Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Archive 2

This page was nominated for deletion on October 6, 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

129.29.227.4[edit]

lots of random (it seems) pages (see pendulum for instance) sorry , don't know how to add an internal link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pendulum&diff=prev&oldid=87776620

Of all people! That IP happens to be registered to West Point! I have noted it on the talk page for future follow up. 68.39.174.238 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JackandJune[edit]

Petty vandalism on a large number of pages.

Blocked long ago as a sockpuppet of a known troll. 68.39.174.238 18:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitten Vandal[edit]

I feel now that the Kitten Vandal deserves it's own sub-page. I have seen probable kitten sockpuppets blocked on sight by admins, he has become a persistent annoyance and is more notable than most of the other listed vandals. I thought it best to ask here before creating the page, so if anyone has any opposition, speak, or forever hold your peace! ><Richard0612 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds OK, but I don't have authority over this. Josen

I'll try creating the page. This 'Kitten Vandal' is becoming more prevalent, and is more so than many other vandals [esp. to admins] ><Richard0612 10:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this page be semi-protected[edit]

These vandals keep on comming back wikipedia. If they keep on vandalsing wikipedia could they also vandalise this page and it's subpages too? I think this page and it's subpages should semi-protected.--Scott3 02:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semiprotection isn't (supposed to be) preventative. 68.39.174.238 10:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do?[edit]

Many IPs I've seen vandalise with a specific pattern of replacing entire pages (Talk and User/User talk namespaces too) with thousands of copies of the phrase '.F.U.C.K...S.H.I.T...C.U.N.T...P.O.O...A.S.S...B.I.T.C.H.!.!.!.!...'. They also fill the edit summary with the same, making me think it's a vandal bot just filling all text fields with the phrase. Where should this be listed? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 12:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do they use accounts, or IP addresses? If they use accounts, do they follow a common naming pattern? If IPs, are they all from a similar range? The same country? Or do they use open proxies? Do they show particular prediliction with certain pages or people? Depending on the answers, you can probably cast that information into a understandable and usefull section here. 68.39.174.238 17:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're part of the multitude of aol vandals that hit random pages. Wether or not they are the same user or multiple ones is unknown. Kevin_b_er 00:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say add it under "Unique entities" if you want to... 68.39.174.238 09:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly think there's anything to track. It's obvious that all of these are vandalism. --Cyde Weys 02:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About adding new entries to this page[edit]

Are they supposed to be added to the top or bottom of their respective sections? There is no indication on the page of which is correct, and many people seem to be confused as to which is correct, as many of the entries are not in any chronological order.--The Count of Monte Cristo ^Parley 21:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a note requesting that they be added at the bottom for now.--The Count of Monte Cristo ^Parley 09:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. Hopefully people (myself included) will notice! 68.39.174.238 16:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colbert[edit]

Could it be possible for Stephan Colbert to have a subpage? He might not be vandalsing it again but there going to people trying make the edits he made on the show and he is a well known vandal.--Scott3 01:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can try and create one, but since the actuall identity is known, BLP, libel and other policies will come into play. 68.39.174.238 09:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outoftuneviolin[edit]

I am thinking of adding Outoftuneviolin to this page. (their socks repeatedly vandalize Violin and Evolution by blanking pages and replacing them with "outoftuneviolin was here" or "evolutionism sucks") Comments? -- FrostytheSnowman ^('sup?) 23:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good entry! 68.39.174.238 14:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed I just found one of his sock puppets User:Outoftunebassguitar. I was comming here to do that.--Scott3 03:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Knight[edit]

This is me, the REAL Johnny Knight posting, if I quit making those socks and vandalizing, how long until I am off the WP:LTA list? I am not JTV and the Nazi-like names were created to troll the admins. 4.20.1889 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(This is all personal opinion, not community agreed on or anything) A month with no additional socks or impostors, bare minumum. 68.39.174.238 16:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a fair deal, I don't plan on editing either, maybe I will sometime in the future, but for now, I don't think I'd be of much help to the community. Are you the [in]famous "Mr. 68" guy who doesn't want an account...? The whole argument is kind of funny. I hope the community agrees, but what if someone copycats me? What if someone creates an account [using AOL] referencing "Johnny Knight"? Is there are way to check if it's REALLY me or not? 4.20.1889 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try sending an email to the wiki foundation and see what they say. Probally better that way then the talk page.--Scott3 02:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WRT "Is there are way to check if it's REALLY me or not?", CheckUser might help, but by now most of the information is probably stale and if some AOLamer does show up and create impostors, there's not much absolute deniability. If you're concerned about your reputation if you return, the best thing would be to wait for a while (As you said you probably would) and then come back under a totally different username and not vandalize. In that case there would be nothing to connect your new account with the past vandalic ones, and you'd be able to start with a clean slate and make the best of it. If you want to Email the WMF as S3 suggests, I don't think that could hurt.

