Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Sollog

This is the full version of the post regarding Sollog from Long term alerts, including posts deleted from that page:

Wikipedia is currently the target of vandalism by the followers of a self-styled god and resident of Philadelphia named Sollog who are unhappy with the Wikipedia article on their object of worship. They have set up a site called wikipediasucks.com (please don't link to it to boost their google rank) and on the forums there they are actively discussing ways to vandalize wikipedia. Targeted articles include God, Jesus, Devil, Jim Wales, George W. Bush, Britney Spears, Nostradamus, Adolf Hitler, Einstein, Sollog, Wikipedia, and articles linked on the main page. This is not an idle threat as they've already been actively vandalizing over the past week. Any admin seeing such vandalism from a Sollog puppet (who will usually make themselves known by invoking the name of Sollog or linking to www DOT wikipediasucks DOT com or www DOT 247 news DOT net/2004/20041211-wikipediaDOTshtml) should - in my opinion - block them immediately without warning as they are persistent vandals who cannot be made into good wikipedians. See Talk:Sollog for information on their past behavior. Gamaliel 22:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: the 'sucks' domain previously owned by Sollog or his associates, please see What should be done with wikipediasucks.com?. Imgroup 17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

user:64.191.63.213 is a known anon open proxy which has been used by Sollog sockpuppets as well as others to vandalize wiki pages. Wyss 22:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the past, Sollogites appear to have operated from Kinko's (e.g. 63.164.145.85, which is currently blocked); Starbucks using T-Mobile addresses (e.g. 208.54.95.129, also blocked at the moment); and anonymous proxies (e.g. 64.191.63.213, which belongs to http://www.surffreedom.com/ ). In addition to evidence from past behavior, a forum on the wikipediasucks.com website also encourages Sollog supporters to continue vandalism using those previously employed tactics, as well as public libraries, public wifi networks, and open proxies. Most of the attacks appear to have originated from Atlanta, Georgia and from northeastern Broward county in southern Florida, possibly Pompano Beach, Florida and/or Lighthouse Point, Florida. Sollogites share a similar writing style, using UPPER case for emphasis. The Sollog article has an interesting past, having been created by 65.34.173.202, vigorously defended by Sollogites during a vote for deletion which resulted in a consensus to keep, vandalized, protected, unprotected, and ultimately opposed by the user who created it, resulting in a streak of vandalism today. --MarkSweep 22:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Might I also suggest that we stop linking Sollog in our user pages? I'd rather Google didn't pick up on all the controversy...Mackensen (talk) 01:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog is repeatedly attacking both the article and the talk page through a variety of IP addresses, which I suspect are those of unsecured proxy servers. I suggest that sysops should block these proxies indefinitely, as permitted and encouraged by Wikipedia:Blocking policy. -- ChrisO 00:35, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Anyone who doesn't know how to spot open proxies might want to look over User:Mirv/Open proxies. —No-One Jones 00:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Frontpage was just replaced with a Sollog article. Suggest that more thorough action be taken. Report these actions to the ISPs? Sockatume 00:06, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Huh, it's gone now, and no trace in the revision history. It was the Sollog article with a yellow background. Anyone else catch it? Sockatume 00:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article is currently under heavy attack from Sollog via open proxy servers around the world. Could fellow sysops please keep an eye on it and block the proxies as they appear? -- ChrisO 16:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Môžte mi vyliezť na môj kokot.

The latest on the Sollog front (posted through an open proxy as usual): "his site has a list of over 100,000 proxies that they are passing out to fans to post anonymously here and they are giving out instructions on how to hit the busiest pages, you guys are in for a war, look at his paypal info almost 1000 buyers wiki is only 2400, dozens or hundreds of people using 100,000 proxies will crush this site if you ask me" (sic)
While Sollog/Ennis may not have 100,000 proxies at his disposal, he certainly has a lot which are now blocked. Please be aware that he is mounting revenge attacks on multiple Wikipedia articles, including those linked from the main page. -- ChrisO 23:41, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Isn't he almost certainly breaching the T&Cs of his ISP contract? Couldn't the Wikimedia Foundation therefore register an abuse complaint with his ISP? Given that they're interfering deliberately, in an organised, focussed manner with a website run at non-insignificant cost leave them open to some sort of legal action? Sockatume 01:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes it likely would if you can find who is the cause. Basically what it takes to win a civil suit in the US is damages. Bandwidth, time, and other damages could be raised in this case. The next piece would be being able to prove that a given person or organization caused the damages. Check the pattern of edits to 'Sollog', that same text is repeatedly replacing the text on 'Sollog' and other pages. I have been blocking each one I see. They all seem to come from different netblocks, but I for one have a hard time believing there are that many people behind it. Mostly just one really determined person. In any case please block the IP addresses of those you see making similar edits. I don't see the value in range blocks, as the edits to the same article never seem to come from other IP's in the same range.- Taxman 23:30, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
I think the other important thing is to release a counter-debate to their arguments and perhaps initiate a (a valid and legal) verbal, but rational counter-attack refuting every one of their slanted lies? Their articles are immensely ironic, and yet I find it atrocious that users can be guiled into believing it the other way round. Personally I think this is a conspiracy by SCO and are funding these lies to make their attacks on free software. Or something similar, by some enemy of free software who are horrified that their brainwashing doesn't work against the river of worldwide intellectualism and is actually being threatened by an information gift economy. The irony (of slander et. al)...is immense. -- Natalinasmpf 02:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio

I am a newbie and within a couple of hours of creating my account someone added the "autofellatio" redirect to my User Talk page. It looks like it has been deleted but for some reason there is still a link to it on my page. I am not easily shocked but that image is really disgusting, and has kind of spoiled my first impressions of this site. It seems strange that anyone at all can modify any page on this site, including my profile page. Surely there must be a better way to stop people vandalising the site? Maybe banning anonymous edits, or making it harder to create new accounts? --Jasper99 05:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Banning anonymous edits or making it harder to create new accounts would instantly undermine the great amount of (legitimate) contributions to this site. For one thing, yes, we really don't have much censorship in here, but we do respect taste, and for now, the revert works well. It isn't strange - this is the whole concept of the free encyclopedia: which seems well regulated if you ask me. Rv's of vandalism usually happen quickly. But yes, it is recognised as a problem, hence reason for this page. -- Natalinasmpf 02:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Communism

Though he was a small time spammer a few weeks ago, he has now picked up his activities, even going under names that a personating our beloved Founder, Jimbo Wales. I was wondering what other evidence do yall need to put that user, and his many names, under this section? Zscout370 18:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Urgent help needed gathering evidence of vandalism

I am currently in discussions with Ozemail regarding persistent vandalism that has been occuring from the following IP addresses in their network:


I need assistance with all the specific items of vandalism. I have setup a page to gather this evidence at User:Ta bu shi da yu/Ozemail.

I need all your help! Please use the format:

We'll see just how good their service is at responding to this sort of thing - we should be supporting any company that assists us. Therefore, I'm hoping that the Wikipedia spirit of cooperation and immense amount of volunteers will help with tracking down vandal edits.

If Ozemail gives a good response, we can use them as an example of a good ISP, and maybe even shame AOL into assisting us (we get lots of vandalism from them).

Ta bu shi da yu 01:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Impersonation of NazismIsntCool

Should there be a separate section for people vandalising under some form of my username? [[User:NazismIsntCool|

Nazism isn't cool]] 08:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

"SpongeBob/The Shining Vandal"

I recently rvrted an edit by Spongeyfan concerning the Lisa Simpson page. DO you think that this Shining Vandal could possibly be related? :) APclark 19:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't know, but I have seen 65.172.235.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (I call him/her/it the Cartoon Network Vandal) make edits similar to those of the Shining Vandal. -- 67.100.167.2 19:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

WoW appears on KoWP

WoW appears on KoWP--Hyolee2 07:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

KoWP? King of the Wikipedia? 68.39.174.238 00:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Schism

Please see Wikipedia talk:Vandalism in progress#Schism for a proposal to divide Vandalism in progress into two processes. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 10:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The proposal as it now stands will move Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts to Wikipedia:Long term abuse. If you would like to comment, feel free to do so at the link above. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 09:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Assuming no opposition, the following moves will be performed Friday, 10 March 2006.
Proposed renames
Vandalism in progress → Requests for investigation
Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts → Long-term abuse
Cleaning up vandalism → Vandalism in progress

// Pathoschild (admin / talk) 15:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Meet its Maker" vandal

Should we include a section involving the vandal who keeps using the edit summary On June 6 2006 Wikipedia will meet its maker? --TML1988 03:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

OMG

24.145.155.46 needs blocking, why because[[1]] and [[2]]!!! :O 66.169.0.252 01:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude, anyone can edit the sandbox. Blanking it, though, IS vandalism and they need a warning. -- PinkDeoxys 13:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ban

What's the current policy for banning long-term vandals? Why the List of banned users doesn't have Willy on Wheels or Communism Vandal - doesn't summary blocking of multiple accounts constitute for "community ban" according to WP:BAN? --Dmitry 23:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, WoW and tCv were previously listed, but they were removed as pure vandals. --69.117.7.63 02:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Neither of them are on the list of banned users. I wish though... --NicAgent 00:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
This was discussed elsewhere (Some time ago) and it was decided that vandals' could reform by stopping their vandalism and contribute normally and noone would be able to tell (Assuming they didn't register an account like "Willy on Wheels (Non-vandal account)"), whereas most banned users were banned for their contributions (PoV warring, sockpupperty, etc). Granted, I don't know if there's an out and out policy on whether or not people like WoW are banned at large, or what... 68.39.174.238 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad Idea?

It seems to me that having such in-depth sections on the high-profile vandals, WoW especially, will only create more vandalism. It's almost as if they've been turned into icons for other vandals to look up to. I think the entries should be shortened to no more than one or two paragraphs per "person". Gyre 18:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

À la Wikipedia:Deny recognition? ~MDD4696 19:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that just about nails it. Gyre 23:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)