check" and embraces this web site's policy of including controversial POVs in relevant articles, perhaps he will return. He's not under a ban; he left of his own accord. Uncle Ed 14:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate response to that would be to contravene most aspects of WP:Civility. Suffice it to say I disagree with your "regard" to his admission. For example I would tweak "keep all other POVs in check" to keep minority views as minority views in primary articles, and relegate them – where appropriate – to their own articles. - RoyBoy 800 18:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's more at user talk:ScienceApologist [2]. Btw, you've mispelled Josh's surname. — Dunc|☺ 18:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Duncharris

edit

Duncharris (talk · contribs · block log)

  1. 15:20, 21 November 2005 Ed Poor blocked "User:Duncharris" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attack: "f--- off" in edit comment)
  2. 15:36, 21 November 2005 Duncharris unblocked User:Duncharris (blocked by POV pushing Moonie Ed Poor because he doesn't like me)
  3. 15:38, 21 November 2005 Duncharris unblocked User:Duncharris (grrr)
  4. 16:37, 21 November 2005 Asbestos blocked "User:Duncharris" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Re-blocking after unblocking himself)
  5. 17:27, 21 November 2005 Snowspinner unblocked User:Duncharris (Invalid initial block)
  6. 21:55, 21 November 2005 Karmafist blocked "User:Duncharris" with an expiry time of 6 hours (self-unblock and incivility)
  7. 22:18, 21 November 2005 Karmafist unblocked User:Duncharris (Talk Page seems like it was not bad faith)
  8. 19:20, 29 November 2005, Ed Poor blocked Duncharris (expires 19:20, 30 November 2005) (contribs) (Unblock) (disruption: said his redirect was "per suggestion" which was not actually made - dishonesty)

User:65.117.144.200

edit

65.117.144.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - This IP has a two year history on Wikipedia, and apart from creating some deficient stubs 18 months ago, has not had a single legitimate edit. He's been warned, blocked for 24 hours, etc. We shouldn't have to clean up after children like this. I've blocked it for three months. --Golbez 20:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC) User:I Hate My Ex![reply]

Wikipedia:Account suspensions/Joseph Allen Wood

Siegheilneocon

edit

I blocked Siegheilneocon (talk · contribs · block log) in mid October, because the account name is unnecessarily inflammatory IMO. And just to make it clear, it's the "Sieg heil" portion I'm objecting to, regardless of the specific political agenda. This user has recently become active again (editing their own talk page) and I've also received an email asking why the account was blocked (though I feel the block summary explained that). The question is, what next? I see no reason to unblock. If the general consensus is for the account to stay blocked, I would even suggest to blank and protect the user page and user talk page. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alt37

edit

Alt37 (talk · contribs) has acted like a sock puppet of Timewarp (talk · contribs)- and his main activity has been to revert John Lott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and has made no useful contributions. The editor is suspected of being the subject, a notorious sock puppeteer (See Mary Rosh). I have blocked Alt37 indefinitely as a sock puppet. -Willmcw 08:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

68.168.82.226

edit

I have blocked User:68.168.82.226 for repeated vandalism and legal threats. Wikibofh 22:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia:Account suspensions/Jeff Merkey[reply]

User:Yeltensic42.618

edit

Yeltensic42.618 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for pagemove vandalism. I'm waiting to hear back from him and the user who was the target of the vandalism before deciding whether to unblock. -- Curps 21:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the target of the pagemove vandalism Evil Therapist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked indefinitely for vandalism and threatening more, and this was slightly immature retaliation, so I will let the block on Yeltensic42.618 expire in about 18 hours (instead of indefinite), unless some other admin (Geogre?) sees fit to apply a different block. -- Curps 00:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zephram_Stark (talk · contribs)

edit
  • The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC), UninvitedCompany blocked for 3 days[reply]
  • 15:24, 30 September 2005 Carbonite blocked "User:Zephram Stark" with an expiry time of 24 hours (disruption and personal attacks (part of an ongoing pattern, but specifically on Talk:Terrorism))
  • 19:59, September 5, 2005 Ed Poor blocked "User:Zephram Stark" with an expiry time of 24 hours (legal threats)
  • 22:24, September 4, 2005 Ed Poor blocked "User:Zephram Stark" with an expiry time of 8 hours (personal attacks)


