Jump to content

Wikipedia:Account suspensions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (talk | contribs) at 21:06, 24 August 2005 (→‎Reports: Trim outdated section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Status:     unlocked

Shortcut

This policy enforcement log serves as an open (public 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.


Account suspensions

The current date and time is: 10:33, 03 October 2024 (UTC)

Current

Illinoisian (talk · contribs)

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)

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.

Sojambi Pinela (talk · contribs)

06:04, August 11, 2005, user:Willmcw blocked user:Sojambi Pinela (expires indefinite) (contribs) (unblock) (deliberately misleading username, spoofing User:Sojambi Pinola). See here:[1]

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)

Amorrow (talk · contribs)

User:Geni blocked Amorrow, apparently due to the inappropriate and threatening comment at [2]. I support the block. Other admins may wish to consider blocking Andysocky (talk · contribs) and other socks. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Pamstar

  • 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)

-Ril-

  • 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

TVI

  • 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.


User:Genocide2st

  • 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)

User:Boothy443

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]

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 [3] to e.g. [4]. Pakaran 18:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previous

Gavin, admitted sockpuppet of Gabrielsimon


user:JLoW

  • 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" [5]

User:Pukachu, suspected by DreamGuy of sockpuppetry

  • 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

Thodin

  • 21:27, July 19, 2005, Ed Poor blocked Thodin (talk · contribs · block log) - disruption, violent language (expires 21:27, July 26, 2005)[6]
    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

  • 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)

user:Crosstar

  • 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)


Uthar Wynn 01

Admin: Adam Carr

  • 07:58, July 21, 2005, Ed Poor (talk · contribs) blocked Adam_Carr (talk · contribs · block log) (expires 08:58, July 21, 2005) (personal attacks, disruption)
    • It is unusual for one admin to block another, and maybe I'm wrong. Other admins, please review this quickly. Uncle Ed 12:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Adam, you can unblock yourself (no rule againsth this that I know of). Uncle Ed 12:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • To my best knowledge, the only case where admins can't unblock themselves is where they are in violation of policy (for example, blocked due to an arbcomm ruling, or for 3rr).

CJ2005B

  • CJ2005B (talk · contribs · block log) Added external fanfic link to Dalek and Doctor Who. Links were removed by both User:Squeakbox and myself, as non-notable (and empty) MSN group. He took umbrage originally here.
  • Replied, trying to explain the edits here, here and here.
  • His response was to vandalise my user page here, here, here, and here.
  • Warned him here and here.
  • Blocked him at 07:39, Jun 26, 2005 with an expiry of 24 hours.
  • Reason I'm listing it here is to get feedback if my actions were appropriate, given that I was in a midst of a content dispute with the user. --khaosworks 23:57, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, no one can fault you for the open-ness and transparency of this report. And promoting a website is not the purpose of Wikipedia; external links are for providing more info *to* the reader. But technically it would have been better to get another admin to intervene - just to avoid the appearance of bullying. In other words, you were right, but next time ask for help. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:43, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I thought that might have been too hasty, that's why I posted it here just to get a feel for what people thought. I'll report it on the incidents page when the block expires and he comes running back and wiping out my user page, as I expect him to (he sent me an abusive e-mail, too the little dickens). Thanks! --khaosworks 03:44, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
        • Is this a log or a discussion forum?!? Why are you duplicating WP:AN/I! - Ta bu shi da yu 28 June 2005 04:59 (UTC)
  • Well, he's back, and vandalizing user pages. I have blocked him for 1 week. Since this is my longest temporary block so far, I would like for someone more experienced to check. --cesarb 00:27, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A week should give them a hint.Geni 00:40, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Isn't the week over? Should move to "expired blocks". Uncle Ed July 5, 2005 23:28 (UTC)


TDC

  • 16:03, July 10, 2005, Rama blocked TDC (talk · contribs · block log) (expires 16:03, July 14, 2005) (contribs) (unblock) (provocative and disruptive reverts, abundently warned-)

I would like to ask for your comments about the case of TDC (talk · contribs · block log); a long-time "borderline case", specialised in taunting and exasperating other users (with already two RFCs, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC-2), he has engaged in some sort of campaing of 3RR toying on Pablo Neruda.

