Wikipedia talk:List of banned users

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is for discussing the Wikipedia project page Wikipedia:List of banned users. Please do not use this page to request blocks, report sock puppets of banned users, or discuss the circumstances of a ban. For more information on Wikipedia bans, please see the banning policy. To discuss banning policy and practices, see Wikipedia talk:Banning policy. If you have encountered a malicious or disruptive user, please familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines, especially vandalism, dispute resolution and sock puppetry, before requesting administrator intervention. To discuss the ban of a particular user, see the administrators' noticeboard or its incidents subpage.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:List of banned users page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

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

Contents 1 Civility suggestion 2 Commented-out listings for "about-to-be-banned" users 3 What happened to the WoW entry? 4 Deleting history? Restored. 5 Historical 6 Re reformatting that deleted bolding 7 Daniel Brandt 8 Table for the Arbcom sections? 9 Alright... 10 Daniel Brandt 11 User:Willy on Wheels 12 Can we unprotect this already? 13 One question 14 How do you request a ban upon a certain user? 15 Opinions please 16 User:Daniel_Brandt doesn't exist 17 Rex Germanus 18 Sorry about my lack of knowledge but please ban this user 19 Difference in bans and indef blocks 20 bans that work? 21 Danny Daniel (talk · contribs) 22 Very Hard Community Ban? 23 Addition of Vintagekits by Kittybrewster 24 Incomplete List

[edit] Civility suggestion

I think this article is historically important, especially for new users or new admins who may not know the history of particular banned users. It's also a good record of how the community banning process works. What I feel is wrong is the summaary descriptions under the "Banned by the Wikipedia community." This section borders on personal attacks on the banned users and in some cases seems like a place where people aggrieved by the banned user have edited the summary to settle a score. I think it would be more productive and look less like a rap sheet if, as suggested above, we simply link to the Arbcom or WP:ANI archived discussion where the consensus for the community ban was decided. This would make this page appear more impartial. There are a lot of negative adjectives, hyperbole, and allegations presented as fact in this section. It's entire unnecessary if we have a link to where the community came to a consensus that the individual should be banned. Thanks. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 20:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

We DO just link to the A.C. cases where they have been banned. 68.39.174.238 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not here: Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users#Banned_by_the_Wikipedia_community. These are all basically attack paragraphs. Links to the ANI discussions would appear more impartial. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 14:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There also appears to be a number of people listed as indef-blocked, which, according to policy, is not the same as banning. Without a reference to the discussion banning the user, or the block log, it's not just an attack page, it's an inaccurate attack page. Argyriou (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The summaries need constant cleanup and monitoring. However, the act of explaining a ban is not inherently a personal attack. If someone's banned for posting attack pages on ED, and I say "User:Foo posts attack pages on ED", am I guilty of violating WP:NPA? No. It's not a personal attack, it's a simple statement of fact. I think the circumstances behind community bans merit a short explanation, so those interested can clearly see what led up to the ban. Just linking to an ANI discussion or a block log entry doesn't always clear things up, or give a clear picture of what happened before and after the ban. szyslak (t, c) 09:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

On what authority can anyone say that User:Foo did X? Better to link to the ANI discussion and let the reader make up their own mind if consensus was met instead of what looks like a list of allegations and hearsay. See the entry for Cindery. This user was banned based on circumstantial evidence and assumptions that this person had an account on ED. —Malber (talk • contribs • game) 19:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Jimbo lifted the ban on MyWikiBiz ... this may need to be updated. Blueboy96 04:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commented-out listings for "about-to-be-banned" users

I would like to express my appreciation to the editors who have been improving this page and keeping it up to date.

The practice seems to have recently developed of preparing a commented-out listing for users who may be about to be banned, either by an ArbCom decision or through a discussion on the Community Sanctions Noticeboard or ANI. While I appreciate the good faith and advance planning involved in writing up these entries, they could be read as suggesting a rush to judgment, and create an embarrassing situation if the user in question winds up not being banned after all. I respectfully suggest that this practice be discontinued. Newyorkbrad 22:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the WoW entry?

The list of community banned users is incomplete. It used to include such colorful individuals as Willy on Wheels, Mr. Pelican Shit, and Mr. Treason. They're no longer on the list. Why not? Surely they can't have had their bans lifted. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed before, as evidenced in the archives. Basically, the trend in the past year or so has been to use WP:LTA for Willy and other vandals. I would argue that vandals are not Wikipedia users, and thus doesn't belong on a list of banned users. In fact, the majority of vandals aren't actually banned. It's possible that if Willy created a legitimate account to make good edits, without even revealing his vandalous past, he'd be a welcome member of the community. szyslak (t, c) 07:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting history? Restored.