Discussion

edit

I believe that continued use [3][4] of anti-semetic language after being warned is wholly inexcusable and is destructive to the overall sense of community. Accordingly, I have blocked this user for 3 days so that he may contemplate what he has done. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:Fenian Swine.

edit

16:20, September 6, 2005, FreplySpang blocked Fenian Swine. (infinite) (contribs) (unblock) (impersonation of User:Fenian Swine)

User:165.230.149.152

edit

Look up the user history of the IP User:165.230.149.152 - and you'd see that there was no repeat cartoon blanking vandalism on the Mohammed controversy from that IP. Therefore, the rationale for blocking that server doesn't exist. 165.230.149.154 05:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent

edit

User:Cristalsys

edit

User:Netoholic

edit

I've blocked Netoholic (talk · contribs) for 24 hours after he repeatedly violated the ArbCom ban from editing Wikipedia and Template namespace pages and had been warned. --fvw* 08:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


User:62.171.198.0

edit
  • 11:52, 19 September 2005 JIP blocked "User:62.171.198.0/24" with an expiry time of 1 hour (blocking entire range temporarily, vandalism from multiple IPs)

User:JS Jr

edit

JS_Jr (talk · contribs · block log)

I've permablocked this account because it exists for no other purpose than to revert and edit war on the Joe Scarborough article and is obviously a sockpuppet. If someone thinks this block is inappropriate I have no objection to them removing it. Gamaliel 23:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wyss

edit
  • 02:40, September 4, 2005, Ed Poor blocked Wyss (talk · contribs · block log) (expires 02:55, September 4, 2005) (contribs) (unblock) (WP:NPA)

User:Witkacy

edit

Witkacy (talk · contribs · block log)

  1. 15:29, September 3, 2005 TenOfAllTrades blocked "User:Witkacy" with an expiry time of 23 hours (Disruption of Wikipedia: Edit war over Gdansk/Danzig in Georg Forster)
  2. 15:28, September 3, 2005 TenOfAllTrades unblocked User:Witkacy (Remove block by potentially involved admin, will replace with my own)
  3. 14:17, September 3, 2005 Chris 73 blocked "User:Witkacy" with an expiry time of 24 hours (disrupting Wikipedia against community consensus, see user talk page.)

Chris 73 blocked Witkacy for 24 hours for repeatedly removing the German names of cities from the article Georg Forster (Diff 1, Diff 2). The article had names in Polish and German forms, apparently in accordance with the Gdansk decision. Since Chris73 was one of the editors who reverted Witkacy (Diff), Witkacy felt that the block was an inappropriate abuse of admin powers.

I unblocked and reblocked Witkacy for 23 hours as a (hopefully) neutral third party to the dispute. The last thing we need is someone restarting the Gdansk/Danzig forest fire. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't question blocking Witkacy for disruption of Wikipedia, I doubt that a result of voting on a particular article's talk page (Talk:Gdansk/Vote) can influence other names in other articles, where the voting did not take place, unless it's an official wikipedia policy. While I understand that such voting is not a proper way to establish a policy, I would suggest that its outcome is either made into one, or considered binding only for the relevant article, where the voting took place. Otherwise it's going to be a source of constant irritation and disruptions, as I've seen over the last few days. --Lysy (talk) 10:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the vote was announced on many article talk pages, user talk pages, forums, and the signpost, trying to reach a as wide audience as possible. The outcome with about 100 individual votes is probably more than what we have with the votes for many official policies. Also, I think an official policy is the wrong thing to do if it applies only to a small fraction of pages in Wikipedia. -- Chris 73 Talk 21:41, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
OK, let's try to make it into official policy then, as I suggested in another discussion already. So far, the way of establishing an "ersatz policy" through a back door seems highly questionable, regardless of whether it was supported by 51% or 65% of those involved. I don't want to look like a formalist, but I think some level of consistency would be a good thing. The sooner make it into an official policy, the more unnecessary future disputes will be avoided. --Lysy (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This really has nothing to do with the purpose of this page, but for what it's worth, I agree with Lysy. The other issues are more pertinent and pressing, but making something an actual official policy (I know, I know, instruction creep and all that, but...) wrt the naming of Danzig/Gdańsk would prevent the problem from arising in the future, and could very well serve as a model for resolving potential future similar problem areas. Tomer TALK 02:54, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

