Wikipedia:Account suspensions

Status:     unlocked

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.

Reports

If you see a policy violation, and you can't resolve it via ordinary methods, report it here.

1. Many people will be aware of continuing problems with a User called Mr Tan (talk · contribs). An RfC on him was unanimous in criticising his attitude and behaviour, but it had no effect. The only next step seems to be Arbitration, but it's not clear to me that that's appropriate. I've approached a number of arbcom members to ask their advice, but I've been ignored (which also doesn't fill me with confidence in Arbitration). Would this page offer a step between RfC and Arbitration? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
   • No contribs since July 5th. Uncle Ed 12:20, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
2. it is my hope that user dreamguy would stop being rude to , well, everyone, its been going on as long as ive been here, and no one seems to care to try. examine his edit history to see more.

Gabrielsimon 9 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Uncle Ed 21:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Page locks

Current

1. Terry Schiavo - edit war - Uncle Ed 21:40, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Previous

archive

Account suspensions

• List of blocked IP addresses and usernames

The current date and time is: 13:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed

Sam Spade

1. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs · block log) - lack of neutrality at anti-gay slogan - Uncle Ed 00:12, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

? thats outrageous. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

applicable links:

• User_talk:Ed_Poor#Personal_remarks

• anti-gay slogan history

• Talk:Anti-gay_slogan

• User_talk:Sam_Spade#Edit_war_at_anti-gay_slogan

• Wikipedia:Blocking policy

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, while Sam's problems remaining neutral on articles relating to homosexuality are well documented and constant, I find this proposal by Ed Poor (whose own neutrality on the subject is questionable) a little odd, and I don't--yet--support it since, while he's certainly been doing some questionable things, at least he's refraining from revert warring--for now.

I do think, however, that this is a perfect opportunity to give Sam an official warning about his edits to said articles. Sam consistently refuses to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on gay-related topics and the suggestions and consensus of other editors, and inserts blantantly non-neutral claims into articles and/or makes subtle edits to insert his point of view. This is small-scale, but exceedingly detrimental to Wikipedia. I have long been considering starting an RFC and even an RFA to outright ban Sam from editing gay-related topics. In the meantime, I think a warning to change his editing habits on such articles is a start. Exploding Boy 01:11, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with you assessment of my editing (as ed's talk page displays), but I will say that I intend to avoid gay topics even more, due to this incident (and especially anti-gay slogan, obviously). I have been successfully driven off. Hooray for personal attacks and POV lobbying. Jeers for wiki-process resulting in article quality. And not for the 1st time. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Sam, who are you trying to fool? It can only be yourself, as the reaction to your edits and suggestions on myriad talk pages demonstrates that you are very much in the minority in your assesment of the relative neutrality of articles you get upset about. Frankly, it's not only in articles on "gay topics" that your edits are problematic. Your recent edits to Emo, for example, show a complete lack of knowledge on sexuality and a definite bias against non-heterosexuality. I've been watching your contributions and following your edits to a wide variety of articles recently. Your edits show a disticnt pattern, so please, once and for all, drop the facade; the one who engages in the most "personal attacks and POV lobbying" is you. Exploding Boy 01:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've looked over some of the edits, and while I don't agree with them, I wouldn't like to see Sam blocked for making them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:33, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The question is, what am I supposed to do about this? Complaining about ed is useless, he's a bureaucrat,and upstanding community member. Altho I don't feel I am in the wrong, I already plan to avoid this article, and those directly related. The edit I made to Emo supported NPOV IMO, and was made before I was aware of this whole mess, btw. I'm certainly on no rampage of anti-gay bias, as my contributions will point out. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

What you're supposed to do is generally refrain from making edits related to sexuality, and particularly to homosexuality. I don't think Ed will block you, and if he does it will only be temporary anyway. Your edits to Emo were made on the 16th and 17th, at which point the whole Anti-gay slogan debate was well underway; dozens of comments about your lack of neutrality on sexuality topics have been made to you already. Please note that I never said you were on a "rampage," but I do stand by my assertion that you have an anti-gay bias, a bias to which you've conceded yourself. Sam, in all honesty I think you can be a valuable editor, but you need to distance yourself from sexuality-related topics in general, and if you see something you disagree with in such an article I strongly suggest you float it on the appropriate talk page before making any changes. Exploding Boy 01:44, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I saw anything wrong with Sam's edits to Emo, though I don't claim to be any great expert on sexuality myself. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:50, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

In essence, Sam made subtle changes that suggested, among other things, that women do not find homosexuality or bisexuality erotic. Exploding Boy 01:55, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Actually I took out a suggestion that women found male-on-male homoeroticism attractive, because on average they don't. If they do, I'd like to see a cite for it, I certainly can't find one. I left in however the idea that emo girls have such a fetish, as I know it to be true, and it was cited. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Sam cannot be censured for editys saying most women don't find gay men erotic, or not without wikipedia losing any sense of NPOV in a desire to promote a pro gay agenda, SqueakBox 02:12, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Current

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)

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" [1]

Previous

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)

• 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)

• I think an arbitration case is the next step. It doesn't appear that the RfCs have worked. Perhaps a ban on editing certain articles is in order. Carbonite | Talk 19:51, 10 July 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)

User:Gabrielsimon

• 19:36, July 12, 2005 Bratsche blocked Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs · block log) with an expiry time of 24 hours {violation of 3RR)

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 . . ." [2]
  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

• 01:24, July 7, 2005 Khaosworks blocked Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs · block log) with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR rule violation)

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. [3] 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 [4] and Carl Friedrich Gauss, [5] 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." [6]
• Abusive edit summaries e.g. "removing outright lies by barbarian POV-pushers." [7]
• Deletion of links that contradict LaRouche POV. [8]
• 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." [9] [10]

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" [11]

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. [12] 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)

• StarTrekkie (talk · contribs · block log) tagged the 41 reverts as "rv vandalism", which is false. 24 hours was lenient. Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 00:56 (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" [13]

• 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 [14]

• 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?? " [15].

See after-action review after-action review

Dropped

1. Centauri (talk · contribs) - disruption, POV pushing, refusal to communicate - Uncle Ed 21:12, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
   • Centauri is communicating at talk:Sealand - Uncle Ed 21:38, July 15, 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

• Offensive username, ala Wikipedia:No_offensive_usernames#Inappropriate_usernames. Fuzheado | Talk 00:02, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Ethniccleansing (talk · contribs · block log)

ElKabong

ElKabong "reverting vandalism" (untrue) [16] -- 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)

Useful Links

Logs

• page locking
• User Block Log
• admin rights (92% of recents actions are by Cecropia)
• List of blocked IP addresses and usernames
• Block user

Guidelines

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:No personal attacks
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia:Sock puppet
• Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks
• Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration
• Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment