Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition/Archives/2006/05

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warning This is a discussion archive created in May 2006, though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See current discussion, or the archives index.

Contents

[edit] General opinion log

 This is not a vote. It is just a tool for judging current consensus, and has no effect whatsoever on the acceptance of this proposal. The actual vote will begin with zero votes.

This is a log of users who agree with the proposal so far; as concerns are met, more users support. If you have a concern with the proposal, feel free to discuss and improve it instead of opposing. You should only oppose if you think the proposal can never be improved to your liking.

[edit] Support

  1. Obviously support, as creator. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 09:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - per usual -- Tawker 09:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support- One of the few cases when you ignore something, it goes away. I whole heartedly agree. From a law-enforcement standpoint, if you give suspects attention when they misbehave ( not to be confused with when they actually commit crimes) they just act the fool even more. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 09:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Another good idea from Pathoschild. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. I agree that infamy just brings more vandals. - Tangotango 09:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. It's a good idea.--Adam (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Don't feed the trolls/vandals. Angela. 05:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Recognition could be serving as positive reinforcement for vandals. -- Psy guy Talk 01:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. Why give the vandals something to be proud of? --Scott Grayban 01:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. Its like how camera crews dont show people running across the field at ball games... it just encourages them. -Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 06:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Good idea --Jaranda wat's sup 22:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support CalJW 01:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Yes, absolutely, please. Andre (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Strong support I love this proposal, a good idea grounded firmly in common sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support; I love this. Remove trophy cases for vandals. Antandrus (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

 Remember: this is not a vote. The actual vote will begin again with zero votes.
  1. Oppose as well as it been funny to see some of the names of accounts like Category:Imposters of FireFox (I know, sound unprofessional but I'm been honest) in rare occasions it may slow down sockpuppetry investigations. Computerjoe's talk 16:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Funny is nice, but encouraging vandalism is not a price worth paying. As to tracking down socks, providing we keep tags suspected socks of established users, which we might need for AC evidence, I can't see how these categories help. I just deleted Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Blu Aardvark because the culprit himself was editing it. And what possible use are the categories of willy socks? --Doc ask? 16:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
      • You raise a valid point. Okay, how about statistics? Computerjoe's talk 19:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
        • What statistics do you mean? If you mean statistics of socks, I'd ask what use they are, and does any use outweigh the disadvantage of encouraging vandals? --Doc ask? 21:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Sockpuppet accounts older than a month aren't useful for tracking newer sockpuppets. They can be tracked by comparing them to newer sockpuppets, and older accounts are useless for CheckUser purposes because the associated IP information is automatically discarded by that time. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 23:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
            • Yes, but tagged socks of current users (not indef banned ones) can be useful as AC evidence even without CU. Some socks are obvious and can demonstrate a user's history of sockpuppetry. But I think this is fairly minor, what this project is aiming at is the sock categories of banned users and blatant vandals, not problem users who might still be subject to arbcom consideration in future. --Doc ask? 00:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Indeed. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 04:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
                • Hmmm, stats like 'Willy on Wheels' has 545068419848 socks. Computerjoe's talk 18:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
                  • Going strictly by the categories, there are 1823 sockpuppets and 64 imposters. However, these numbers are a tiny fraction of the total number, because they do not include the many usernames that are regularly blocked without being tagged with the categories. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 22:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Speedy Oppose -- Especially oppose the very idea of voting on this at all, voting on this while saying "this isn't a vote", and voting on this so soon after creation. There is a sound idea at the root of this but it requires a great deal of consideration in order to avoid unintended consequences. This smells like a rush job to me and once it's in place it may be used as an argument to go on all sorts of deletionist witch hunts. This needs much more time and participation before maturing into anything that can polled for support. John Reid 05:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • So, express your concerns and help work out what any negative consequences might be. Frankly, if after a few days, and a lot more eyes, no-one at all has any real concerns then why not speedy it through? Vauge partisan talk of 'deletionist witch hunts' is unhelpful, what exactly do you think might be deleted that shouldn't be? Raise your precise concerns and let's see if we can't build in the neccessary safeguards. --Doc ask? 09:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Also, we don't neccessarly have to 'poll for support' at all. If the discussion leads to general consensus, then that is enough. --Doc ask? 09:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
      • How is this a "rush job"? We're not even done discussing it yet. The poll is just a log of users who are now satisfied; it's a much more democratic form of consensus than the typical rushed two-week melee. As users' concerns are addressed, they add their names in support of the proposal. As the very prominent box above says, discuss any problems you have with the proposal and we'll do our best to resolve them. There being no imminent deadline, there's no reason to oppose unless you sincerely believe the proposal couldn't possibly be changed to your liking. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I find the poll highly objectionable. If you want to draw me to your side, close and archive this premature effort to gather support for something that should still be in development. John Reid 18:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
          • I edited the boxes to emphasise the nature of this log. This is not a vote. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 20:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Are WP:LTA and templates affected?