User:68.66.96.32

edit

68.66.96.32 (talk · contribs · block log)

See: Diffs at User talk:SlimVirgin, User_talk:68.66.96.32

covered by the vandalism cluase.Geni 11:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll use the correct term next time. FeloniousMonk 16:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RN

edit

RN (talk · contribs · block log)

  • 00:53, September 1, 2005 Fvw unblocked User:RN (don't block in your own edit war)
  • 00:15, September 1, 2005 Kim Bruning blocked "User:RN" with an expiry time of 24 hours (violation of WP:NOT, WP:POINT.)

See: User_talk:Kim_Bruning/Archive 3#Blocking , RN agreed with the summary I gave in reply to fvw. Kim Bruning 01:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Others

edit

I sterbinski

edit

I_sterbinski (talk · contribs · block log)

  • 01:47, August 28, 2005 Zscout370 blocked "User:I sterbinski" with an expiry time of 48 hours (spamming dispite many warnings)
  • 02:09, August 6, 2005 SlimVirgin blocked "User:I sterbinski" with an expiry time of 3 hours (new user, unexplained deletion of material, threatening edit summaries)

Expired

edit

Paul Klenk

edit

05:36, August 25, 2005 Ryan Delaney blocked Paul_Klenk (talk · contribs · block log) with an expiry time of 12 hours (Personal attacks)

Lapsed Pacifist

edit

Lapsed_Pacifist (talk · contribs · block log)

  • 21:52, August 31, 2005 Jtdirl blocked "User:Lapsed Pacifist" with an expiry time of 60 hours (repeat doctoring of a growing range of articles to insert POVs despite numerous appeals from users to stop. (At least 3rd block at this stage, hence 60 hours))
  • 12:12, August 28, 2005 Talrias blocked "User:Lapsed Pacifist" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Inserting POV material into various articles (Eamon de Valera, Sinn Féin, and others); revert-warring over inclusion of this material.)
  • 02:39, July 28, 2005 Jtdirl blocked "User:Lapsed Pacifist" with an expiry time of 3 days (User is engaged in edit wars all over the place, has already been blocked for breaking the 3RR rule and been warned he would be blocked if he continued as before.)
  • 06:36, July 25, 2005 Jtdirl blocked "User:Lapsed Pacifist" with an expiry time of 24 hours (multiple breach of 3RR rule on articles)
  • 01:06, July 19, 2005 Thryduulf blocked "User:Lapsed Pacifist" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on The Sword of the Prophet. Has been warned at least once.)

User:Boothy443

edit

I blocked Boothy443 for having a very offensive link on one of his user pages. This caused me a fair amount of embarassment as I clicked on it in a work environment. I have no idea what the policy is, so I only blocked him for 17 seconds. But I think admins should hold themselves to a high standard of professionalism.--Jimbo Wales 19:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"A professional works to receive payment for an activity." Boothy443 isn't acting appropriate for his pay grade of nuthin' per hour? 17 seconds? This is dry humor, right? 4.250.168.27 18:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're curious about what the link is, it's Last Measure. --SPUI (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, wait a bit... Admin? This is the second person I've seen claiming Boothy443 is an admin, and yet he's not on WP:LA. What's going on? --cesarb 23:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't. Compare [5] to e.g. [6]. Pakaran 18:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason not to block him for a month or so? He's been trolling and disrupting Wikipedia for a long time now. — Dan | Talk 06:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 06:40, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Object. Take him to the ArbCom if you believe he's such a problem. As far as I know he does a lot of good work; I remember seeing him doing RC patrol quite a bit. Everyking 07:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: agree with Everyking's comments. --tomf688<TALK> 16:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I have no objection, but from what Jimbo said on User talk:Boothy443 today, it sounds like he's at risk of the wrath of Jimbo. Anyway, it is really really really uncool to use edit summaries to insult Jimbo.
< jwales> rv/vabdalism by the hippocrate cult of Jimmy Wales
--Phroziac (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom would be fine. I've heard his name pop up more than one time in the past, so maybe ArbCom would be able to handle this appropriately. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 20:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Er, Wikipedia is not censored. If you are browsing Wikipedia at work, aren't you accepting this kind of risk? --Ryan Delaney talk 23:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Illinoisian (talk · contribs)

