Wikipedia talk:List of banned users

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 14 November 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Old, unsectioned comments

Is this list supposed to have all sockpuppets, or only officially-banned-by-Jimbo ones? I wasn't sure whether to add the following. Angela.

I'd say have the lot. We're cleaning up old entries on unbanning / ban timeout, right? Thinking of Wik... Martin 00:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have previously made a list here. Do people really want this in the Wikipedia: namespace? Maximus Rex 09:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I noticed three users on Maximus Rex's list that are not this page. Is there any reason not to add them (bans lifted?) If not I will add them to the list here. Rmhermen 02:57, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)


Some of these banned users are my rivals because they have new ideas for Wikipedia that are heretical to my ideas. If i was one of the Wikipedian AMA-AC bureaucratic coordinating administrators, i would propose a super-max security barrier for Wikipedia so that Willy on Wheels (who is acting like a f...ing a..hole because he constantly trys to plunge Wikipedia into anarchy) and other users banned by the Wikipedia community (because continue Willy on Wheels' vandalizing work) will be denied access to Wikipedia, thus it will stop more of their usernames from coming in. I hope i'm trying to be careful in editing various articles so i won't be banned because my ideas are better than the ideas of banned/blocked users. - John-1107 06:56 P.M. 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Wik

Jimbo has clarified on IRC that Wik is hard-banned. Therefore, I see no reason why he should not remain listed here. — Dan | Talk 19:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the IRC pronouncement. Thanks. Vacuum c 20:12, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A pelican what?

This page incldues a section for "Pelican Shit Vandals," listing a single name. What is a pelican shit vandal? Should it be explained here? Thanks, Throbblefoot 23:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Apparently (and this isn't clear from the page), there was a user who went around adding "covered in pelican shit" to the end of articles. I think we should make this clear on the list! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sad to say, I nearly find that funny. Thanks to Rdsmith4 for the fix! Throbblefoot 03:25, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Willy on Wheels

Willy on Wheels should not be listed. This list is for people who are completely unwelcome at Wikipedia and may not make edits of any kind. The operator of the Willy on Wheels account is free to come back to make useful contributions, while Mr. Treason and 142 are not. Guanaco 20:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

People are trying to keep track of actual vandalism here and get work done, and you're removing it on ideological grounds. If you think Willy on Wheels might be offended at being listed on a page with "banned" in the title, or if you are offended by seeing him listed on a page with "banned" in the title when you consider him unbanned, would you mind setting up a separate page so we can keep track of his constant vandalism without you deleting it all? silsor 20:44, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
This isn't a matter of people being offended; it's a matter of information being in the wrong place and therefore implying the wrong thing. I'll copy it to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels. Guanaco 21:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Whilly is listed as Banned by the Wikipedia community. So far most users here seem to agree with that, and I have not heard anything different (and this case is certainly known in the wikipedia community). I personally consider him banned and will block Whilly whatever users on sight indefinitely at the first sign of trouble. -- Chris 73 Talk 22:59, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
And I would do exactly the same thing. Any user using a name based on "Willy on Wheels" is trying to be disruptive. However, Willy is not banned, and accounts cannot be blocked for being a likely reincarnation if the username is acceptable and the account isn't used for vandalism. I don't understand why this is so controversial when we agree that page move vandal and "Willy" accounts should be blocked. I was just removing something that is misleading.
When I realized that this was the only place the information existed, I copied it to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels. Why are people so angry about what is ultimately a semantic question about the word banned? Guanaco 02:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Because you haven't even gotten your adminship back and already you're reverting to your personal policy of deciding unilaterally who should be banned. RickK 23:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
No, I am just questioning whether he is banned. Guanaco 23:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think he is banned in terms of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban, point 1, the community, following consensus on the case itself. I think that the community's consensus was formalised by the addition of his name to Wikipedia:List of banned users. —AlanBarrett 17:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that the day after Guanaco takes action on this, we get User:Wheelie on Wills, who has only made eight (constructive) edits. Testing the waters? SWAdair | Talk 13:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This conflict appears to hinge on the difference between "banned" and "blocked". As I understand it, people can be banned, and banned people are prohibited from making edits under any account name. (A banned person is not even allowed to create an account for the purpose of making good edits.) Accounts and IP addresses can be blocked, but people operating blocked accounts may open new accounts for the purpose of making good edits. Guanaco appears to agree with everybody else that the bad edits by Willy on Wheels (and related accounts) should be reverted, and that the accounts making the bad edits should be blocked. But Guanaco appears to disagree about whether the person behind the acounts is or should be banned. I don't see any important consequences springing from this difference in attitude. (The wording in the list of banned users would have to change to say something like "not banned, but treated almost as if banned", or a new page would have to be created for users in this class, but that's not an important consequence.) I don't understand why so many people seem so upset about such a minor difference of opinion. —AlanBarrett 17:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Pelican Shit" vandal