Suggest you add a space. CamelCase is ugly and hasn't been used around here for (literally) YEARS. 68.39.174.238 05:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Besides that, exactly how far do you intend this to go? OK, you want to delete the WP:VIP/ subpages and the categories for vandal sockpuppets... what about the templates you mention? If so, what about the userpages they're used on? That userbox, it too? All userboxes mentioning specific vandals? Etc, etc... 68.39.174.238 05:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not CamelCase is common on Wikipedia is not important. The page itself is only a proposal, and will never be a guideline itself; it will merely change existing guidelines such as the speedy deletion criteria. Thus, convention over individualistic style isn't necessary.
The specific goal of the proposal is outlined in the last paragraph (emphasis added):
Specifically proposed is the immediate deletion of blatant meme vandal[3] userspaces and the deletion of userspaces belonging to indefinitely blocked users after two weeks. Categories which serve no useful purpose, including Wikipedia:Inappropriate username blocks and Wikipedia:Blocked imposters, should be deleted. [...] Note that IP addressed stored for registered users are purged from the database after roughly four weeks. Categorising a user after this period of time serves no useful purpose.
Although the Long term abuse pages and templates are identified as part of the problem, they do serve a purpose and aren't targeted by the proposal at all. This page is strictly concerned with user pages and categories. Finding a suitable alternative to the admittedly borked Long term abuse system is beyond the scope of the proposal. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 06:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Past discussions

Since it was removed from the page, I'll point out here that this was considered twice (In VfD and then MfD) to (sortof) do the same thing with this reasoning. It was rejected soundly both times. 68.39.174.238 21:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Those were unrelated discussions, as they were entirely focused on deleting Wikipedia pages. The policy and this talk page both explicitly state that this isn't one of the goals. I have a different proposal in mind for an alternative to those pages, but it's not related to this project. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 23:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative to userpage deletion

I support deleting the piles of categories, specific vandal templates etc that do seem to 'glorify' a vandal without serving any real useful purpose. However, I would like to see a simple 'blocked with reason' template left on a vandal user/talk pages instead of it being completely deleted. This saves a trip to the block log, and I do not see how this would encourage vandals. All warnings given before a indefinite block is applied can be blanked, but not deleted. Petros471 21:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest something like the standard {{indefblockeduser}} that says "See the <link>block log</link> for the reasons given for this block" 68.39.174.238 02:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needs tweaking

Generally I'm in agreement with this. But we need to be careful that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Throwaway vandal accounts should be unceremonially buried and forgotton. However, not all indef blocked users should be. Arbcom just blocked User:-Ril-, but he's got thousands of edits, and many of them useful. That talkpage needs kept, probably indefinately. Further, the category of his sockpuppets was important evidence in his Arbcom case. Sockpuppeteers will find it much easier to evade justice if we expunge the record. Having said that, 'suspected sockpuppets' categories for pure vandals are useless and should go. We need to tweek the proposal to say that we keep indef blocked accounts which have substantially more than just vandalism edits, and we keep 'suspected sockpuppet' categories for users who are not perma-banned (if they are later perma-banned, these can be deleted as having no further evidence value) --Doc ask? 09:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good, but we also need to simplify the proposal. Feel free to add that in, and we can tweak it a bit from there. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 09:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I'd like to add my own caveat there: While no recognition should be given, a repeat vandal/sockpuppet vandal with a modus operandi (like squidward, or willy on wheels etc) needs to have a short description of the vandal type logged somewhere so that admins, and counter-vandalism regular users, can be on the lookout for future behavior. No history pages, no tributes. Just a short page. Below is my example

<br> ==={{longtermvandal|Large Number Vandal}} === <!-- Don't know exactly what this template would do. --> MO: Makes large numbers of usernames, and user pages, then spams them with reposts of the deleted "list of large numbers", usually on 4-5 subpages per user. Watchwords: "Googol" "-illion" "Large numbers" "-plex" "Infinity scrapers" etc. Suggested response: Indef. Block as sockpuppet.

==={{longtermvandal|Communism vandal}} === <!-- Don't know exactly what this template would do. --> MO: Blanks user and talk pages, and sometimes articles with a hammer+sickle, and the phrase "WIKIPEDIA IS COMMUNISM" Watchwords: "Wikipedia is Communism", "Communism". Suggested response: Indef. Block as sockpuppet.
etc.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 01:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but beyond the scope of this proposal. To help prevent controversy, I'd like to avoid any omnibusing. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 02:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1 slight problem

Regarding:

Userspaces belonging to indefinitely blocked users four weeks after their block, unless the account has made a significant number of useful contributions.

I have an issue with that. The user's talk page (and perhaps to a lesser extent, there user page) contains important information about the events leading up to the block. Should the person someday... lets say 5 weeks latter... request for a block-review then that information won't be available any more. Perhaps blanking/locking would be better so the information is stored in the history.