edit

03:28, 19 August 2005 User:Curps blocked "User:Illinoisian" with an expiry time of 1 hour (mild but persistent vandalism) Pretty much every edit by this user has been a hoax (Republic of Illinois) or mild vandalism; the few edit which weren't clearcut vandalism all got reverted anyway. He says he's just trying to inject a bit of humor. I told him to take a break and blocked him for an hour, but perhaps a longer block is in order. -- Curps 04:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs · block log)

edit

23:19, August 16, 2005, user:BaronLarf blocked 67.182.157.6 for 24 hours for continuing to violate the 3RR on Epistemology, among other pages. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix for his past history.

TVI

edit
  • 12:27, August 1, 2005, Ed Poor blocked The_Village_Idiot (talk · contribs · block log) (expires 12:27, August 8, 2005) (abusive language, despite familiarity with WP policy)
    I didn't bother to warn him, it's obviously an experienced user's sockpuppet account.

Gavin, admitted sockpuppet of Gabrielsimon

edit

user:JLoW

edit
  • 15:26, July 7, 2005, Ed Poor blocked JLoW (talk · contribs · block log) (expires 15:26, August 7, 2005) (contribs) (unblock) (impersonation, vandalism)
  • "don't block me, or I will do more vandalism" [7]

User:Pukachu, suspected by DreamGuy of sockpuppetry

edit
  • 16:35, August 9, 2005 Ed Poor unblocked User:Pukachu (not warned sufficient number of times)
  • 14:38, August 9, 2005 Ed Poor blocked "User:Pukachu" with an expiry time of 24 hours (using a derogatory word)
  • 04:51, August 9, 2005 Ed Poor unblocked User:Pukachu (Pukachu will send slimvirgin a message apologizing)
  • 04:50, August 9, 2005 Ed Poor unblocked User:Pukachu (promised to be good)
  • 03:11, August 9, 2005 SlimVirgin blocked "User:Pukachu" with an expiry time of 12 hours (disruption, personal attacks)

User:Rainbowwarrior1977

edit

Thodin

edit
  • 21:27, July 19, 2005, Ed Poor blocked Thodin (talk · contribs · block log) - disruption, violent language (expires 21:27, July 26, 2005)[8]
    1. 05:15, July 14, 2005 Willmcw blocked "User:Thodin" with an expiry time of 36 hours (previously warned and blocked by Rhobite,)

user:Rickyboy

edit
  • 09:14, July 18, 2005, user:Cyrius blocked Rickyboy (talk · contribs · block log) (expires indefinite) (vandalism via copyright infringement, no other edits of substance)
  • I got two emails from Rickyboy about this. Uncle Ed 20:27, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • He made 90 edits since July 10th. Uncle Ed 20:29, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Since when does copyviol equal vandalism serious enough to warrant an indefinite ban? Can Cyrius elaborate on the reasons why Rickboy was blocked? --khaosworks 22:41, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, why not just a week? Uncle Ed 00:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • He uploaded copyrighted materials without permission. He then lied about the source of the material, claiming to have created it himself. When I re-questioned him about the (at the time) only image that was definitely sourced to World Book Online, he proceeded to re-add the image while blanking a large portion of the article. The account has engaged in almost no other activity besides uploading the images and adding them to articles. We permanently block accounts that are used solely for vandalism. This is vandalism of the "get Wikipedia sued by a competitor" kind. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems to me that sanction is required, but a perma-block on a (seemingly) new user - he's only been around for a week, right? - who may need to be educated instead of beaten down seems a mite disproportionate. How about a week, as Ed suggested, and see if he gets the hint? --khaosworks 04:23, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
          • He's not new. He had previously been using the account Richardr443 and also uses the IP address 24.9.112.127. There's some slight overlap in the usage related to the article Victoria (waterlily) that points at them all being the same, and that account has also uploaded suspiciously World Bookian images. The account's first non-deleted edits came at the end of January, when he uploaded this image, which conveniently said where it was copied from without permission. His next edits added a few more unsourced images, and then he went on a spree of vandalizing with the {{wikify}} tag, as incredible as that sounds. He also repeatedly recreated Letter writing after VfD said to transwiki the article, resulting in its protection as a deleted page. This comment on his talk page sums up why I don't think he can be trusted at all in any reasonably short time frame: "Besides, even if they were violations of copyright law, they would still be justified because people shouldn't have to pay to learn things". He's had almost half a year to learn what's legally acceptable and what's not. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good to me. If he wants to straighten out, he'll let us know on his user talk page. Uncle Ed 14:25, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • He promised to be good, I unblocked him, then he cleaned up his user page July 26 and did nothing else since. Uncle Ed 16:35, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Update: This user has since become known as Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His dozens of sock accounts are described at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime. His style hasn't changed: first denying the violation, then saying it doesn't matter, then promising to be good. -Will Beback 06:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

