Wikipedia talk:Revert, block, ignore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Absolutely

This is precisely the optimum manner in which to deal with dull vandals. They want satisfaction; don't give it. They want attention; deny it. They feed on the game; don't play it. Constructing pages, categories, tags and the rest can serve a purpose in certain scenarios (see below) but generally, it means that time is spent on what are fundamentally time wasters, and that kind of inverse victory shouldn't be handed to them.

There may be some exceptions to this. There are cases where massively acute vandalism (Squidward springs to mind) needs a holding-pen briefly to contain e.g. a list of the IPs that need a range block or to assist admins who have had to go to sleep (!) to know that what they see is something that is not unexpected. This can be useful in the short-term and can help to stop a million [sic] messages to WP:AIAV and/or WP:ANI. The trouble with creating these pages is that they are hard to remove later; but perhaps one or two of them lying around doesn't do so much harm.

In general, however, I'd agree heartily that revert, block and ignore is both the lowest-maintenance and most effective approach. It should also include not bothering to tag the userpages of throwaway accounts with {{indefblockeduser}}; if they've been thrown away, don't pull them out of the trash can for decorating. -Splash - tk 01:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support with clarifications

Thanks to Cyde for posting this essay. I don't agree with him about everything on the site but there is a substantial core of merit to his approach to this issue. And I am pleased to see an attempt to approach the issue via an essay that will hopefully lead to some consensus, as opposed to through a continuation of unilateral action by anyone.

A few caveats:

1. The RBI approach should apply to chronic, serial vandals. It should not replace (and I don't think Cyde means it to replace) the "test" warnings for newbies, the AGF principle, etc.

2. There seems to be a trend among some users to define "vandalism" ever more broadly. "Deleting my content because it was unsourced is vandalism," "blanking a warning from your userpage is vandalism," etc. This is about "vandalism" in its original, narrow sense -- page-blanking, deleting content for no reason, inserting blatant nonsense, etc.

3. In discussion at ANI, many editors, including experienced admins who focus on vandal-fighting, indicated that some pages tagging sockpuppets, summarizing patterns of long-term abuse, etc., are very useful to them in vandal-fighting and it would set their efforts back if such pages were deleted. This issue needs to be talked through in detail among the most affected users. One possibility might be to limit access to the LTA and similar pages to admins (or some others with appropriate safeguards) but eliminate them from the pages accessible to the vandals themselves and the Google searchers. Or some variation thereof.

Subject to further discussion, I think that Cyde has basically the right idea here. Newyorkbrad 03:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Here's my thought, FWIW. Vandalism is mostly good. It's just kids testing out Wikipedia the way kids test out the limits of any structure to see what they can get away with. For the most part I don't warn, I'm not an admin so I can't block. I just quietly revert. The lesson is: you vandalise us, the vandalism goes away, nothing bad happens. You get bored. These kids grow up a bit, some of them join us as wikipedians, and lots more know and trust the site and use it for reference. It's all good. AndyJones 19:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• And here's my other thought, FWIW. (I've got two.) The other lesson is: what you type here sticks on the internet for everyone to read. If you type good stuff it hangs around. That's the ultimate positive reinforcer for the kind of guys we want on this project. It's all good. AndyJones 19:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good

Good essay; harmonious with my own thoughts on the subject. Our most powerful tool in fighting vandals is boredom: the kids that bother us have short attention-spans, and quickly give up and go away, more often than not, when they don't get that thrill of reaction. I remember what it was like being a 14-year-old troublemaker. In my own career as a vandal-fighter, the worst mistakes I have made have been when I've yelled back at trolls, written about vandals on specialized pages, or posted anxious calls for help. Revert, block, ignore, and hurl their trophy cabinets into the nearest drainage ditch. Antandrus (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all 14 year olds are troublemakers. Don't overgeneralize. 1ne 21:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We tried this with the PWOT lot. Talking to themm worked better.Geni 01:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Who? --Cyde Weys 01:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

PWOT mob. Standard forum raid. Mildly anoying. people managed to talk them out of it.Geni 02:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)