List of banned users

From Encyclopedia Dramatica
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Info non-talk.png The banned list has been deleted!!!!!! Finally, we can get back into building an encyclopedia! -Jimbo Wales
Remember Publicgirluk fiasco?

And our final farewell goes to: WPFavicon.png Guanaco who started this beautiful banned list! Thanks for feeding the trolls! Without him, ED would be nothing!

List of banned users (WP:LOBU) or banned list is the result of butthurt editors who seek for revenge on trolls who are crazy about trolling or also known as vandalism. The banned list documents their trolling history. The butthurt editors feel that a ban is "punishment" and therefore would indirectly impose "cruel and unusual punishment" by publicly humiliating trolls. But a simple "deny recognition" is something these butthurt editors don't understand. These trolls would eventually move on, hence why the phrase of "do not feed the trolls" in the first place was invented.

A judge showed concern as the Wikipedia community descends into chaos.

As currently stands, the banned list enshrines trolls who are mostly inactive, making the "punishment" useless at best. Only a few trolls on the banned list are active to see editors try to deny recognition! But can they do it by reverting all their edits? No, the whole point of denying recognition is to not feed the trolls. Ignore them completely! They obviously don't get that which makes Wikipedia such a laughingstock! It has never occurred to them that these trolls are doing it for fun in the beginning which is what makes it fun to see trolls watch these butthurt editors SUFFER! Sometimes new policies are created as a result of banned users trying to destroy the Wikipedia community. But in the end, the new policies will dictate and enforce Wikipedia and not allow the freedom needed to write quality articles. Will Wikipedia succeed in its goals? Or will banned users eventually take over?

When you love to smile while seeing your name on the banned list!


   
 
A ban is a punishment, and is used to revoke the editing privileges of a person.
 

 
 

—Jayron32, From a potential administrator's perspective

Today the banned list is used as the Wikipedia Wall of Shame for having too many trolls who lose at life due to living in the corrupt society. It is the place where Wikipedos enshrine trolls to make sure that their bad deeds do not go unremembered and should ultimately be where losers like you want to land up. The LOBU page itself is a list of persistent trolls, with unfunny details on their vandalism. It is important to these trolls that their source of pride and prosperity is documented.

While most Wikipedos happily gave them this honor, some do not and want to "deny recognition" creating massive lulz. If you troll Wikipedia, which is extremely lulzy and stupid, that Wikipedos "deny recognition" of you, you will most likely have your own long-term abuse page but you will most likely not have your history on banned list.

How to get on the banned list

Getting on the banned list is getting your mug shot taken.
When you are banned, others may give you strange looks as a tool to publicly humiliate trolls.

There are three ways: Tick the "de facto leader of Wikipedia" off; Screw with the ArbCom's goals, or ANGER the community by exhausting their precious "patience"! Although, getting banned by Jimbo would require lots of trolling but it gets considerably less attention than the others! Consider yourself lucky if you can get banned by him; meaning you have unlocked the secrets of Wikipedia's success! It appears no one has tried to do it in a VERY long time! So it's time for you to get creative! These are just suggestions; feel free to come up with MORE lulz!!! :)

  1. Troll Jimbo Wales's talk page.
  2. Destroy Wikipedia's reputation!!
  3. Pretend to have mental limitations such as Asperger's syndrome by using your fake special needs to troll.
  4. Legal threats. Iwillsue2.jpg
  5. Misuse of admin powers Paid editing is not okay for non-admins, but it's just fine for sysops.
  6. Argue over a controversial issue and make Wikipedia look like the bad side.
  7. Team up with administrators and make them side with your views while violating the neutral point of view policy.
  8. Accuse other editors as your sockpuppets.
  9. Direct profanity at people who reported your sockpuppets.
  10. During your ban discussion, go on other websites particularly Y!A to laugh and insult the Wikipedos discussing your ban.
  11. ???
  12. PROFIT!

How to get off the banned list

Once on the list, almost nobody was ever removed from the list, especially if their ban was handed down by that shit-eater gang called ArbCom. You have to suck up to Wiki asswipes to get unbanned and you have to do it for years. Ask Giano or Malleus.

