Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Wikipedia is Communism

This page (alternatively named Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Communism Vandal) seems to have been deleted[1] [2]. This seems quite strange in my view. One deletion logs as following:

  • 20:54, August 29, 2006 Cyde (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Communism Vandal" (Long-gone user)

I find this to be a poor rationale, and I miss having this page as reference when I'm addressing a current issue of a Norwegian anti-Wikipedia page which focuses similarly[3]. __meco 08:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind the Communism vandal didn't have much to do with Communism, all they did was blank pages with that hammer and sickle pic and say "Wikipedia is Communism!". If you really want to see it you can ask someone here or see my summary at User_talk:68.39.174.238/Newgatery. 68.39.174.238 23:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

ip vandals

are any vandals that just use a multitude of ip addresses and no user names on the long term abuse list?--Crocadog 23:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking no. Some times extremely annoying ones may be listed, such as the "B-movie bandit", but he disappeared ages ago. 68.39.174.238 11:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Should IPs be listed or not?

One item in the explanation says "Don't add IP addresses!", but the page starts saying that IPs can be reported, and they are. --Tillmo 12:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes in the case of one user using a long series of IP's doing similar types of vandalism, like the 172.xxx vandal who has used like probably something like 100 + (and probably well under-estimating) to vandalize Canadian non-Conservative Party members or parties or using various articles to insult non-Conservative parties or members. IMO, any long time abusers (IP or not) should be listed, although others can judged otherwise.--JForget 01:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

172.x.x.x is AOL, which is a TON of users, not one vandal. Anyway, my intention was that the IPs go to WP:ABREP. I'll fix this. 68.39.174.238 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WoW

Just wondering, where'd Willy on Wheels go?Drahcirmy talkget my skin 16:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. They deleted his article, so I can't read about what happened to him.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 04:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
It was basically decided that the evidence suggested there was no longer any one "Willy on Wheels", but anyone who moved pages like that got added as a sockpuppet, completely muddying the waters and rendering the page useless. 68.39.174.238 16:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Wanted posters?"

I had an idea, you know how in post offices they have wanted posters for fugitives? Maybe we could have these kinds of things for people to put on their userpages, hell, maybe even in the local paper. Like this:

Have you seen...

  • An editor with an IP address registered to AT&T?
  • Possibly making death threats?
  • Vandalizing Houston-related television articles?

If so, the user might be banned user Mmbabies, a vandal sock puppeteer. If suspicous user is seen which matches the above description, report him immediatley.

What do you think? Cheers,JetLover 21:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:DENY. That's my opinion. ~ Wikihermit 22:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, on the count that it's way too gimmicky. WAVY 10 22:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Nice idea but the users above have a point --Childzy ¤ Talk 22:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe something like...

Notice

If you notice an editor that matches this description, please report them. Thanks.

It's not really gimmicky and doesn't really give them "infamy." Cheers,JetLover 00:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Its hilarious, but it's an inappropriate application of the real world metaphor to this page. We don't need to say "If you see this, report it!" for every entry, for example. I just wanted to give an idea to people that this wasn't AIV or ANI where a dialog was expected. That said, the idea of running them in "the local paper" is highly interesting — I wouldn't mind seeing a few thousand more people on the look out for "Public (domain) Enemy №1!"! 68.39.174.238 16:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:DENY isn't going to work anymore. Tell me if anyone here wouldn't recognize a sock of Grawp if they saw "HAGGY!!!!! ... for great justice and epic lulz. Also see [shock site]"? My explanation also strikes out a possibility for a newsletter. Anyways, there are bots on MetaWiki that revert these editor's and their sock's edits. sometimes--haha169 (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

IPs? Contradictory! Please make consistent.

"Don't add IP addresses! Severe IP vandals should be reported to Wikipedia:Abuse reports, not here." contradicts the mention of IPs in the first sentence! Someone please fix one way or the other. --Elvey 17:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tried to fix it; how is it now? 68.39.174.238 19:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:IP addresses used for vandalism

Hey all,

After a discussion with User:Jc37, I've changed the desciption for Category:IP addresses used for vandalism to read that all IPs being used for blatant vandalism should be added to the category, for referencing when dealing with future edits by these IPs. I am currently defining "blatant vandal" as an IP that has received at least a level 2 vandalism warning. However, the description also stipulates that shared IP addresses, because of their inconsistent nature being controlled by multiple people, should not be added, as it might cause bias against them and the loss of good faith, constructive edits. I would like to get some community input into making this an official policy to keep better track of our unregistered voters. Please add your opinion over at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#Category:IP addresses used for vandalism. Thanks! GlassCobra 04:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

While not that serious this one certainly wins on "long term"

The article for the village of Long Crendon has been repeatedly vandalised by the same user on a fairly consistent basis since the page was created in October 2003. In the past the page has been protected, the IP that's doing it has been short-term blocked (it's a dynamic IP) and some users were even able to strike up a conversation with the vandal earlier this year. But still it goes on, and it's getting pretty tiresome. Where do I report this, and is there any kind of strategy for dealing with thius type of long term abuse? -- Roleplayer 00:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed template change

I'm proposing an additional category in the Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox. MBisanz talk 13:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Shadow187?