Can we add the "pelican shit" vandal or vandals to the list of users generally considered to be banned by the Wikipedia community? Pelican accounts are currently shot on sight, so this already seems to be the de facto policy. Firebug 09:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it's obvious that people doing stupid crap like that aren't going to contribute much. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 11:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's the difference between banning and blocking?

  • I've noticed that everybody removed by Jimbo Wales is "banned" and people removed by everyone else is "blocked". Is there a difference? Frenchman113 21:38, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, see:
--cesarb 21:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

A ban is a formal revocation of editing priveleges that can only be done by Jimbo Wales, the Arbitration Committee, the Wikipedia Community, or the Board of Trustees (yet to happen though). However, blocks are the most common method of enforcing bans.

Blocks are simply when an administrator uses his power to prevent a user from editing.

A ban is usually saved for when a user has achieved a level of notoriety on Wikipedia and involved high levels of Wikipedia government. NicAgent 15:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

More importantly: If you are blocked, you can create a new username and start over. If you do the same sort of thing, you may find your new account blocked as well. When you are banned, you may not edit the site at all; any reincarnation is prohibited. Essjay Talk • Contact 04:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

How the user can be banned by Wikipedia Community, exactly? --Dmitry 23:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Some users (like Willy on Wheels, and those who have taken to imitating him) cause such a volume of problems that the community simply will not have them anymore. Generally a community ban results either from a continuing situation that evolves into a hardban (like WOW), or a notice on a community discussion page, like WP:ANI that results in a consensus to ban the user. Essjay Talk • Contact 19:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Willy on Wheels isn't a very good example. He's just a vandal. Anyone doing the same thing he did would be instantly blocked. And again and again and again and again and again! .....besides, you'd really have no way of knowing if an incarnation of a decent user was actually him, since he obviously knows how to use proxies, and the MO for anyone not being instantly blocked would be pretty...different. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 12:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DoS acronym for?

What does DoS stand for? --Ed Telerionus 29 June 2005 23:06 (UTC)

Denial of service. --Cryptic (talk) 29 June 2005 23:11 (UTC)

[edit] Gibraltarian

Does he count enough to be listed here? I'm pretty sure he's blocked/banned and is persistant with his attacks, similar to the Azerbijan[sic] vandal. 68.39.174.238 03:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. He should be listed under the "Banned by the Wikipedia Community" section. He has violated many policies, including WP:AGF, WP:3RR, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:DICK, and WP:SOCK. --TML1988 17:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonaparte?

Shouldn't User:Bonaparte be added to the list? He's permabanned as well. —Khoikhoi 21:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --Cyde Weys 22:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh? I'm not new at all, I've been here since June 2005...thanks anyways! :) —Khoikhoi 22:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community

"someone decided to ban him indefinitely. Noone's reverted back to the one year block, so it seems like he'll stay like that." Is that a community ban? See also above distinction between ban and blck. Rich Farmbrough 11:49 24 April 2006 (UTC).

