This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
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.
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)
Attribution noncommercial Share Alike/Partage à l'Identique 2.0 Belgium. Stephan KŒNIG...
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Duncharris ( talk · contribs · block log)
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!
Wikipedia:Account suspensions/Joseph Allen Wood
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)
Alt37 ( talk · contribs) has acted like a sock puppet of Timewarp ( talk · contribs)- and his main activity has been to revert John Lott ( | 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)
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
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)
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)
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)
16:20, September 6, 2005, FreplySpang blocked Fenian Swine. (infinite) (contribs) (unblock) (impersonation of User:Fenian Swine)
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)
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)
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)
Witkacy ( talk · contribs · block log)
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)
68.66.96.32 ( talk · contribs · block log)
See: Diffs at User talk:SlimVirgin, User_talk:68.66.96.32
RN ( talk · contribs · block log)
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)
I_sterbinski ( talk · contribs · block log)
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 ( talk · contribs · block log)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
Expired: 69.233.169.62 - blocked 8 hours for scary rhetoric: "The terrorist is back" [20]
TaiwanBot - unregistered bot, making errors [21]
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].
Forgot to add this earlier.
Confirmed sockpuppet of User:Kingjeff, [23] used on many votes. CTOAGN ( talk) 18:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
Now unbanned. Ral315 (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
[snip]
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)
See also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Amorrow
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)
ElKabong "reverting vandalism" (untrue) [29] -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Bluxo ( talk · contribs · block log) Bluxo Blocked indef by CryptoDerk as vandal after two edits.
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)
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)
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)
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.
"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.
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
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.
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)
Attribution noncommercial Share Alike/Partage à l'Identique 2.0 Belgium. Stephan KŒNIG...
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Duncharris ( talk · contribs · block log)
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!
Wikipedia:Account suspensions/Joseph Allen Wood
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)
Alt37 ( talk · contribs) has acted like a sock puppet of Timewarp ( talk · contribs)- and his main activity has been to revert John Lott ( | 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)
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
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)
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)
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)
16:20, September 6, 2005, FreplySpang blocked Fenian Swine. (infinite) (contribs) (unblock) (impersonation of User:Fenian Swine)
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)
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)
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)
Witkacy ( talk · contribs · block log)
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)
68.66.96.32 ( talk · contribs · block log)
See: Diffs at User talk:SlimVirgin, User_talk:68.66.96.32
RN ( talk · contribs · block log)
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)
I_sterbinski ( talk · contribs · block log)
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 ( talk · contribs · block log)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
Expired: 69.233.169.62 - blocked 8 hours for scary rhetoric: "The terrorist is back" [20]
TaiwanBot - unregistered bot, making errors [21]
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].
Forgot to add this earlier.
Confirmed sockpuppet of User:Kingjeff, [23] used on many votes. CTOAGN ( talk) 18:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
Now unbanned. Ral315 (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
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)
[snip]
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)
See also Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Amorrow
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)
ElKabong "reverting vandalism" (untrue) [29] -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Bluxo ( talk · contribs · block log) Bluxo Blocked indef by CryptoDerk as vandal after two edits.
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)
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)
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)
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.
"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.