I think that shadow187 shuld be added to this page. he has bean trollin and vandaliseng Wikipedia for a long wile and has a wide variety of Sock Pupets. Thnx, Shadow cube (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem of "Macedonia"

It appears that almost all pages where the expression „Macedonia“ is mentioned number of „vandals“, either from the Greek side or other sides (Republic of Macedonia“ or others), permanently change the contents. Typical inexact intervention is in removing the term “Macedonia” and replacing it with “Greece” (Greek intervention), or introducing historically unjustified and wrong assumptions about links between the Republic of Macedonia and the Ancient Macedonia. The first are more frequent. We practically now have no “Macedonia” mentioned in any text that speaks about the times after the Alexander the Great of Macedon!!!! Certainly the notions of the province of Macedonia, or thema of Macedonia have remained, but from the contents of other relating texts the term “Macedonia” or “Macedonians” have been systematically removed. Is anything to do about this, please? Thanks.Draganparis (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Page move protected

I've move protected WP:LTA as a precautionary measure because of this MfD discussion where the page is mentioned several times. Should anyone feel this is unnecessary or inappropriate, please feel free to revert. Risker (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a perfectly good protection to me. Acalamari 20:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Splitting

How about splitting this page? It's almost impossible to scroll through this. Cheers, Face 14:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Frustrated about being unable to view this page decently, I've now cut this list in half and moved the first 31 entries to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Page 2. Those are the older ones, and some of them might go to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Archive 3. But because few indicate a "last activity" of the vandal in question, it's difficult to tell which. I think it's a good idea to have a "Last reported activity" at all entries by default. We could use the Release date and age template. It's not really meant for that, but it works. E.g.:
Last reported activity: July 1, 2008; 6 years ago (2008-07-01)
I would also like to ask users to sign their reports, so that we know who to contact. Cheers, Face 20:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering nominating for deletion

I am considering nominating this page for deletion per Wikipedia is not the wild west ("wanted posters"!? Really?). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete? Then how are we going to team up to fight abusers? I don't think we should delete this page, but I do think that we should report abusers in a different way. A much more boring way. Like a default form for everyone. It lowers the ammount of recognition, in case you are referring to that. Cheers, Face 13:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
We already have checkuser reports and archived ANI threads and banned accounts usually have templates on their userpages. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a reason to fix this, not delete it. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't think of any need for it, so I have nominated it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian

Can anybody advise me on how to better deal with User:Yorkshirian/User:Daddy Kindsoul and his armies and armies of sockpuppets he's amassed over the years. This guy has been banned at least twice yet has a new sockpuppet every day or so. It looks like he's encouraged User:MRSC to leave the project, and I'm a little tired combatting this on my own. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the overall M.O.? I've blocked a couple by watching particular articles but the latest sock didn't modify those. Does s/he just stalk MRSC? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes. Yorkshirian was banned for one year (it's now indefinately) for using WP as a battleground, by way of threats, harrassment, incivility etc. User:Dynamite Riley popped up from nowhere and made changes purely to articles that MRSC has built up. A decision made by another administrator regarding Dynamite Riley not to take action seems to have prompted MRSC to leave.
By overall M.O., could you clarify that abbreviation? :S --Jza84 |  Talk  12:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry - M.O. = Modus operandi. I've been watching too much police drama on television!  :) In general, it would be easier for more of us to keep up with Yorkshirian if we knew how to spot him. I have watchlisted several articles; we can also watch for anyone following MRSC's edits - although that's apparently no longer necessary. What else? The general "threats" and "using WP as a battleground" applies to far too many jackasses here, so only a checkuser would be able to discern one from another. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've started a (new) checkuser case here to establish if there are any new socks about, but my concern is that yes, we've established Yorkshirian/Daddy Kindsoul uses sockpuppets, but how long can this go on for? Are there no stronger measures we can employ? This is now a case of long term abuse. Like I say, we're well into the hundreds for Yorkshirian's sockpuppets, and him encouraging MRSC (a great contributor) to leave is something that is just too regrettable IMO. --Jza84 |  Talk  14:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Many cases can go on forever, yes. My IP range is so huge, I could become a total nightmare if I wanted! Only a checkuser can determine collateral damage for sure. BTW, you might want to move this discussion to WP:AN for more visibility... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've just been threatened, so yes, I think I need some support. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User: Tocino

Max Mux (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Again and again only propaganda.

I took a look at Tocino (talk · contribs) but I'm not seeing the problem. Could you offer a few diffs of concern? --Elonka 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
His userpage of course. Please read it.Max Mux (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Is it okay to use this board to cite an individual who harasses me personally? The user in question has an account that basically focuses on me and reverting all the edits I make with no grounds for doing so and it has gone on for a good number of months now. There is no widespread vandalism by the user but his constant monitoring of me is a severe nuisance. Libro0 (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Orkh

Block evasion by indef blocked User:Orkh (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Orkh) has resumed with contributions from IP 195.174.9.35 (talk - conts) after the block on that IP recently expired, with previously observed talk page blanking and an abusive comment on Talk:Huns. William Avery (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)