I think that TDC has the potential of being a very good contributor; unfortunately, he spends most of his energy in making provocative and disturbing statements, insults other users, and globally act in bad faith. Since he is also very familiar with the letter of the rules, which he tends to use to better violate the spirit of them, I think that it is important to convince him that an actual good faith is indispensable.

I have warned him on the issue, a warning he took as a provocation to do more taunting; I therefore blocked him for two days. Upon his return, he immediately reverted Pablo Neruda twice, upon which I decided to further block him, for 4 days this time (see User_talk:TDC#Blocked).

Giving the rather severe nature of this retribution, I would like to specifically require the comment of other admins and make sure that this is in accordance to collegiality. Thank you in advance for your insights (and thank you to cesarb who pointed me here from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). Rama 17:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have been back and forth repeatedly on my views of TDC. He is knowledgable; he would have a lot to bring to Wikipedia if he supported the spirit of the enterprise, but instead he seems to be more interested in disrupting articles where he is a (usually lone) dissenter from a broad consensus. He also (and to my mind, this is worse) has been known to add dubious material to articles, inaccurately cited from books, so that it remains there until someone can track down the book and show that it says no such thing, at which time the material is removed. He also, by his own admission, makes deliberately overstated edits in article, hoping to use them as negotiating positions. I continue to believe that if he were aligned with the goal of creating a good encyclopedia, he would have a lot to contribute to it; increasingly, I doubt he ever will be. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:03, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • This has been much debate for 3 years at Wikipedia: should we accept someone who is brillian or knowledgable, even if they are disruptive? Maybe when there were only 100 contributors, it was a necessary price to pay. Now, I say: if you cant' cooperate, or go post on a blog or newsgroup. Uncle Ed 03:07, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Having opened the second RfC on TDC, I am quite familiar with his behaviour, and at this point I think Rama was acting correctly. His efforts to derail the Pablo Neruda article are truly shameful, made all the worse by the announcement on his user page his avowed goal of "pissing on the grave" of Neruda. Is it time to take this user to the ArbCom. I will do so, based on the material we gathered in the RfC, if someone else will lend a hand. -- Viajero | Talk 12:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Viajero for your comments and your message on my talk page. I would like to point to User_talk:TDC#My_Defense, where TDC makes what I think are rather interesting and sound suggestions. I think that the precise matter could be deemed closed for the time being. Rama 20:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gabrielsimon

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

  • 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 . . ." [7]
    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)

- 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

Cognition

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. [8] 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 [9] and Carl Friedrich Gauss, [10] 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." [11]
  • Abusive edit summaries e.g. "removing outright lies by barbarian POV-pushers." [12]
  • Deletion of links that contradict LaRouche POV. [13]
  • 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." [14] [15]

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" [16]
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

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. [17] 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

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

Expired: 69.233.169.62 - blocked 8 hours for scary rhetoric: "The terrorist is back" [18]

  • 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

TaiwanBot - unregistered bot, making errors [19]

  • 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

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?? " [20].

See after-action review after-action review

Dropped

user:FuelWagon

  • 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)
  2. MetroScotty (talk · contribs) - harassment via photo - Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 20:11 (UTC)
    • No contribs since July 6th. Uncle Ed 14:09, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Permanent

User:Ethniccleansing

ElKabong

ElKabong "reverting vandalism" (untrue) [21] -- 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

  • 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

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)

Archived

See /race and intelligence

Access

Admins will lock this page if needed, but should always leave the talk page unlocked.

Usage

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

"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

  • 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)

Logs

Guidelines

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Account_suspensions&oldid=21753264"