Error creating thumbnail: File missing
the fat turds will ban yr azz even if you have never edited Wikipedia at all

People with disabilities being banned

Disabled people getting banned is like being humiliated in front of society while a police officer looks down at you.

Concerned parents became concerned of people with disabilities being banned without realizing this is the Internet! For the 5000000 times, no one gives a shit, how many times do we have to say until it clicks? But it does give ED something to write about! Even if it's a little bit. This is not Special Education where the concerned parents want their children to receive full benefits from being educated but then ended up at Vocational Independence Program making it pointless!

A concerned parent attention whoring as if people care!

Info non-talk.png WIKIPEDIA DISCRIMINATES PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES!!!!














Someone opposes full inclusion. How shocking! [1]

*The* Video(s)

One of Simulation12's socks kindly reported on his talk page by posting a Youtube video for an unblock (BALEETED). It's probably not the best but it's a start! Please add more videos like this below and the ones with the most graphic, lulz, etc. WINS!

Sockpuppet hunting Hall of Fame

There are several well-known sockpuppet hunters who watch out for banned editors on Wikipedophilia. They decided to lead the CheckUsers to the holy land by reporting over 9000 socks. Some argue, that reporting sockpuppets is not good and just becomes an "endless series of conflicts". We salute the following anti-trolls of Wikipedia:

The purpose of banning is pointless when sockpuppet hunters “cannot conceivably stop” banned users from editing. An example of a CheckUser in action: having so many socks at one time is wrong and is justified for a ban discussion! Sockpuppet hunters tend to be overzealous during SPI investigation hoping their suspicions are correct.

The drama that led to the distinction between "ban" and "de facto ban"

Info non-talk.png WARNING Wikipedos love feeding the trolls!
Oh! Yes, the drama, we know, we know.
   
 
Not to be too procedurally oriented but... Did this get run up the flagpole anywhere for the community?

Just because she asks for it, doesn't make her banned. I don't object to her being banned, but people should really not be added to those lists w/o the proper process, because then someone can say "Oh, but X is here and wasn't really...", and call the whole thing into question...
 


 
 

Georgewilliamherbert, Asking for it always results into a ban discussion!

Then Fred Bauder decided to argue with him...

   
 
The usual rule applies. If any administrator unblocks her she is not banned. What's to discuss? If she could edit I would happily guide her myself in learning the ropes.
 

 
 

—Fred Bauder, Fred is stupid for someone who was part of ARBCOM

Georgewilliamherbert realized the fact that Fred is getting old!


   
 
I don't see much if any dissent here on the outcome, but we have never had a "This longtime admin / ex-arbcom member can just say you're banned" policy or precedent.
 

 
 

—Georgewilliamherbert, Fred doesn't know. Give him a break!

Georgewilliamherbert, satisfied to see Fred Bauder, an EX-ARBCOM member obliged.


   
 
The discussion there went where I expected; I'll wait a couple of days and close it if we get no objections, that should formalize it to my satisfaction that process was duly followed.
 

 
 

—Georgewilliamherbert, Fred appreciated his guidance.

Wikipedos are afraid of being laughed at or insulted!


   
 
I'm well aware of that, George, but did you stop to think that she may be laughing her butt off or otherwise taunting us off-wiki as a result of this rather pointless discussion? I know of several other de facto banned users in which that exactly happens whenever their names are mentioned here on a new edit (via edit-stalking bots). But I suppose process is process, and we have to follow it, regardless of any consequences that may come forth as a result of a lack of hindsight.
 

 
 

MuZemike, And this is why Wikipedos are no fun!