user:Crosstar

edit
  • 20:41 and 20:46, user:Willmcw then user:Inter blocked Crosstar (talk · contribs · block log) with an expiry time of 24 hours for (3RR, after warning, legal threat) and (repeated blanking, has been warned) respectively. (expires 20:46, July 17, 2005)
  • Crosstar (talk · contribs · block log) created a number of (vanity) articles about Richard Barrett, the Nationalist Movement, and related topics. After mild editing by other contributors, Crosstar decided that "the project is too biased to be a real encyclopedia", and began blanking all of his contributions. After reverts by me and another editor, his edit summaries said "Any further listing and violation of the copyrights and trademarks of the principals will be treated accordingly." I warned him about legal threats, but it isn't clear that he's ever found his talk page. -Willmcw 21:06, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've seen this pattern before. A newbie comes in, thinking this is the world's largest blog. He then tries to publicize something or someone. Oops, it has to be neutral and accurate! Okay, I'm out of here, and I'm taking my bat and ball with me. What do you mean, "donated"?
    • Maybe we should make new users read and sign a form, acknowledging that all text is donated - un-take-aback-ably (is that a word?). Uncle Ed 21:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


User:Gabrielsimon

edit
User had reverted Mythology four times within 24 hours, thus violating the 3RR rule. User had previously beem warned on his talk page and via edit summaries by other users who reverted his changes to the above article.

user:FuelWagon

edit
  • FuelWagon (talk · contribs · block log) - Harassment of User:SlimVirgin and Wikipedia:gaming the system
  • Representing her attempts to straighten out one article as "personal attacks" and "reckless editing" Uncle Ed 03:49, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Told him to drop the rfc and to steer clear of Slim. Uncle Ed 04:12, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nothing wrong with constructive talk page remarks to her, though. Uncle Ed 12:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • He erased a suggestion / request I made (wait for the diff, I think it was important). Uncle Ed 12:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Told him at RFC talk to confine himself to constructive contributions, or to leave the project. Uncle Ed 12:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  1. Centauri (talk · contribs) - disruption, POV pushing, refusal to communicate - Uncle Ed 21:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:FuelWagon

edit
  • 21:02, July 12, 2005, Ed Poor blocked FuelWagon (talk · contribs · block log) (expires 13:02, July 14, 2005) (unrepentant personal attacks)
    1. "I mounted a personal attack by calling you an explitive, but I won't apologize . . ." [9]
    2. I made sure his user talk page was available to him during the block, but he persisted with hurtful personal remarks, so I also blocked that page and moved offending text to a subpage. Uncle Ed 20:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Unblocked his IP (that pound-sign thing?) Uncle Ed 14:18, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • To do: double-check UTC time of expiration & unlock user talk page. Uncle Ed 14:18, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Weazel (talk · contribs) and Dr. Wеаzеl (talk · contribs)

edit
- Pair of accounts acting in tandem. I blocked them for 24 hours for vandalism, but I'm worried I might have been too lenient. --cesarb 9 July 2005 11:07 (UTC)

Gabrielsimon

edit

Cognition

edit

Note: This is also reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cognition_(II)

I've blocked Cognition (talk · contribs · block log) for 24 hours for disruption, and for violations of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:POINT, and WP:No personal attacks. S/he's a LaRouche-movement activist or supporter, and since opening the account on June 29 has made mostly disruptive or inflammatory edits (158 posts, 76 to articles), with lots of WP:POINT and attempts to insert LaRouche POV. His user page is a clear example of LaRouche thinking: Aristotle is "possibly the greatest evil in distant times," John Locke "depraved," Adam Smith "systematically insane," Kant "pathological liar," Hitler "put into power by London bankers," Bertrand Russell an "evil" advocate of "genocide," and "Lunatic Isaac Newton."