It kinda depends on other things. Mostly, if the community would agree with blocking any new accounts the user makes, and if it's not something simple like a username block or a vandalism block. And of course people will have a problem with any of this because "omg you're not arbcom!". --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 12:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
How does one know whether the community would agree or not? Say a particular user's suspected sockpuppets are blocked ASAP by a particular administrator, but not by others. Say a user is basically being treated as a banned user - contributions reverted or deleted, puppets blocked - by a small group of admins, but has not been "officially" sanctioned or listed anywhere. Who decides to unilaterally label the user "banned"? --woggly 10:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

See the administrators' noticeboard for a suggestion. --ajn (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excorint

Last I saw E.S. was blocked forever for being the Excorint dude. Is he disliked enough (By the Relevant Nine Hundred) to warrant listing as "banned" ? 68.39.174.238 23:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simplification?

Since all the entries in the second part have a corresponding case to go along with them, could we just condense it to the name and a link, sortof like the 1st section is now? 68.39.174.238 21:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP forging case

Can somebody point me to the details of the IP forging case, where the now banned user, whose name I forget, exploited a MediaWiki defect to get his edits logged under an IP of his choice? --Pjacobi 20:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Brion VIBBER/Cool Cat incident report? Kotepho 23:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, yes! --Pjacobi 10:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if he's still banned as Jumbo unblocked him, however it's pretty much moot I think ;). 68.39.174.238 07:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Think fo the newcomer!

All those strange new words. It is all very confusing. I was trying to make it more accessible. You know, so we so not have to explain this stuff over nad over again. Oh well. It is in the Wikipedia: namespace so, thank God, nobody in real life has to deal with it. -- 64.175.42.120 08:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Big words, like "Galactic criminal record"? Uh huh. Come now. You didn't really think that was gonna fly, did you? Incidentally, I agree with you - it should be cleaned up and made a bit more accessible. Perhaps you could help do that in a way that's not a bit twee? FCYTravis 08:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No he couldn't because he is banned user (Andrew Morrow) Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Wouldn't it be more concise for the "Community" section to have a standard setup, like this:

* '''{{vandal|Name}}''' — (List of policies violated) — [Link to ANI or whereever the offical announcement/discussion was] ?

So we'd have:

(In the case of severe sockpuppeters, we could have WP:SOCK ([Link to the sockpuppet category])

etc. Since the page is protected now, I'll use it as a chance to get other opinions on this. I think we'd benefit here from being as clinical as possible, giving just the facts, rather then potentially turning into a Newgate Calendar. 68.39.174.238 07:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reformatted the list in a somewhat similar way. However, I preserved the explanation of the ban, and used the shorter {{vandal-s}} instead of {{vandal}} to reduce visual clutter. I also included the date the user was blocked indefinitely, per the "Banned by Jimbo Wales" section. The format I used is this:
;{{vandal-s|Szyslak}}, [[July 27]] [[2006]]: Szyslak was banned for edit warring, personal attacks and general trolling. He may be a sockpuppet of the hard-banned [[User:Jimbo Wales]]. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Szyslak v. Willy on Wheels]]
I didn't make any content changes (such as adding or removing a user), so if someone wants to revert my edits only the formatting changes will be lost. szyslak (t, c, e) 10:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xed is not banned by me

Xed is perhaps community banned, but not banned by me. Banned by me normally means that one should not unban them without talking to me, but Xed was community banned.--Jimbo Wales 17:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