Incedentally, I appreciate your decision(s). 68.39.174.238 06:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Problem[edit]

Note: I moved HurricaneCraze32's comments, below, from the main project page because it did not seem like the appropriate spot to post them, as per "Don't add an entry here requesting some account be blocked." I know nothing about the conflict in question, but User:SPUI does not seem to be blocked at the moment, so it didn't seem as though the project page was the right spot. HurricaneCraze32 says he has been shuttled around various pages looking for a place to air his grievances, so even if this isn't the appropriate spot for his comments, someone here can direct him in the right direction. Thanks. - Tapir Terrific 00:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this from two diffrent articles and got directed here.

I've come to report about one certain user, who has been very discriminating to most people at Wikipedia. His name is SPUI.He insults anyone who doesnt agree with his work. He's become a big problem. We have a logical bit a reasons for a banning.

Reason 1- He attacks others if they have a separate idea from his.

Reason 2- He begs to have pages edit-protected so that no one can contribute, if he can't or doesn't want to.

Reason 3-He has several violations of ArbCom. See List of Ontario provincial highways,

Reason 4-He harasses and stalks others, makes up lies.

Reason 5-Puts up false information.

Such as:

He insists on calling the Ontario highways "Provincial Routes", when their LEGAL and official designation are "Kings Highways".The fact is that they were Provincial Highways from 1917 to June 1930.

Reason 6-He keeps nominating EVERY single template and category out there.

Reason 7-He is very rude to most users.

Reason 8-He is very angsty & hides behind the admins.

Reason 9-Doesn't let others contribute.

Reason 10-His user page is filled with innaproppiate things such as "****". It's very rude & vulgar.

Reason 11-He's been banned Fifty-nine times, mainly over Arbitary Violations.

Reason 12-He's forced lots of users to leave Wikipedia.

Reason 13-He's ruined many articles & projects.

This guy deserves banning really bad because he is really discriminating people.Please reply.HurricaneCraze32 22:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I looked his page he looks like a good entry. But:

Has he been banned permanently
Can you give evidence of this happening
- Like the users leaving wiped would be good since you couldn't find it with his contributions--Scott3 02:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen flashes in the distance over this user, I'd suggest looking at some of the various user organizations around here related to dispute resolution. If you want to, you can take out an WP:RFC, however that can be extremely trying on the nerves of all involved. If you're content to wait it out, most true problem users will end up getting themselves thrown out given the time. 68.39.174.238 06:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC) (This will also be posted to their talk page)[reply]

FuckJapan[edit]

When I used to vandalize, I used to check the list of blocked users very often to see what the admins thought of my trolling usernames, I noticed some guy using the words "Fuck Japan" in (presumably) his username over and over. I also published my story and will be posting my list of sockpuppets I remember creating on my username, and then leave for a while. 4.20.1889 21:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's been banned: User:Fuck japan--Scott3 22:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this?[edit]

A few months ago when I decided to join the anti-vandal unit. I reverted an edit by an I.P address. He never made any more edits or anything until now. He sent me some Spam. The reason why I'm comming here is that I'm just wondering if this could a LTA vandal(with a dyamic I.P.) who goes sends the editor that reverted his edits spam or some kind of personal attack which seems to be commmon with LTA abuse.--Scott3 21:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, it looks more like someone trying to justify their PoV with some incivility and possibly semi-reputable source. 68.39.174.238 23:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait that the worng link here's the right one: [1]--Scott3 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, that doesn't look like SPAM to me (There's no site linked or mentioned); it's just some partizan screed about the policies of a U.S. Federal politician. Anyway I've never seen a vandal who SPAMs people who revert him, but plenty of them (EG. User:Primetime, who hit up on me not that long ago) will attack reverters. 68.39.174.238 01:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgar Vandal[edit]

A number of IPs are vandalizing pages, seemingly throughout Wikipedia, by replacing the entire article text with variations on the following phrases: '.C.U.N.T.....F.U.C.K...S.H.I.T......A.S.S...P.O.O...' etc. This type of thing also is placed in the edit comments field, or the comments which show up when you click on "History". Is this possibly a bot or other automated program, or a prolific user with too much time on his hands? What's going on with this? It seems to be all over the place, or variations of it. Rm104 08:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does Outoftuneviolin need a subpage?[edit]