Oh, another question... how do you quantify "significant number"? ---J.Smith 19:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is mainly targeted at throwaway vandal accounts, not users banned by arbcom or after any long discussions among admins. So to answer your questions: 1) It is unlikely that the vandal would want to use the account again, if he/she decided to become a good editor, they can create a new account. 2) Anyway, the contribution history would still show up the vandalism (and that's accessable to any editor) - in the event of any larger problem, the pages user and talk could be viewed and undeleted by any admin. 3) Actually, I'd be content to say we only deleted accounts with less than (say) 30 edits in total (unless basically all edits are vandalism). Most vandal-only accounts are blocked long before that - and few (if any) are ever unblocked again. --Doc ask? 20:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electioneering

Before I even get started I need to make it clear that I am just a user on this project. I'm exactly the same as any other user. I have no special power, rank, or privilege. I'm an active editor by some standards but then, not by others. So I can't imagine why anyone would go to any great trouble to influence my opinions.

I don't like this proposal as written. Like most proposals I come across it seems to have a barely-hidden agenda. What's the need for this? If an article a page is useless to the project then there are already plenty of grounds upon which to delete it. Do we need another? Not for any kind of general case I can imagine. There is one specific case -- cited in the text: Willy on Wheels, the high-speed page move vandal. This proposal reads to me like dissatisfaction with the way we're dealing with Willy. Maybe that's true, maybe that's not, but it's the nature of proposals wrapped around hidden agendas that any attempt to deny the hidden agenda makes me even more suspicious. After all, I already think the agenda is hidden, therefore the proposal is not entirely honest in its stated intent. Strenuous protestations of honesty are self-defeating.

For the record, I think we can do nothing on-wiki viz Willy that we are not already doing. It doesn't matter in the least what we do now; Willy has devoted his life to this war. We should have taken legal action a long time ago, since tossing a pipe bomb into his house is presumably out of the question. We do run the risk of inciting would-be Willies to become enmeshed in holy war with the project; certainly some of our policies so incline; but the Law of Unintended Consequences tells us that anything we do may backfire. I might entertain some discussion on how to avoid breeding future Willies but only with the greatest of care.

I commented (above) that I oppose the proposal and that I oppose the very idea of holding a poll on it at this time. I think that's really enough from my mouth. I'm just one user. If the proposal has merit then I imagine that plenty of other editors will make the right choice and I will be shown my error. It's no big deal. But then I see it's not just me. Anyone who opposes this proposal has to deal with a slew of arguments. I don't see this as useful discussion; I see it as electioneering -- beating the voters into the polling booth with a stick.

That may be a harsh characterization but the harder supporters try to involve me in the poll, the more adamant my opposition -- to the poll, to the proposal itself. That doesn't mean I feel the need to go out-of-process to delete the proposal; it just means that every time the issue comes up I'm going to have a negative opinion. I can't see why anyone would want to push it with me. Who am I? Just an editor.

The comment's been made several times: "This is not a poll." Well, it looks like a poll to me. And I have written a little essay to elaborate my feelings on that issue: WP:HORSE. And with that I'd like to think my work is done here. I've expressed my opinion and given rather more defense of it than I think was originally warranted. If any supporter would like to get in the last word then go right ahead; I do not feel compelled to reply yet again. John Reid 22:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If you sincerely believe that we are dishonest conspirators secretly betraying the holy war against evil, making any attempt to deny this is likely to be taken as some sort of proof. However, the agenda isn't hidden; it is openly explained in the proposal.
Your comments about the 'poll' are somewhat ambiguous. You initially state that we should not be voting before discussion; when users attempt to discuss and address your concerns, you accuse them of having "a slew of arguments" and "beating the voters into the polling booth with a stick". You are concerned that this is a secret vote, but complain if we don't treat your comment as a vote instead of a discussion.
Your comments demonstrate virtually no awareness of the proposal. For example, your concern with the deletion of articles is misplaced in a proposal that very clearly has no effect whatsoever on articles. If you have any constructive criticism of this proposal (beyond its conspiratorial, conniving, holy-war-undermining nature), we'll be glad to address them. If you have none, I'd encourage other users to ignore your preceding comments. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the section header; sorry. I don't usually quibble over this kind of thing but this is my comment and it applies to all, especially to the poll-not-poll, not merely to "discussion". This is not any kind of war; it's just an encyclopedia project. I don't imagine the poll is secret; I say an agenda is hidden (and not very well) behind the ostensible agenda. I have struck a word in response to the quibble over article namespace. For the rest, please see my opinion. Thank you. John Reid 01:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Rereading this page, I see I promised myself to let this issue drop. Now I feel foolish for allowing myself to be sucked back into this discussion. I won't let it happen again. John Reid 01:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This is discussion, not a seperate category. I've reintegrated it into the appropriate section. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logos and glorification

I'm new to this issue but I found the inclusion of what are basically logos on pages like WP:MPS, WP:WOW and WP:MILK to be a little misguided. The illustrations likely enlighten the day-to-day monotony of the people chasing these yokels, but in the big picture I'm not sure they're helping the greater cause. Cleanr 14:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it hurts exactly, especially if the image isn't "glorifying", like MPSs. Seriously, what vandal wants to be a pissed off looking pelican? ;D! 68.39.174.238 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] most ironic page ever

I wouldn't know about pelican shit until this was posted at the community board. Haha, hilarious.--Urthogie 20:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat ironic, no doubt, but there are few alternatives. ;) // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)