In one month and nine days, Kindzmarauli went ahead and be bold. He decided it was time to change the nature of the banned list. He changed it by making a specific distinction between "ban" and "de facto ban". Franamax said de facto ban is nowhere mentioned in the banning policy. Burpelson AFB reverted the edit saying that "admins can impose bans by themself" but only on users who don't have trouble editing but are de facto trolls! However, the distinction is described in the next section:

Distinction and confusion between "ban" and "de facto ban"

As you can see, the banning policy did not make a distinction between them. Perhaps someone will. In order to have a "ban", the troll must be very disruptive by creating really unfunny vandalism so the community can ban him or her. In order to have a "de facto ban", the troll must be really a dick to cause extreme disruption to have the community "deny recognition". And then, the troll(s) create more sockpuppets, which clearly is a cause for massive lulz. This causes administrators to put the troll on the banned list without the ban discussion, as shown in Bambifan101, Scibaby, Willy on Wheels, etc. Here is quick way to figure it out. Any time it says ban then it's an official ban for the troll meaning the troll has LOST! If it just says banned, it's not. Sometimes, it's not used and it means its a completely a fake troll like Scibaby. In any case, these Wikipedos refused to acknowledged the troll. It's that simple. It is also common for editor(s) to get confused here on Wikipedia as shown here: Complaining that Scibaby is not really banned, and complaining again

   
 
Firstly, what about editors who became banned under the old definition of "no admin willing to unblock" and are still up to the same tricks? There is an editor who has spent years trolling (fairly successfully) at the Reference Desks, spottable through various technical and behavioural cues. We deal with it as "block evasion", "long term abuse", "banned user" - but I don't think there is any single formal discussion to point to, as it goes back into the mists of time. As the de facto wording has fallen out of use (and probably should when considering new bans), was the intent to provide a blanket amnesty to these users, restoring them as members of the community until someone initiates a formal discussion? The practical effect is to remove the 3RR exemption for reverting edits by banned users, so I can block them but I can myself be blocked if I revert their edits, which doesn't make sense to me. Putting the onus on me to start the discussion is unfair as a) it would be an enormous job to go back and catalog the whole thing; b) it's not necessary, as those who need to know already know why it's done the way it's done (the troll exploits the discussion process itself, so quiet removal is necessary); c) it seems crazy to lay out the whole playbook for the troll to read and modify their behaviour. They just plain are banned, but if I'm going to risk a block or be forced to do a week of work to justify myself, I'll just let it happen next time and write my predictions down on a piece of paper.
 

 
 

—Crotalus horridus

   
 
Similarly, what about the case where a term ban has expired but the editor has not yet returned to good standing, i.e. they are indefinitely blocked and have not asked for unblock, but are continuing the same pattern of disruptive behaviour. Specifically, say editor A has been community-banned for a year for disruptive behaviour including socking. A stays quiet for a year, then resumes disruptive socking in a recognizable way without asking for their main account to be unblocked. Editor B spots this and responds by reverting the bad edits and asking for A's socks to be blocked. But if B reverts A four times, B gets blocked for 3RR. This is perverse as it defends the right of A to have their bad edits stand and puts B at risk of a block for defending the wiki.
 

 
 

—Georgewilliamherbert

   
 
Normally I don't get too hung up on the exact wording of policy as I figure if I'm doing things right I won't have a problem, but these cases do revolve around precise wording. And editors not of my own awesome grandeur deserve to have some certainty about how they should proceed when they see disruption. So can anyone provide some clarity?
 

 
 

—Franamax

   
 
I agree with Franamax, there needs to be a safety net for editors in good standing to be able to revert banned editors without fear of sanctions being imposed. This has been the way its been done now for as long as I can remember. When an banned editor comes to the project and socks, any editor can revert on sight, no matter how many times, to remove editing that is done by a sock. We need to be able to also make sure to follow WP:DENY and WP:RBI and WP:SOCK. I don't care how it's done as long as there is a section stating that editors protecting the project from sock puppets have protection from being blocked or sanctioned in any way. There are many serial socks at the project that editors can spot and take care of but that was with the knowledge that the policies were in our favor to do so. If you remove the safety net than there might as well be no blocking/banning because who in there right mind is going to jeopardize their own account to stop a sock puppet. I feel strongly that block/ban means you are not welcomed here at the project and may not edit until you become a member in good standing again. So lets figure out a way to return the safety net since the original wording that was up in this policy has been replaced.