Background for those not familiar with the LaRouche situation in Wikipedia: there have already been two arbcom cases that ruled LaRouche supporters must not use Wikipedia to promote LaRouche, and may not insert material originating with the LaRouche movement unless the articles are closely related to LaRouche. The arbcom has ruled that material published by the LaRouche movement amounts to original research.

Some of the disruptive edits:

  • Using an image to insert a POV: his first edit was to remove the Immanuel Kant picture and replace it with one that made Kant look ugly. [10] Kant's a LaRouche bogeyman and Cognition's user page calls Kant an "avowedly pathological liar."
  • Bad-faith objections to FACs: he has lodged objections against two featured-article candidates Bertrand Russell [11] and Carl Friedrich Gauss, [12] because LaRouche POV was not included in them. In the case of Bertrand Russell, he objected because the article didn't make clear that Russell was "one of the worst monsters in recent history."
  • Bad-faith VfD nomination: he nominated Chip Berlet for a VfD. Berlet is an investigative journalist who has written about the LaRouche movement. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chip Berlet
  • He's inserted LaRouche POV into Dennis King, another journalist who has written about LaRouche, including an anonymous Amazon review that said King had "no intellect" and "lesser morals." [13]
  • Abusive edit summaries e.g. "removing outright lies by barbarian POV-pushers." [14]
  • Deletion of links that contradict LaRouche POV. [15]
  • Deletion of posts on his user page warning him about the LaRouche arbcom rulings and 3RR, with the words "remove harassment."
  • Personal attacks: He uploaded a rabid dog image and awarded the "rabid dog beast-man barnstar" to User:SlimVirgin and User:Willmcw with the words: "For working around the clock to defend fascism and synarchism." [16] [17]

Cognition shows too much knowledge of WP to be a new user (his first edit was to upload an image and tag it as fair use), though I'm not convinced she's User:Herschelkrustofsky, who's banned from editing LaRouche articles, because he's a little too manic for HK, and HK could spell, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were connected. SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 10:26 (UTC)

  • Concur with the block; reached the same opinion independently Uncle Ed July 5, 2005 18:47 (UTC)
    1. Deletion of the entire quotation section from Milton Friedman with the Edit Summary "not the place to sell his quack ideas" [18]
Thanks, Ed. Cognition's heading for another block. Has twice inserted into Bertrand Russell that he was a Nazi; gave User:Herschelkrustofsky (a banned LaRouchie, who Cognition may even be a reincarnation of) a barnstar; tried to restore a page on Adam Carr, which had been directed to his user page, because Adam previously opposed the LaRouchies, and also because the LaRouche movement doesn't like Adam's employer. I currently have five or six pages protected because of the POV pushing, which begins to look like vandalism in the case of calling Russell a Nazi. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 19:06 (UTC)
I've blocked Cognition for 3 days. He's using Wikipedia to push his own POV, as if it were his own personal blog. His user page calls Queen Elizabeth a dope pusher; he removed representative quotes from the Milton Friedman page. I fail to see any encyclopedic purpose in his wiki edits. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 01:42 (UTC)

StarTrekkie

edit

User engaged in mostly unconstructive or false edits, which I mostly reverted. The user received two notes, one from me and one from another editor. He tried to restore the changes and I reverted them again. Then he started going through my contributions list and reverted my contributions to 41 articles before I blocked him for 24 hours. I left a note explaining the block. Another editor also added a note about the problems with the user's edits. The editor apparently subsequently logged on with another IP and left this message on an editor's talk page, attacking my conduct. [19] This was my first block, and it involved me, so I am posting the info here for review by other admins. Cheers, -Willmcw July 6, 2005 21:46 (UTC)

152.163.101.13

edit

User:152.163.101.13 - I blocked for 15 minutes for a spate of vandalism (6 times in 8 minutes) on User:SqueakBox's talk page. Just trying to slow him/her down a little. Guettarda 00:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

69.233.169.62

edit

Expired: 69.233.169.62 - blocked 8 hours for scary rhetoric: "The terrorist is back" [20]