The link to the community ban decision on Daniel Brandt was deleted -- a significant needle buried in a haystack of repeated minor changes from "per" to "after". I've restored it. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to add a section to the talk page for every edit you do. If you do add a section to the talk page, you should actually explain the reason for your change. For example, why should this recent procedural discussion that does not contain any substantial information about the ban be linked to here, but not the several AN and ANI discussions about the user that actually have meaningful content? —Centrx→talk • 04:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I added this section so we could have a discussion and avoid an edit war. A community noticeboard discussion of a community ban is substantial information about an entry in the "community ban" section. That seemed so obvious as not to need explanation.

Peter M Dodge even added the notice of a community ban to an entry on a user banned by Jimbo Wales, and it had been remarked on at that ban discussion (at WP:AN) that it was significant for a community consensus to separately announce a ban in addition to the ban by Jimbo then still in force. It is no less significant when community consensus joins in affirming a ban already announced by admins or ArbCom.

I can't understand your desire to wipe that consensus affirmation from the records; it seems to me that the only one whose interests are served by that would be the person challenging the ban, because it reduces the odds against him. That you might consider it a matter of indifference, because unnecessary, would be comprehensible to me, though I'd disagree; it's this positive opposition to the consensus decision (and to the process itself) that puzzles me, especially when it leads to erasing the historical record -- deleting citation from a page where others have worked so hard to add citations, and thus undercutting their work -- or blanking part of the 5-months-stable community-ban section of banning policy itself. That doesn't seem respectful of consensus, from this side of the room. Not a judgment, just an impression, and one I'd be happy to see proven wrong. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 07:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical

This page should be tagged historical, if not blanked outright. It's a selective list and as such as no real use as an archive. It doesn't contain all banned users and could never contain all banned users, since by convention a banned user is one who, whether because of Jimbo, the Arbitration Committee, or some other means, has no reasonable expectation of being unblocked. Keeping this list here is nothing more than an institutionalized Scarlet Letter, and it gives a false impression that there's a discrete concept of the banned user and an accompanying bureaucracy that bans them. Neither has ever been true. Comments welcome. Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's useless. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Third'd—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

For reasons other than Mac's, I would not be averse to a MFD on this page. It is not up to date, and WP:DENY may be a more applicable principle here. I won't comment here about the banning process or the impression this page leaves with regard to the "discrete concept" here. Navou ^banter 01:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

As a periodic maintainer, I seriously don't care if it gets deleted, so long as an MfD is done. WP:DENY does not really apply, as I really don't see this as a billboard of vandal glorification. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Who's arguing for deletion? Surely this page attracts the people most interested in the concept? Mackensen (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify. Delete or any other deactivating process thereof. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to a point made by Mackensen, I think there is a discrete concept of a "banned user". If the statement "You're not allowed on this site, and if you try to create socks to get around it we'll block them on sight, revert all your edits and delete any pages you created" applies to you, you're banned. There are, of course, nuances, including partial bans, topic bans and temporary blocks. But still, banned means banned. If you disagree, should we de-officialize Wikipedia:Banning policy? szyslak (t, c) 06:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Having a entry here, with links to when, where, and why the user was banned, saves readers from having to do that much research from scratch when discussing that user or dealing with his edits/sockpuppets. A more complete list would be better, which is why people have been working so much on this list. That doesn't make it "useless" while it's incomplete. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The banning policy is policy. This is a page started up at random in 2004 by Guanaco (talk · contribs), no longer active, who also holds the dubious distinction of being the only administrator de-sysopped twice by the Arbitration Committee. You haven't responded to my latter points concerning utility and the obvious WP:DENY issues. Mackensen (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia:List of banned users is twice mentioned in Wikipedia:Banning policy, which (as you just pointed out) is policy. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 12:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, twice. Once in see also, and once in the main body–the inclusion of which is presently disputed! Hardly a ringing endorsement. Mackensen (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone give a concrete example of a serious error or omission on this list? In the past several weeks, there have been tremendous improvements in this list's completeness and overall usefulness. Unlike before, when this page would get a light update every couple weeks, there are now several editors actively updating the page as needed. Even if that's still not good enough for you, we can't demand absolute, 100% perfection out of this page, and why should we? There was a previous MFD here just a few months ago, which closed without consensus but leaned toward "keep". Has anything changed since then, aside from this page's improved quality? WP:DENY is all well and good, but this page is useful, as many participants in the MFD discussion pointed out. szyslak (t, c) 06:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not the one who wants to maintain the list. It's incumbent on you to prove this list's completeness. You can't. The entire concept is fatally flawed and proceeds from false assumptions. Mackensen (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No-one claimed "this list's completeness", so it's incumbent on no-one to "prove this list's completeness". The list can be useful even while it isn't complete -- as I already pointed out above. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 12:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, when you're discussing a blocked user, you go and as the blocking administrator. You don't consult some list or noticeboard. You go ask the blocking administrator and they'll tell you why said user was blocked. This is make-work and serves only to complicate already over-complicated processes and procedures. The encyclopedia derives no benefit from this activity. Mackensen (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ask the blocking admin -- assuming he or she is still active at present (not always a safe assumption, especially as time passes) -- and make the admin answer the same question over and over and over. Or put the answer on WP:BANNED, just once, and let anyone read it anytime. The latter approach saves the reader time in getting an reply, and saves the admin all that repetition, by letting the page serve as a kind of "institutional memory". The same basic idea answers: Why have an encyclopedia when you could go and ask someone about each subject every time? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 00:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re reformatting that deleted bolding