Does Outoftuneviolin need his own subpage now? He has over 89 suspected/confirmed sockpuppets of himself. (See category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin) -- FrostytheSnowman ^('sup?) 14:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know I was considering putting Outoftueviolin and the blashphemy guy into the same userpage. They are very similar but it's not confirmed that there both the same person so it might be a good idea to put them in the same subpage.--Scott3 00:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, does Outoftuneviolin need a subpage? --FrostytheSnowman ^('sup?) 01:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--Scott3 02:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't we make it? FrostytheSnowman ^('sup?) 02:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update- created the subpage Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Outoftuneviolin. FrostytheSnowman ^('sup?) 18:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update- the subpage has been nominated for deletion. FrostytheSnowman ^('sup?) 12:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waitwaitwait... you created the page and then put it up for deletion?! 68.39.174.238 17:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What people think can change over time. I used to think that tracking down vandals were the best thing to do, but now I think we just have to block the suspected sockpuppets of vandals and ignore them. -- FrostytheSnowman ^('sup?) 17:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that pages does get deleted, you can expect someone else who runs across them to re-add the info to this page. 68.39.174.238 01:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a review[edit]

Please review User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. After a Wikibreak of several months I returned to discover that a persistent vandal had returned (suspected activity spans nearly two years). Unsure whether this (or some version thereof) is appropriate for a Long term abuse entry. Please advise. Durova 04:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This LTA entry has been removed twice by the Rm104 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) and IdlP (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 09:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This editor's notice to my talk page was also deleted by QFMC. Durova 13:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LTA subpages[edit]

I don't think this the right place to do this but after seeing this disscussion I think it would be good idea to temproally restore the vandal subpages untill we can create a new policy on creating vandal subpages and debating WP:DENY---Scott3 _Talk _{Contributions} _{Count: 950+} 03:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues[edit]

I added the vandal subpage deletion debate to RfC---Scott3 _Talk _{Contributions} _{Count: 950+} 22:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines on subpages[edit]

Following the deletion of some subpages, I've knocked this together to help keep that part of this page clear. I welcome (civil and usefull) comments.

Frequently people jump directly to creating a subpage instead of listing a vandal on this page (LTA). This sometimes causes the pages to be so useless they'd be removed from LTA if they were just a listing there.
Checklist before creating a subpage:

Is the vandal a "long term" vandal? Remember the pages are subpages of LTA and have to fulfill the same criteria as entries on LTA.

Does the vandal deserve a more permanent information location? Why can't they be listed on LTA like any other? There has to be a DEFINATE reason (or reasons) for giving them a subpage beyond "the LTA page section is too long".

Is the increased exposure for the vandal outweighed by the increased visibility to the Community and people who may run across them?

Some example of "legit" subpages and why:

/Primetime — This vandal regularly engages in one of the most dangerous forms of vandalism: Wanton copyright infringement that could place the Wikimedia Foundation in serious legal danger. People should know how to spot him so as many people as possible are knowing and prepared to counter his plagairism.

/Lightbringer — This vandal is obsessed with his extreme minority view on Freemasonry and will continunally attempt to sneak it in without getting bored of it. To someone who doesn't know about this vandal and his MO, he may appear to be a participant in a legitimate content dispute rather then a vandal. Due to this, unneeded and (proven) useless dispute resolution may be pursued rather then his latest sockpuppet simply being blocked, wasting everyone's time.

68.39.174.238 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

great idea! I put this at the WP:DENY talk page.---Scott3 _Talk _{Contributions} _{Count: 950+} 22:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to know who Mr. 68.39.174.238 is. We've had a bit of a problem with vandals being heavily involved in counter-vandalism/vandal-tracking activities, some going so far as to make a bunch of vandal accounts and then report them as sockpuppets of themselves. --Cyde Weys 02:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't just accuse a user in counter-vandalism of vandalism just because he doesn't have an account.---Scott3 _Talk _{Contributions} _{Count: 950+} 21:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid of something like this, from someone like that. I'm not a vandal and I'm not a sockpuppet. And thanx Scott. 68.39.174.238 04:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. 68 is one of the best vandal fighters we have. Couldn't do it without him. 69.145.123.171 _{Yes, I'm really} _{an IP} Sunday, September 17, 2006, 04:35 (UTC)

RuneScape vandal[edit]

He's not gonna bother Wikipedia anymore. Trust me ;).--Richard 16:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

persistent vandal[edit]

To be honest, i really have to get to bed, but I need to report this vandal. i don't have time to read over the page tonight, since i need to sleep, but can someone else take care of this for me?

