Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Wikipedia is Communism

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

The result of the debate was keep. Radiant_>|< 00:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Wikipedia is Communism

Vandalism is vandalism. We don't need to know that you're a sockpuppet of another vandal account to ban you. Pages such as this give publicity to vandals, and encourage copycat vandalism acts. Roman Soldier 01:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Using your logic, if you want to delete this, you might as well delete the entire Vandalism in Progress section altogether. --TML1988 06:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• I would - it serves no purpose. Dan100 (Talk) 16:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, this helps to prevent vandalism beforehand. - ulayiti (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, This page is useful, perhaps some of the older items could be removed or archived though. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 16:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - useful tool in keeping track of vandals. --Hurricane111 16:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, troll fodder and pointless. It certainly does not prevent vandalism - it only encourages it by glorifying it and giving vandals the recognition they crave. Dan100 (Talk) 16:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It helps to prevent vandalism by allowing us to block sockpuppets of the Wikipedia of Communism vandal before they disrupt the project too much. - ulayiti (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • We don't need this page to do that. Dan100 (Talk) 09:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; we go out of our way to glorify or give notoriety to vandals with cool names, categories, and Wikipedia pages. Adding comments that Wikipedia is Communism to random pages is nonsense and page blanking vandalism, not part of a vast conspiracy of minions or sockpuppets. Vandalism is vandalism, per nom. // Pathoschild 17:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful tool for keeping track of vandals, and he's one of the most infamous of them all. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the issue of vandal pages being kept or not has been thoroughly addressed before, no need to bring this up. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 18:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• (Comment, I know I'm an IP), this was done before with WoW's too, it failed about as badly as this one is doing now).
• Keep, as the alternative (listing them on the Long Term Alerts page) is mind-boggling, as that page is already huge. We need to keep track of them somehow. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 19:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since this was created because WP:VIP got way too big with this vandal, so we had to fork. Zach (Sound Off) 22:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment "Using your logic, if you want to delete this, you might as well delete the entire Vandalism in Progress section altogether." Yes, by removing the publicity of these vandals we discourage future vandalism. Roman Soldier 23:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose we should stop wanted ads because they only encourage criminal behaviour? Keep. -- Natalinasmpf 02:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment It's not like an article about this guy is going to help us find him. Roman Soldier 02:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the recent proposal to use a civil suit doesn't ring a bell? We have evidence. Now, we only need to seek a subpoena...even without, I really suppose say, newspapers should never cover large criminal heists, oh no, because it gives criminals too much glory. -- Natalinasmpf 03:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been established that the real Communism Vandal is using a large string of proxies. Besides, it has been shown that there are multiple imitators. This is also contrary to our policy against legal threats. Hexagonal 03:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

But these aren't legal threats made between users. This could be a legal action by the Wikimedia Foundation against WiC. Exactly because proxies are used (and we have the time), we can easily obtain subpoenas to prosecute. It becomes purely a Hansel and Gretel game. -- Natalinasmpf 04:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Since these accounts are almost always created and behave in a pattern, the RC patrollers need to know how to identify them and correct any problems. Removing the Vandalism in Progress section will only confuse RC patrollers, when they try to distinguish between new and curious/mischevious users and hard line vandals. Hexagonal 03:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I think Roman Soldier might be a sock of tCV. Why else would he be so eager to suppress this vandal's history? A classic revisionist, if you ask me.

I think you're a sock of someone! All 4 of your edits have been to this page. 12.75.98.167 21:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Err, incorrect. I have an extensive history dating back to July. Roman Soldier 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Another comment: A frequent justification I see for deletion of this page is "It gives them attention", which is does, and "this is what they want". For this vandal at least I say that that's not the case: He's openly claimed his intention is "term abuse/Wikipedia is Communism&diff=prev&oldid=31418375 to try to destroy Wikipedia as much as possible in any way possible." I think he'll keep doing that regardless of whether this page exists.
• Delete per Dan100. --ComputerJoe 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep These pages are instrumental to the WP:CVU. Admins need information available about what kind of vandals are out there so that we can respond to them. Also, please cite some evidence that these pages enocourage copycats. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep For the same reason I'd vote to keep the willy on wheels page, it helps when trying to see a pattern in possible sockpuppets as well as for keeping track of the sockpuppets and their vandalism patterns. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This page already survived a AFD. -Banana04131 00:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, you don't reward vandals with undeserved fame. Create a generic page with a table of sockpuppets or vandals to allow tracking, it's far less appealing to naughty people to be on a list than to have one's own special page.Endomion 14:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. I cannot imagine the admins are so stupid that they require an information page about known vandals to recognize vandalism on sight, or to inform them that random splashes of hammer and sickle pics or the "Wikipedia is Communism!" slogan just might be vandalism. RGTraynor 14:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Recalling that this is not a poll, but a discussion over arguments. This isn't a reward to the vandal, it's a subpage of Vandalism in progress to inform about the vandal, which may be useful to new admins. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly Strong Keep "Undeserved fame"? You mean INfame? Anyways, Adolf Hitler was infamous and he has an article. So does Lee Harvey Oswald, so does SuperShadow. Infamous people have articles too. Also, it's nice for people (and admins) to know who to watch out for! --Shultz 21:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

• (Keep) Yes there is some logic to your nomination, but people will vandalise anyway and these people will return. It is best people know about the vandal and how to deal with it, and if copycats appear, so what? They are going by a pattern we've dealt with before, so they can be dealt with in the same fashion as any other sockpuppet of these repeating vandals. Keep Agent Blightsoot 00:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Valuable knowledge base for future vandal-fighters. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:02, Dec. 25, 2005
• I oppose this deletion. This page and the one about WoW should be kept. --Kuroki Mio 2006 17:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It is like an incident room on wheels!! --Bulgarian Ben 17:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful for keeping track. the wub "?!" 23:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we shouldn't encourage vandals. Catamorphism 19:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This vandal had all the encouragement he needed before the ViP/WiC page was created. 68.179.134.228 22:57, 27 December 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.