I've restored version 126046010 from 04:04, 26 April 2007 by Ryulong. Later reformats deleted the distinction between names actually banned (bold) and names sockblocked (non-bold), left inconsistent entries (Daniel Brant's entry left as one block of text all left-justified, others made name/date-only left-justified and further details indented, etc).

Please feel free to pick up from the last version before this restoration, and proceed to fix those problems. In the meantime, this restoration keeps a consistent format in which that distinction remains. That's the only reason for this reversion, and as long as those concerns are addressed, I certainly have no objection to a formatting change. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 05:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As of 06:03, 27 April 2007, Ryulong has reverted the above restoration, fixing none of the problems, with the edit summary "bolding them is pointless; it's glorifying them". Leave aside that a bolded entry in a list of banned users seems more like shame than glory -- once again the information conveyed by that bolding has been deleted, namely the distinction between primary names banned and sockpuppets sockblocked; and once again the entries are inconsistently formatted. Between these problems and the undiscussed revert (see WP:BRD#Overview item 2), I don't agree with this edit. I'm not going to engage in an edit war, but I object to both the poor process and the bad effect on content. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 06:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ben, your version made it easier to read. — MichaelLinnear 23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take that as a sign, as it's the only comment by anyone else. I've got to make an update anyway, since WP:ANI#Jason Gastrich is now unblocked. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 01:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt

If anyone thinks it's odd I removed him, see Daniel's block log and maybe Jimbo's talk page, too. SakotGrimshine 23:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table for the Arbcom sections?

It would make it look a lot less messy-- the table I'm thinking of is like the ones at Wikipedia:Probation. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 19:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alright...

I would appreciate those of you repeatedly protecting this page for no legitimate reason to stop trying to think that "new users" = "people who aren't logged in who you try and call "anonymous"". 68.39.174.238 12:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt

Someone had removed Daniel Brandt from here. Daniel Brandt is banned again so shouldn't he go back?

[edit] User:Willy on Wheels

Isn't he banned!? I want to know why was he banned! Can anyone please list him here and state the reason!? --Edmund the King of the Woods! 02:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

For some reason he's not listed :S --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he's not listed because he was unbanned and forgiven. He wrote a public apology at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-October/031780.html and those that use his name are just imitators. Either that or he's not listed because the rumors are true that he once hacked the front page and put his signature picture on it and he also did this hacking [1] and WP:BEANS. Note, the hacking linked occured ten months before the apology. William Ortiz (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can we unprotect this already?