 


 
 

—Crohnie


   
 
If we want to expand the ban process such that certain longtime trusted admins / ex-arbcom members / whoever can ban people who are indefblocked already and still abusing, that's fine, but a separate question. I don't know that I'd support changing the policy but if you want to propose that, open a thread and do so, I don't think it's unreasonable to propose it.
 

 
 

—Georgewilliamherbert, It is always a crime to not give it to them.


   
 
...but it is worthwhile making sure that the actual true ban is per extant policy.
 

 
 

—Georgewilliamherbert, Only those who ask for it can have the actual true ban per policy.

Deletion of the list

If King of the Hill's Bobby enjoys the lulz, then Wikipedos can to!

For the official deletion rationale, rewind all the way back to the fall of 2006; Cyde, obviously agitated by the banned list decided to make a fool of himself by attempting to delete important lulz!


   
 
I can't think of any good reasons to keep this page around. For one, many of the people on this list were banned years ago, and it's really irrelevant. Plus, a lot of them came here under Wikipedia-specific names, so this list is very meaningless. Of course, it's hard to keep this thing up-to-date (or, rather, I would say it's not worth it), and so the selection effect of who does make it on here gives some people false kudos, as in, "I was such a bad vandal they put me on the permanently banned list!" Per WP:DENY this page really needs to go. Also, the last straw is this recent vandal who is saying they will only stop vandalizing once they are put in this list ... in other words, this is encouraging vandalism by offering immortality, of sorts.
 

 
 

—Cyde Weys, Leader of anti-lulz


   
 
The result of the debate was Keep. Consensus is unlikely to be reached at this time.
 

 
 

—El_C, That's what happen when people try to delete lulz!

Wikipedia trolls the world over shed a collective tear when the list was deleted on October 2, 2014, on the sixth try.

Examples of retarded people supporting deletion of the banned list and ending up being butthurt

Just imagine 4 of him supporting deletion!
   
 

...banned users probably see it as a reward to be on their own special page. Also, if they're inactive, it shouldn't be of interest to many people
 


 
 

—Majorly

   
 
I agree with the nominator that the page fails WP:DENY as well as adds an incentive for users to start vandalising Wikipedia.
 

 
 

—hoopydink

   
 
the category makes it easier to maintain. While details & circumstances that led to the ban could go to the user's/talk page, you can never be sure that this clogged page is up-to-date
 

 
 

—Humus sapiens

   
 
per WP:DENY; keep such records on the CVU website if there is a need to
 

 
 

—Kimchi.sg

Other considerations

Sadly, most Wikipedos suffer from narcissistic personality disorder.

The only possible way, highly unlikely would if the few hundred banned users begged for mercy and get unblocked. But that would never happen as the banned list is incomplete and those users not on there will serve to replace the ones that served their sentence. If the banned list were a selected list of banned users, then the banned list would be pointless and can be deleted. But until now, it doesn't appear that the banned list will ever be deleted. Another possibility about getting the list deleted is to somehow convince the community that it's not important. Yeah right, these Wikipedos are too in love with themselves to realize that!

Conduct towards banned editors

What part of "don't feed the trolls" do they not understand?
   
 
You are banned from Wikipedia by the community. You are not welcome here If you continue editing from this internet service provider I will perfectly happily rangeblock the IP range here as well. Go away and stop attempting to participate in Wikipedia. Your assertion that you're only here to try to make thing better is clearly shown to be false by your ongoing sockpuppetry and the grossly abusive edits you have done over and over again.
 

 
 

—Georgewilliamherbert, Technically he's de facto banned.

Administrators are angry people. They commonly will tell banned users to "go away" if they come back. Please do not take this personally. However, it does provide a vendetta for banned users to return.

   
 
Wikipedia's hope for banned editors is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned editors, or to take advantage of their ban to mock them.
 

 
 

Administrators think it's appropriate to bait banned users to get them into more trouble!

See Also

External Links


Wikipedia series.jpg

List of banned users is part of a series on

Wikipedia

Visit the Wikipedia Portal for complete coverage.

Portal trolls.png

List of banned users is part of a series on

Trolls

Visit the Trolls Portal for complete coverage.