  • 19:36, Jun 23, 2005, Ed Poor blocked 69.233.169.62 (expires 03:36, Jun 24, 2005) (contribs) (unblock) (scary comments - see WP:PE)
  • Several other IP's on same page & my talk page - not worth writing about. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

TaiwanBot

edit

TaiwanBot - unregistered bot, making errors [21]

  • blocked for 2 hours, that ought to give us enough time to figure out what's going on. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • 20:25, Jun 23, 2005 Ed Poor blocked "User:TaiwanBot" with an expiry time of 2 hours (unregistered bot)

CltFn

edit

CltFn (three hours; expires 04:06, Jun 23, 2005) - unwillingness to follow our policies; justifying biased writing by accusing an admin of biased writing: "Have I inserted edits that are influenced by my POV ,perhaps , haven't you?? " [22].

Dropped

edit

user:FuelWagon

edit
  • FuelWagon (talk · contribs · block log) - Harassment of User:SlimVirgin and Wikipedia:gaming the system
  • Representing her attempts to straighten out one article as "personal attacks" and "reckless editing" Uncle Ed 03:49, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Told him to drop the rfc and to steer clear of Slim. Uncle Ed 04:12, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nothing wrong with constructive talk page remarks to her, though. Uncle Ed 12:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • He erased a suggestion / request I made (wait for the diff, I think it was important). Uncle Ed 12:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Told him at RFC talk to confine himself to constructive contributions, or to leave the project. Uncle Ed 12:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  1. Centauri (talk · contribs) - disruption, POV pushing, refusal to communicate - Uncle Ed 21:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

No expiration date

edit

User:Hargreavesfan

edit

Forgot to add this earlier.

Confirmed sockpuppet of User:Kingjeff,[23] used on many votes. CTOAGN (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TreyHolland and TreyHollandIsBack

edit

Sock puppets TreyHolland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TreyHollandIsBack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked permanently after vandalising the Spanish language article. Mariano(t/c) 16:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:JarlaxleArtemis

edit

Now unbanned. Ral315 (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

02:34, September 8, 2005, Willmcw blocked JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs) (expires 02:34, September 15, 2005) (violating ArbCom order, personal attacks) -I blocked this user for repeatedly violating the ArbCom temporary injunction for the fifth (?) time. [24][25][26] Also, he has been posting abuse to a user on every Wiki that he can access.[27] -Willmcw 04:56, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

-Ril-

edit
  • 03:34, August 18, 2005 UninvitedCompany blocked "User:-Ril-" with an expiry time of indefinite (See User talk:-Ril-/ban; in summary, many problems, most recently vandalism of a project page with sexually explicit photographs)
  • 11:36, August 17, 2005 Violetriga blocked "User:-Ril-" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Vandalism, WP:POINT and edit warring)
  • 21:32, August 11, 2005 Michael Snow blocked "User:-Ril-" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of Wikipedia:three-revert rule on George W. Bush)
  • 13:10, August 7, 2005 UninvitedCompany blocked "User:-Ril-" with an expiry time of 60 hours (reset block time to 72 hours from initial block as originally intended; see User_talk:-Ril- for details of the 3RR violation that led to this)

[snip]

  • 20:18, 6 August 2005 UninvitedCompany blocked -Ril- (talk · contribs · block log) with an expiry time of 72 hours (3RR The Bible and history. Sadly, my watch is 20 minutes fast so your 4th revert is still within a 24 hour period according to it. See User talk:-Ril- for a more serious discussion of gaming the 3RR system.)

Ril has long been carrying out revert wars on several Bible-related topics. Sie is protesting my block based on the fact that the reverts were 21 minutes outside the 24 hour window. I am unimpressed by this technicality. I blocked for 72 hours rather than 24 due to the fact that the user has been the subject of two other 3RR blocks in the last month. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppi

edit

User:Genocide2st

edit
  • 09:55, July 25, 2005 Dmcdevit blocked Genocide2st (talk · contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{UsernameBlock}})
    • I'm a new admin and I just blocked this user with a Username block for an inappropriate name (I think the reason should be obvious). Just want to make it known and hope someone will look over this and make sure I did everything right. --Dmcdevit·t 10:06, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Amorrow

