Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Kitten Vandal

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Kitten Vandal

There is an argument that these Long term abuse subpages, with their special infobox and picture, glorify and thus encourage vandals (see WP:BEANS).

Now, while I think that subpages on Willy on Wheels, Wikipedia is Communism, Johnny the Vandal etc. can be justified, because they've been going on for years and have become part of Wikipedia humour (fake RfAs on April Fools' Day, etc), this one, on the so-called Kitten Vandal, is massively premature. He's only been going for a few days, and while he's racked up a lot of sockpuppets in that time, he's not yet anything out of the ordinary - apart from the fact that he's managed to push people's funneh buttons with his "lol kittens" comic identity.

The creation of this subpage says that if you think up an imaginative 'vandal persona', and start vandalising Wikipedia a few times a day, and keep it up for a mere week or so, you will get a sort of Hall of Fame entry. In other words, this page has a very bad case of WP:BEANS. If we restrict these subpages to those vandals that have been going on for months or years, there won't be as much of a BEANSing effect because few vandals will have the patience to reach the point of Willy on Wheels.

And yes, I know we need centralised information on the vandal somewhere - for that, one or two paragraphs summarising his characteristics and a link to the sock drawer in a subsection of WP:LTA will suffice, just as it does for all the other passing vandals. So delete this, and relegate it to a sub-section on WP:LTA for now. Restore it if he's still here in a year's time. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. Keep, changed mind after seeing more Kitten Vandal sockpuppets, useful as a central resource. Agreed it was premature for the page to be created, however, are you saying that all of the WP:LTA subpages that have a case of WP:BEANS should be deleted, or just this one? I notice that this is the only page that you listed here, and I am simply curious. ><Richard0612 ^{UW 12:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)}

  If there are others on vandals that aren't anything 'out of the ordinary', then yes, they should be deleted as well. This is merely the particular vandal where I know he's only been going for a few days and I know he has an LTA subpage, hence this is the one I'm nominating for deletion. I can't comment on the rest. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks for clarifying. ><Richard0612 ^{UW 13:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)}

• I feel that I am changing my mind, after seeing another KV sockpuppet, and more kitten vandalism, I feel now that perhaps the page should be kept. ><Richard0612 ^{UW 08:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)}

• Delete. This page isn't needed. 82 18:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, we need centralized info on vandals, this doesn't really incur WP:BEANS, and even so, that essay is rather silly in concept anyway. Very useful. One of the reasons I signed up was to defend Wikipedia from vandalism, and this Kitten Vandal seems one of the most active at the moment. //Ollo87 20:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  User's fourth edit. Now blocked [trolling and nonsense]

• Keep as of now. Page has become useful now but the original author, Richard0612 was a bit of an idiot to create it so soon. Maybe he is a kitten lover, and hated to see his 'wittle kitten babies' abused. \\LUV//SpreadtheLuv 21:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  User's first edit. Now a confirmed sockpuppet of the Kitten Vandal.

• Strong Keep This vandal is a unique entity and with the increasing amount of sockpuppets/imitators, inclusion merely at WP:LTA would become cluttered. Ryūlóng 22:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

  Why do we need the list of socks? A link to the sock drawer would suffice, as I already said. That leaves the mere one or two paragraphs needed to describe his characteristics. There is no clutter issue. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Josen

  This isn't a vote. Any reason? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  Yes. This is a major vandal. Look at the sockpuppet list. Josen

• Keep. vandal already has some 20 sockpuppets, and several impersonators, notable enough for its own page. tmopkisn ^tlka 20:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I think that WP:DENY is an important argument here, maybe even more to the point than WP:BEANS. For many vandals, their main motivation is notoriety, and these pages just feed them (for example, the North Carolina Vandal -- WP:NCV -- created his own long-term abuse page), and just a couple days ago, I got vandalized by a new vandal who threatened to continue until I made a long-term abuse page on him. No -- I think we should resist making these pages. Others may disagree, and feel free to, but I think these pages, especially on marginally "notable" vandals, are actually harmful to the project. Antandrus (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. If we delete it, then there is a possibility that they will either recreate it, or vandalize some more until we do it for them. Also, this is supposed to be the most comprehensive encyclopedia in the world. That means keeping tabs on well-known vandals. Those who do not learn the past are doomed to repeat it. Chile14 21:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very important details. --Bigtop 20:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It was created prematurely, true. But the multitude of socks makes this page pretty useful now. Misza13 ^{T C} 20:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.