03:14, July 13, 2006 Jimbo Wales (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Xed (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (useless trolling) Fred Bauder 20:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Right. I understand why there may have been some confusion. This diff may be helpful. The idea is that he was well on his way to community ban, and I intervened to protect him, going against what was a clearly developing unanimous consensus. After he thanked me by continuing with his usual bad behaviors (accusing me of racism and so on), I withdrew that special protection and returned things to the status quo. The difference is material, because for a banned-by-Jimbo or banned-by-Arbcom, he would need a formal appeals process to get unbanned. For a community-ban, the official situation is that any of our 900+ admins could unblock him, if willing to take the social responsibility for doing so.--Jimbo Wales 20:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
But they should not block him without first discussing it with the blocking admin, which is you. :-) See WP:BLOCK#If_you_disagree_with_a_block. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo, I imagine the reason Xed became somewhat wary of your mere meeting with Coulter was due to the fact that users who seem to have a very pro Israeli viewpoint seem to act with impunity in ensuring Wikipedia articles have a prevailing pro Israeli viewpoint. A user acting alone trying to place a more neutral viewpoint into the article will often be reverted by the same group of users, and the only way those users stop is if an article ends up having a pro Israeli viewpoint, which often ends up driving many good users away (i.e. User:Homeontherange amongst many others). User:Zeq will often actively use the "3RR rule" to intimidate users, making extremely petty complaints, yet when one of the clearly pro Israeli editors falls foul of this "rule", (Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg) a lot of excuses are made and they seems to get off without a block. It also doesn't particularly help the appearance of neutrality when you have a very pro Israeli editor on the arbitration committee (who ultimately decide the content of articles and blocking of users) when you or they refuse to reveal their identity or interests. How can a publication that has what are in effect "secret editors" be taken seriously when it makes claims for neutrality? Arniep 15:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think the real problem here is that some quite biased editors have taken it upon themselves to start cooking up some "pro-Israel" conspiracy, and harassing those they feel are a part of it. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] They also go about making false accusations that certain arbitrators are "very pro Israeli", and complaining that they do not publicly reveal their identities (though, of course, they have not done so either). Perhaps this is how they justify their own intimate involvement in attempting to reveal people's identities on various loathsome "review" bulletin boards; it does not explain, however, their violations of Wikipedia's harassment, civility, and good faith policies. Jayjg (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I might add that these editors somehow see "Jewish conspiracies" elsewhere, insisting that there is some sort of "Jewish-Palestinian conflict", and that the "Jews" are somehow ganging up on everyone else. In fact, he feels he needs to look into the editors on AfDs, and identify and count up the number he feels are Jews, even though most of those individuals have not identified themselves as Jews. Perhaps this is the underlying concern regarding the "Jewish" cabal's "refusal" to "reveal their identity or interests". Of course, upon reflection, such an editor might realize the strongly offensive nature of his comments, and, a couple of days later, attempt to backpedal by claiming to have Jewish ancestry himself. Ah well, can't be anything wrong with pointing out Jewish conspiracies if one has Jewish ancestry, can there? Jayjg (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg, all that is very interesting. Yes I did object to the fact that Humus Sapiens voted "kill" on an article about a member of the ISM who was shot by the IDF. Yes I did try to point out that apart from that being extremely offensive, many of the same users are found to vote continuously the same way in relation to articles on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, and continuously try and skew the articles to a pro Israeli POV. And yes I do have Jewish ancestry which made me angry at what Hitler had done and at the same time angry at what Israel is doing now. I am perfectly in my rights to follow both your and SV's edits as you consistently try and push your POV in relation to Israel articles. Are you saying I should not do that and just ignore what you are doing? If you looked at my edits on articles that SV has edited, very few have even opposed what she said. Arniep 18:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Arniep has stalked me off-wiki; he has passed what he believes are my real name and details about my life to someone who runs an attack site; and now he is stalking me on-wiki, which is how he found this discussion. His stalking has nothing to do with Israel-related edits, because I've hardly made any. I have asked him by e-mail to leave me alone. Despite that request, today, he edited Talk:Michael Jackson directly after me. [10] He commented on a Template talk:Blp discussion I initiated. [11] He edited Monica Ali almost directly after me. [12] He commented on this page directly after I did. [13] He commented on a 3RR report directly after I did. [14] And now he's joined Wikiproject Jewish history because I'm a member. [15] The only non-stalking edit he has made so far today has been to add to an article a copyrighted image, with no source, [16] of an actress in a bathing suit. [17] SlimVirgin (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
As with most conspiracy theories, your Jewish conspiracy theory is long on accusations, short on evidence, particularly given the voluminous evidence to the contrary. Yes, there is something wrong with your following people around for no reasonable purpose; it's called Wikipedia:Harassment, and it's forbidden by policy. And finally, Xed was banned not because of any Jewish conspiracy, but because he was a rude troll who couldn't get along with fellow editors. Thus your defence of him is unsurprising. Jayjg (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
SV I know both you and Jayjg have followed my edits in the past so it is mildly hypocritical of you to complain when I do the same thing. My edits did not deliberately set out to oppose your edits today. And please note I deliberately did not pass your name to the person you mentioned, it was mentioned in a private discussion in which the person agreed not to disclose what I had said. It is hardly surprising that I have animosity to both you and Jayjg since you claimed/implied on the village pump discussion that I was an anti-semite to claim that a large number of users were placing a slant on afd/cfd discussions and articles, and repeatedly asked me for the names of a supposed "list of Wikipedia Jews" that I was making. People were not up in arms when people suggested on a cfd for Kurdistan category that many Turkish users were slanting the vote, and perhaps they should be discounted. There is no reason why editors who consistantly edit with a pro Israeli POV should be exempt from criticism for what seems like organized vote stacking and article editing. Arniep 19:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You are not going to get away with that spin. You tried to stalk me off-wiki. You posted what you thought were details about my real life on Wikipedia Review more than once. You then passed on what you believed was my real name. At least have the decency, having done it, not to minimize it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