It's a mess, and the protection is preventing me (and probably several others) from fixing the problems evident here. I will add that it was unprotected for ages and ages before this with no trouble and was kept in reasonably good shape. 68.39.174.238 20:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The only folks likely to edit this from brand new accounts or anon logins are the folks who have been banned. You might call it a failure to assume good faith, but I think it's saying "don't pee on me and tell me it's raining". You are the obvious exception, of course, and I sure wish to heck you'd consider making an account, self identifying, and so on so we can get to the business of nominating you for adminship as I've suggested before, but the rest of the folks out there this was semi'd against are still out there being jerks, and their definition of "fixing the problems" in this article most certainly differ from yours. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I wish it was possible to create "mergeable diffs" so I could edit it elsewhere and have someone merge it, since a manifest of edits for {{editprotected}} would be unuseable. 68.39.174.238 16:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One question

Who was the first wikipedia user ever to be banned, and why? just curious. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I traced the banned IP list back to User:Wanli and User:BuddhaInside, although there appear to have been earlier bans not on the list (since Wanli's ban was mentioned as having occurred several months before he showed up on the list - as one of his sockpuppets.) — Rickyrab | Talk 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Tracing back on Wiki en-1 mailing list, there was discussion of a ban on User:Lir back in 2002. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if that came before the first ban of "24", who would later be known as 142, then EntmootsOfTrolls. szyslak 21:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How do you request a ban upon a certain user?

I just came back from a 5 month break and I need a little time to recall Wikipedia's rules. My first question is about requesting a ban on a user. Everyeditcounts 03:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions please

Would people consider the sockpuppeteer User:Jessica Liao banned or just indefblocked? She was blocked as the result of a checkuser case, which I had assumed meant she was banned (that language is used once on her checkuser project page), now I'm not so sure of the distinction. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Daniel_Brandt doesn't exist

The paragraph about User:Daniel_Brandt is obsolete. This user doesn't exist. --Daniel Brandt 216.60.70.232 23:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It's also defamatory. I never did this: "After he provided assurances to the Community he would no longer violate policy or attempt to have his bio removed from Wikipedia..." --Daniel Brandt 216.60.70.232 23:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rex Germanus

Rex Germanus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) was listed by Jehochman as banned. Perhaps misguidedly, I would be willing to give Rex one last chance under a broad topic ban. I removed Rex from the list, left a note at WP:AN, and another note at User talk:Rex Germanus. Rex remains indefinitely blocked, and will not be unblocked in less than ninety days, nor without Jehochman's agreement. At the time of writing, Rex's user space say's that he's left Wikipedia, so this may be entirely hypothetical in any case. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about my lack of knowledge but please ban this user

user Chirs-murray01 has been editing the Gerrard and Carrickfergus college school pages they have been fixed but please ban him. His Headteacher has been informed about his transactions. After reading this mesage please delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkside2000 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you want WP:AN/I, but I suspect this might be something that might end up fixing itself, as the 'headteacher' was informed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so long as they follow the rules when contributing and attributing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Difference in bans and indef blocks

Okay, maybe I don't understand this as well as I should; what's the difference? Let's take a recent sockpuppeteer, User:Sixstring1965. Lots of sock-puppets, original account indef blocked. Wouldn't it be smarter to ban puppetmasters rather than just keep blocking them when they rear their little puddin' haids? I presume a process is in place to submit an indef blocked sockpuppeteer for banning? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's all made fairly clear at WP:BAN. Essentially, an indef block becomes a ban after some discussion codifies it at WP:AN, or perhaps WP:AN/I. Of course, if every indef ban was brought up there, nothing else would ever get done. -- Kendrick7^talk 05:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bans that work?

Is there a list of bans that worked? In other words, a user is banned, does his or her time, and them comes back into the fold and edits without disruption thereafter? Kingturtle (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Contact Durova. She knows of several such cases. Jehochman ^Talk 19:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Such a list would be unnecessary, as it has no practical purpose and is unlikely to capture any interest. Valtoras (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Daniel (talk · contribs)

• I was under the impression that constant hoaxmongerer Danny Daniel (talk · contribs) was banned, but he doesn't appear on this list. Was I mistaken? JuJube (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Very Hard Community Ban?

Hi, I am wondering whether users or IP addresses have been community-banned indefinitely, from even using Wikipedia at all? Or what's the most extreme ban you've ever imposed?

Thanks. --{{user|Marianian}} (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of Vintagekits by Kittybrewster

I have reverted Kittybrewster's addition of Vintagekits to this list[2], and have notified Kittybrewster to explain my action. While I will not comment on whether or not Vintagekits should be added to the list, I believe it would be much better if any addition was made by an uninvolved administrator, including diffs confirming the ban. My edit is, as always, open to review. Risker (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete List

I am beginning to feel that this list is incomplete, because some other banned users are banned, but their names are not on the list.Kitty53 (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)