edit

See also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Amorrow

Pamstar

edit
  • 03:07, August 7, 2005, user:Ed Poor blocked Pamstar (talk · contribs · block log) (expires indefinite) (apparent sockpuppet to influence RFAdmin)
    "Her" first contribution was a vote for someone's rfadmin. This looks suspicious. Apparently the account was created merely to vote. Uncle Ed 03:10, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

user:Sojambi Pinela

edit

06:04, August 11, 2005, user:Willmcw blocked Sojambi Pinela (talk · contribs) (expires indefinite) (contribs) (unblock) (deliberately misleading username, spoofing User:Sojambi Pinola). See here:[28]

This is a bit confusing. User:Sojambi Pinola is the username of a locally-known singer in New York City, Steve Espinola (of SteveEspinola.com). I believe that user:Sojambi Pinela is a sock puppet of user:Steve espinola, which is itself an apparently misleading username (though the user swears that is his real name). In all likelihod, the same user is also using these IPs and usernames: user:216.175.116.151, user:216.175.121.239, user:216.175.116.198, user:216.175.113.48 user:Biffrose, user:Dearth vader, user:Jonah Ayers, user:Varg Virkennes, user:Bad apple, user:Mmmmmmbo, user:Efrim walzer, user:Steve espinola, user:Peace through superior edits, user:Peter Pie. -Willmcw 06:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have subsequently blocked most of these usernames, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -Willmcw 23:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

User:Ethniccleansing

edit

ElKabong

edit

ElKabong "reverting vandalism" (untrue) [29] -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • 17:08, Jun 24, 2005 Fuzheado blocked "User:ElKabong" with an expiry time of infinite (Sockpuppet)
  • 17:07, Jun 24, 2005 Ed Poor blocked "User:ElKabong" with an expiry time of 2 hours (profanity, false report of vandalism)
    See after-action review

212.251.12.68 RFA

edit
  • Tried to talk to him
  • Tried to reduce block time
  • Contacted blocking admin -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  1. 16:37, June 24, 2005 SlimVirgin blocked 212.251.12.68 (talk · contribs · block log) with an expiry time of indefinite (open proxy)

Bluxo

edit

Bluxo (talk · contribs · block log) Bluxo Blocked indef by CryptoDerk as vandal after two edits.

  • Looked like newbie experiment to me, so I unblocked and left a nice note. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • This person is the pelican shit vandal. Please don't remove bans that you think may be wrong without asking about it first. Administrators are appointed because people have faith in their abilities — for another one to come along and remove a ban without at least inquiring about it first is a remarkable lack of good faith. Additionally, the image he inserted and uploaded is a known image he uses for pelican shit vandalism, and has been deleted before as such. CryptoDerk 21:03, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • I also blocked Bluxo32 - possibly the same person. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:58, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

234567292

edit

234567292 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see his upload log - Permanently blocked by me as a forgotten sockpuppet of Dvirgueza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). - Mike Rosoft 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnorak.Is Near

edit

Ragnorak.Is_Near (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Permanently blocked as a vandalism-only account; more concretely, for blatant vandalism - addition of malicious link to Independence Day. - Mike Rosoft 11:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joker83

edit

Joker83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see his upload log - I have blocked this user indefinitely since I believe it is a vandalism-only account; he has created several nonsense/racist (photoshopped) images and placed them on articles instead of the real ones. - Mike Rosoft 16:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archived

edit

See /race and intelligence

Usage

edit

If enough admins agree that a user is violating Wikipedia policy, they may suspend that user's editing privileges.

Admins making a note of blocks here should specify which Wikipedia policy has been violated. Users may only be suspended for violation of official policies, not semi-policies or guidelines. And please, try to resolve problems without resorting to this.

This is for major stuff, not simple vandalism.

When in doubt

edit

"First, do no harm."

If you're not sure what to do about a problem, remain calm, post on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or discuss the situation below.

FAQ

edit
  • How many admins have to agree? (Use your judgment, that's why you were appointed)
  • How long a suspension? (Use your judgment, but short suspensions are often more effective than long ones)
  • What if you make a mistake? (Don't worry, any admin can reinstate a suspended user)
edit

Logs

edit

Guidelines

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Account_suspensions&oldid=598136452"