What spin? Again, I never stalked you, posted your real name or details anywhere, I merely mentioned them in a private conversation. I did comment on articles which you had edited on Wikipedia Review but that's all. Arniep 19:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to continue to discuss this with you, but I won't allow you to weasel out of what you did. You posted what you believed — and I'm stressing what you believed — were details are about my real life on that attack site, which is what prompted someone to ask you what my name was — and again it's what you believed was my name, one of six identities that website has so far generated for me. But regardless of whether it's right or wrong, you believed it was right, and your intention in posting anything about me was to cause harm. If anyone here had done anything like that to you, you'd have reason to complain. But we haven't, and wouldn't, and that is the difference between you and everyone else in this discussion, a difference I'm proud to say, for my own part, will be maintained, no matter how low you may stoop. To have you then turn up complaining about "private editors," when you do not reveal your identity, but do attempt to "out" others, is the height of hypocrisy. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Again I only commented on articles which you edited. I may have said you previously used a different name but that is all I said. Arniep 20:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You're dissembling. I have the links and copies of your posts. You posted what you thought were personal details about me. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry you're wrong. I never said what you real name was on that message board, where you lived or anything else. I just commented on articles which you had edited. Arniep 07:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this stalking or alleged stalking should clutter up this page. It's probably more appropriate for WP:AN/I. I'll just comment that if I see that it's happening, I won't hesitate to block. If this needs to be discussed, can it be taken to user talk pages, or perhaps a new thread started at AN/I? AnnH ♫ 19:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you block without hesitation when user's accuse other people of being anti-semites? Arniep 19:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Who has accused whom of being an anti-semite? Can you provide a link to the accusation? Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg both you and SV tried to divert my concerns about bias on the village pump by implying that I was making lists of Jewish Wikipedia contributors, thus implying I was a member of a white-power/anti-semitic group which was completely false and designed to discredit what I was saying. Both you, SV and others engage in what seems to be tag team editing on Israel-Palestine related articles and AFD/CFDs and unless Jimbo addresses that Wikipedia will continue not being neutral. Arniep 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
You're the one who decided to identify people you imagined are Jews, and allege that they were conspiring, not me. You're still going on about conspiracies. In reality, unless you and people like you stop editing, Wikipedia will continue not being neutral, and will continue to be a venue for people to pointlessly harass people with whom they disagree. Jayjg (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg this is not a necessarily Jewish conspiracy, although many of the users who often vote of edit with a pro Israeli viewpoint do claim to be Jewish or have strong interest in Jewish articles. Lulu of the Lotus Eaters is Jewish and is not part of this group of users who consistently edit with a pro Israeli POV and he in fact tried to help me on the Palestinian article but was "warned off" by SlimVirgin. So no I am not anti semitic I am trying to prevent a grouup of users biasing this encyclopedia in order to present the Israeli POV as the only acceptable "neutral" POV. Arniep 07:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
That, indeed, is the great divide at Wikipedia. There are editors who try to be Wikipedians and decent editors. Some succeed more than others; some are better at being NPOV than others. But they do their best. Then there are editors like Arniep, for whom Wikipedia is a big playground in which to act out their various problems. They stalk, insult, start provocative discussions, do little or nothing to help build an encyclopedia, then to top it off, they post to attack sites where Wikipedia's rules don't apply, in order to belittle, at best, and at worst, actively damage other Wikipedians. SlimVirgin (talk)
SlimVirgin I have never belittled you, I merely criticise you for the way you try to present your viewpoint as neutral when it is not. Arniep 08:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I haven't even mentioned Arniep's wikistalking of me (e.g. [18] [19]) because I find his harassment of me to be at a tolerable level for now. Strangely enough, neither of the articles had to do with Israel. Jayjg (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I was already watching those articles before you edited them so no stalking there. I would go back and find the times where both you and SV mysteriously appear together opposing me on obsure pages but frankly I can't be bothered (unlike you who seem to keep ready made files of ancient links). Arniep 20:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Arniep: "If you looked at my edits on articles that SV has edited, very few have even opposed what she said." - with the abundance of POV warriors and soapboxers, and with her prominence (to which you seem to have contributed), it would be only logical to conclude that she makes some good long-standing contributions. If some of them do not conform to certain POV (or anything else) doesn't excuse your harassment. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but as long as Wikipedia presents itself as a neutral educational resource it would be amiss to accept that some users and "managers" of Wikipedia attempt to present a neutrality which is in reality a pro Israeli viewpoint. Just read this article and you will see it is not a conspiracy but in fact a reality of conflict situations that people will go to any lengths to defend their viewpoint as the only acceptable, and thus "neutral" one. Unless you actively do something to combat that reality your website will continue not to be neutral on Israeli-Palestine related articles. Arniep 07:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I wonder how does it feel to be a brave righteous hero who fights global conspiracies. Also I wonder whether you fight pro-Italian POV as well.
Seriously, even the EU and even Kofi Annan admitted that anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism are on the rise. It seems only natural for someone who is being attacked to fight back. However, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground and not a soapbox. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Humus please refrain from continuing to dismiss this as a conspiracy when The Times article clearly shows it is a reality not a mere concept in conspiracy theorist's imaginations. The problem is this is a supposedly neutral encyclopedia not just a poll or discussion. I have already said I have found POV problems in other conflict related articles or afds/cfds in relation to the Irish, Yugoslavian and Kurdish conflicts and have attempted to prevent bias in those cases. The problem is, as is shown in the article, pro-Israeli campaigners are generally more persistent, active and organised than other groups in trying to make sure that their POV is seen as the acceptable neutral one and if Jimbo doesn't recognise that as a problem for article neutrality then perhaps he doesn't want them to be neutral at all. Arniep 17:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, bias often doesn't get rebuked at WP, but more often it is the other way around. The Islamists, Neo-Nazis and political activists target articles related to Jews and Israel - and indeed most of these articles are being attacked daily. Arniep, by now you have shown severe lack of judgement. I find your allegations and your behavior disturbing to say the least. ←Humus sapiens ну? 18:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, in what way have I shown lack of judgement? For claiming that there is bias in articles? Are you seriously suggesting that the volunteers mentioned in the Times article are deliberately ignoring Wikipedia, the world's most authoritative encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Arniep 22:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The links presented above give ample evidence of your misbehavior. As for "the volunteers mentioned in the Times article", I have no idea who they are or what do they do. As WP prominence grows, so are attempts to abuse it. I don't keep statistics, but there is a noticeable increase in antisemitic (including New anti-Semitism) edits in the last few months: from blatant vandalism to trolling to soapboxing to subtle POV to original research to fake quotes. I can prove that some attacks were coordinated from Neo-Nazi and Islamist forums. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I am sure they have noticed Wikipedia- there must have been a lot of people trying to put a pro Israeli slant to articles that have been blocked for violating WP:NPOV musn't there! Arniep 09:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it laughable when people imply that there is a widespead "pro-Israel" conspiracy on wikipedia that every established editor is a part of- except of course the brave individual who has dared to speak out against the zionist cabal. The funnist thing is that there is an editor who either implies it or outright announces it almost daily, so the people accusing everyone of being part of a nefarious plot actually outnumber any possible estimate, no matter how exaggerated, of the number of editors "in on the conspiracy".