IP is 212.219.248.236 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=212.219.248.236)

Thanks all

SLATE 05:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh heck! ANOTHER school IP! I'll try and add it soon, or you can after you get some sleep ;D. 68.39.174.238 04:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing subpages[edit]

On behalf of a Wikitionary user who was coming to this page to add some stuff about a persistent copyright violater -- who called himself, most recently, Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- what happened to the subpages? this edit by Edmonde Dantes (talk · contribs) was when a bunch, including the one in question, were deleted six weeks ago with a note that they were being replaced by Category:Wikipedia vandals -- except no such category exists. What the hell? --Calton | Talk 13:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still there: Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime. 68.39.174.238 17:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's there NOW -- you just re-added it and the others, after I posted my question. Which doesn't actually answer my question. --Calton | Talk 00:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the category was subsequently deleted. Wmahan . 02:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a reply to your primary question: "It's still there". They were never deleted. The page is always been over-long, and there used to be many subpages, so he decided to use the long existing category instead of a static list. That worked for a while untill people forgot to add subpages to that category and the category was (later) deleted. As a result, we're back to the static list and Special:Prefixindex. 68.39.174.238 18:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this again, slowly: orphaned pages might as well not exist since they can't be usefully accessed by those that need them -- and "moving" them to a subsequently deleted category without fixing the resulting fallout is sloppy at best and suspicious at worst -- so no, "It's still there" is not in any way an adequate answer, and giving this non-answer after you've fixed the problem without explaining why is even less helpful. --Calton | Talk 01:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subpages should not be orphaned. Conrad Devonshire removed the static list from this page on the rationale that all subpages were listed in that category. Later, in an unrelated move, the category was deleted (here),. Following that you had to remember their names, search for them, or use prefixindex to find them. Now we're back to the (IMAO) better static list of the vandal subpages. As to my "answer": It's an explanation of what happened and not an "answer". Finally I dislike the suggestion that I or some concerted group was responsible for both the categorization and then the deletion of that category: They were carried out by two totally unrelated user(s). 68.39.174.238

And the subpage you said you were after is at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime or WP:'T. 68.39.174.238 20:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is outoftunedviolin entry?[edit]

I know his subpage has been deleted but I don't see his entry on WP:LTA. I don't know why he's not on there so I'm going to put him back in.---Scott3 _Talk _{Contributions} _{Count: 950+} 22:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the entry, but it was later trimmed down severely, and finally (I think I was the responsible party) it was removed again. 68.39.174.238 00:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this user qualify?[edit]

71.162.24.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Every one of his edits is vandalism(I've checked all of them), and he hasn't vandalized enough in a short period of time to get himself blocked, but has gotten a final warning twice. Should I put him on the Long Term Abuse list?--Vercalos 03:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That dude is an extremely minor vandal, as they go. Generally speaking, a "long term" vandal has used both IPs and user accounts, the latter of which are blocked instinctively and indefinately. Also, IP addresses are rarely added to the list solo unless they belong to some sort of "shared user" facility (Schools, libraries, public buildings) and so can't be blocked for long terms. 68.39.174.238 02:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (PS. I appreciate your asking here.)[reply]

Please...[edit]

...let's not edit war... 68.39.174.238 21:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

192.87.54.3[edit]

If you check User:192.87.54.3's editing history, you see nothing BUT vandalism. It's been going on for a lot of months and I've reversed their vandalism on XTC a month ago. If you go to their talk page you'll see a lot of warnings, even some from the beginning of 2006. I suggest a perm ban. 89.98.95.206 13:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's an open proxy (And it doesn't seem to be), generally IPs aren't blocked indefinitely. I suggest you go to WP:ABREP and see if they can deal with this dude. 68.39.174.238 09:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of trivial but...[edit]

Why are some of the Don't's in the Explanation section in bold while others are in italics? Are the bold don't's things we especially should not do? Anyone mind if I make them all bold so they match? Sorry for nitpicking. delldot | talk 20:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that they're supposed to be different levels of emphasis. You can standardize them if you wish. 68.39.174.238 16:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized archiving[edit]

As part of the 2010 revamping, I've cleaned out the reports listed here and moved any useful ones to the new centralized archive. All discussions should be made on the main project talk page. As a side note, all but one of the reports in this archive were legitimate... Reports of single incidents of vandalism were found in the archive and have not been moved to the new archive. There was also a legitimate user listed in there, but I've removed his entry. However, if anyone is interested, the old archive is still available through the page history. Netalarm^talk 05:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]