Wikiality talk:Admin Board/Blocks

User:Volderbeek
Was banned for a week due to replacng content with a spam message.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Palacios_85
Blanking pages with comments that seemed to mean he didn't like the comments (thought they might be racist), but then went overboard by adding other stupid things. Plezse check his "contributions" (forgot to add here)--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 21:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked User
User:Brothersr5@cox.net vandalized Stephen Colbert and has earned a one month ban (ending March 3, 2007). This user appears to be working in cahoots with User:Alextwa due to the subject matter and style of edits being very similar.

User:Alextwa is banned until February 7, 2007, for "repeatedly removing warning tags on pages". He has beened many times before.

I bring this up because of something User:Pro-Lick pointed out (I forget where exactly).

User:Alextwa claims to work for a large record company and only posts performers on that label. So, it seems we may have a Microsoft paying for Wikipedia edits on our hands? Either way the commercialism makes me sick.

Please give your opinions.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 19:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Realityisacommodity appears to belong to the same group, editing the same types of pages.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 22:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing that disturbs me about this, and that also makes me doubt the "pay for placement" a little, is that the writing itself is just so bad. I find it almost impossible to imagine that a major record label would pay someone to make edits on a wiki site when that person couldn't spell or construct a basic grammatical sentence.  Why bother?  Their edits are bound to get reverted because they're more likely to get noticed.  While I find the behavior of "Alextwa" (& company) suspicious, it's far more disturbing to think that he/she/they might be getting paid. It was pretty clear from "Alextwa"'s talk page rantings and the pieces s/he posted that this was not a well-balanced, adult corporate "lackey."  Nobody fakes spelling or angst that embarrassing. This doesn't change the banning procedure.  It just means we might have to expect more of this in the future.  I think the new "flog" templates are helpful for marking this kind of activity, too.--thisniss 06:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: the badness of it all, I agree with you coompletely and would like to add that what the corporations are paying for is the illusion that a "fan" is willingly posting in homage of the object of their affection. Not only is the writing supposed to be at the same level as the target audience so too is the "look" of the page, which is why they post on MySpace, LiveJournal, and wikis, etc.  The idea is to get around paying people the market rate for their skills.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 07:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviving Already Killed Pages
User:Adubz91 and his bacon fetish, if only it were funny. Or witty.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 01:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Another Reanimator
User:Awesome23, the racist, has revived a page after it was deleted a few times.--WatchTVEatDonutDrinkBeer 23:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)