I boldened "pro-Israel" above because that is the word that Arniep uses now. He has suddenly become incredulous when anyone points out his previous use of "Jewish editors" in its place. The fact is, he is a person who would imply that Jewish votes should not be counted if they are voting for anything that can be construed as pro-Israel and then indignantly "demand" that anyone who refered to him as an anti-semite (which no one did) should immediately be banned. I do not believe that I am capable of thinking that this user is anything else but either a troll or an individual desperately seeking negative attention.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from continuing to bring up the "anyone who criticises pro Israeli POV pushing is anti semitic" crap. I fully agree with Lulu of the Lotus Eaters who is Jewish on Israel-Palestine articles so your argument that I am implying that Jewish votes should not count is quite obviously BS. There is a problem with a pro Israeli bias on Wikipedia articles which is maintained (surprisingly) by all the people that have responded here. Does Jimbo think that the people mentioned in the Times article are ignoring Wikipedia? Arniep 09:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] editprotected

I believe User:MyWikiBiz should be listed as being blocked by Jumbo, he blocked it/them indefinately today. 68.39.174.238 02:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Great, now they're unblocked! 68.39.174.238 12:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What about User:Karmafist, shouldn't he be in the list, along with several others. 216.189.165.232 04:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I added Karmafist. 68.39.174.238 14:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should vandals be listed here?

