Wrong information about BitcoinTalk history on Wikipedia

[logfiles]

This is how the page looked like right before some salty scammer whose multiple accounts been banned several times in this forum edited it - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcointalk&diff=1047515294&oldid=1047515176



He has been so obsessed about Theymos for whatever reason it is. Maybe because he was banned.

[1714850200]

1714850200

[1714850200]

1714850200

[1714850200]

1714850200

[NotATether]

This is how the page looked like right before some salty scammer whose multiple accounts been banned several times in this forum edited it - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcointalk&diff=1047515294&oldid=1047515176

He has been so obsessed about Theymos for whatever reason it is. Maybe because he was banned.

He came again to revert my edits (which were counter-revered by an admin)  LOL  

Apparently, he has been reverting several edits over the course of several months, behind IP addresses.

I'm going to make an application to edit-protect the bitcointalk page to prevent this behavior (there are way too many speedy deletion notices added and removed if you take a look at the edit history).

Edit: done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Bitcointalk just waiting for this request to be approved and that vandal can go take a hike.

Edit 2: It was declined:

Declined – Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

AIV appears to be some administrator intervention service.


The warnings progressively range from ridiculous to actually serious. There are 4 of them and I'm assuming I have to use them in order:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:179.125.142.194# This is the first one We're allowed to start with  Vandalism2 if it's not a good faith violation (seriously, we know humanrightsfoundation is not going to adhere to a "hey please stop your vandalism" warning).

[dkbit98]

...

I don't have the nerves to do what you are doing and I don't have wikipedia account, but you are teasing him a lot to come back in forum yet again with his new account and with same old complains
User 179.125.142.194 = humansrightfoundation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Bitcointalk

[icopress]

First 4 threads are off limit. I think they are some test post which has been off limited. [...]

There is also another version .. There is a very high probability that information was published in one of the deleted threads that hypothetically violated Satoshi's confidentiality. Unfortunately, I have only a travel laptop at hand, so it is not possible to back up my words with links and quotes, ^{[maybe I'll do it later]}.

[NotATether]

...

I don't have the nerves to do what you are doing and I don't have wikipedia account, but you are teasing him a lot to come back in forum yet again with his new account and with same old complains

The "teasing" is actually the official template message Wikipedia requires us to use to warn people before reporting them to an administrator (as you can see, level 4im is the most severe warning I can fire before getting an admin's attention. He is on level 2.)

[NotATether]

After yet another content assault on the Wikipedia article, it got speedy-deleted by an admin and I'm now in the process of convincing the admin who deleted it to recreate it with page protections. Stand by  

Edit: as you can see in the conversation, admin said I have to make a new draft of the Bitcointalk article before t can be protected (the article with its revision history was deleted so I don't have access to those anymore). I will most likely use Bitcoin Wiki, stuff on this forum, and old copies on the Wayback Machine as inspiration for the new, protected version.