Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
*Archive 1 — To June 15, 2006


Contents

[edit] Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Wikipedia is Communism

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

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

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

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

[edit] ip vandals

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

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

[edit] Should IPs be listed or not?

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

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

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

[edit] WoW

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

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

[edit] "Wanted posters?"

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

Have you seen...

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

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

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

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

Notice

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

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

Its hilarious, but it's an inappropriate application of the real world metaphor to this page. We don't need to say "If you see this, report it!" for every entry, for example. I just wanted to give an idea to people that this wasn't AIV or ANI where a dialog was expected. That said, the idea of running them in "the local paper" is highly interesting — I wouldn't mind seeing a few thousand more people on the look out for "Public (domain) Enemy №1!"! 68.39.174.238 16:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IPs? Contradictory! Please make consistent.

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

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

[edit] Category:IP addresses used for vandalism

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

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

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

[edit] Proposed template change

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


[edit] Shadow187?

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