Willy on Wheels has been listed here on and off, and the Communism vandal was just re-added. In the "Willy on Wheels" section on this page, from March 2005, there was a dispute over whether Willy should be listed. I'm not sure the question has been settled: Should we list simple vandals on this page? It could be argued that they're not "users", so they don't necessarily belong here. Any thoughts? szyslak (t, c, e) 21:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather WP:LTA be used for vandals and people who've actually tried to edit be kept here. Listing every vandal would dramatically increase the size of this page (See Category:Wikipedia vandals), however keeping a list of notorious banned users may be useful to show what's likely to actually get someone banned. 68.39.174.238 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] community bans: policy vs practice

The practice of creating a community ban seems to have drifted away from the written policy. Please see: Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. --JWSchmidt 18:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Squidward?!

Where/when did Jimbo ban him? I know he's a vandal, but there's no attributory link and the account "Squidward (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)" has never been blocked and has no contributions. 68.39.174.238 01:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Under Jimbo, MWB needs to be formatted correctly and have a block log cite, Squidward should be removed as that user account has never been blocked, under "Wikipedia is Communism", the link to "Willy on Wheels" goes to a completely different page. 68.39.174.238 06:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sofixit. —freak(talk) 00:39, Oct. 19, 2006 (UTC)

Done now, but was less then possible when the page was protected. 68.39.174.238 01:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merkey?

This has royally confused me: According to this page, Jeff V. Merkey is blocked for legal threats, but according to the mailing list, he's the one who'se taken over the old sep11 wiki? Did I miss something, or is this normal? 68.39.174.238 22:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

His Wikipedia ban doesn't necessarily apply to the Sept. 11 Wiki. It's considered a separate project, just like Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc. Though the domain name is http://sep11.wikipedia.org, that's probably a remnant from the old days, when sister projects didn't have their own domains, so you'd get addresses like "wiktionary.wikipedia.org". szyslak (t, c, e) 09:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, I took a look at it, and it's no longer a Wikimedia project. Its new domain name is http://sep11memories.org. There's no way Merkey's Wikipedia ban could possibly apply. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it does, but it came as a complete surprize that someone who'd become noxious enough to get a ban would be working with the upper administration to assume control over another wiki. Definately something you don't see everyday... 68.39.174.238 07:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three additional users

--64.230.125.228 15:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Wikipedia_talk%7EList_of_banned_users_6f90.html"