Misplaced Pages

talk:Deny recognition: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:38, 8 September 2006 editAeon1006 (talk | contribs)6,584 edits →evidences: yep← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:11, 22 December 2024 edit undoStaraction (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,881 edits Reverting edit(s) by WhenItComesToAbuseMultipleAccounts (talk) to rev. 1252067220 by Lowercase sigmabot III: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)Tags: RW Undo 
(459 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader|hide_find_sources=yes|wp=yes}}
{{process header
{{WikiProject banner shell|
| title = ]
{{WikiProject Essays|importance=mid}}
| section = (talk page)
}}
| previous =
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| next = ] (])→
|maxarchivesize = 100K
| shortcut =
|counter = 3
| notes =
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Deny recognition/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}


== Also childish behavior ==
== Evidence of notoriety-seeking? ==
I still haven't seen any evidence that the "vandal hall of fame" actually encourages vandalism. This seems to be speculation. --] ] 00:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:Well, no, the recent juvenile-feline-obsessed vandal didn't ever say "Hey everyone! I've thought of an eye-catching way to vandalise and I've got an ISP that will allow me to create lots of socks! Where's my unique sockpuppet template? Oh there it is, thanks!" But it's not really the sort of thing people say, and I can't think what actual 'evidence' you're expecting to see. IMO, it may be speculation, but it's speculation rooted in a very strong understanding of people's craving for attention, consistent with how Internet trolls generally work. On the other hand we have very little that justifies ignoring the basic Internet law of 'don't feed the trolls'. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:: If you're looking for an admission from a vandal that they're seeking notoriety, please see . Of particular relevance are "''To do list: Become notorious''" and "''Start getting the pencil and pad out, from what I plan to do, you all better make a page for me like you all have done for the Misplaced Pages is Communism and Willy on Wheels! vandals. By the way, I’d prefer to call myself either “the perfect vandal” or better yet, the “Why was I blocked?” vandalized.''". // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 00:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:: On that note, see also , where a user claiming to be a notorious vandal claims notoriety (through ] vandal userpages) to be their goal. // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:::Are you sure that's what they want? Just because there vandalising wikipedia pages saying that they want to be recogntion doesn't mean that what they want.---] <sub>]</sub> <sub>]</sub> <sub> </sub> 03:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

:::: The ] I provided above are just supporting evidence for the well-known fact that ], as ] pointed out above. Returning your question, do you have any evidence that indefinitely keeping ] containing <nowiki>{{attackuser-m|Hall Monitor}}</nowiki> helps countervandalism and does not in any way encourage vandals ''à la ]''? Does the fact that ] make a difference? // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 10:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

: "Don't feed the trolls" is good advice to a point, but ] pages help administrators fight vandalism by keeping track of the strategies of some of the most common vandals. I think that the example of ThePowerOfChaos's edit to AIV was a more extreme example. If I see some vandal and know that it's just one of the more well-known vandals, then it helps me because I can give him an immediate indefinite block rather than cycling through ] like I usually do with first-time vandals. We just shouldn't present it as a "gallery of all-star vandals"... maybe more as a short, one-page list of certain people to watch for, like the list of most vandalized pages. --] (]) 20:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This all seems to me a bit like saying news media shouldn't make reports about terrorist attacks because then they wouldn't be effective at creating terror. There will still be vandalism whether we have these pages or not. The only difference is that the lack of information will make it harder to fight. --] ] 20:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

== Deleting information ==
I personally thought those pages were immensely useful in identifying why future incarnations of the editors are blocked on sight. For example, they may often try to mix in "good" edits with the bad ones so it can be difficult at times to keep up with the latest "automatically blocked list of users". However, I can see how they may be construed as benificial to the vandals in question. So, the question is where does one then go for their vandal information :D? For example, without these pages one may have to dig through 5000 edits or something to find what could be presented on one nice little page - this isn't beneficial to anyone and likely leads to more accusations of admin abuse etc.. Maybe just keep the ones that have reappeared in the last 90 days or something? ] 03:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
:It would make a lot more sense to put a time limit on keeping pages, otherwise it causes problems for vandal fighters and dealing with identifying those. While you might argue that any experienced vandal fighter may be well aware of all major issues and problem users currently, what about in 6 months, or a year? This type of thing makes things much less friendly and inviting to new users when information is being removed. This proposal is ill thought out, and there really should be more discussion before pages are continually deleted en masse. --] 21:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

== Proposal vs guideline or Policy ==
From what I've seen, this has become a very popular essay to be used. Perhaps it could become a guideline? —] ] 21:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
: Feel free to propose it. :) // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 02:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this essay a proposed guideline or policy? -- ] ] 20:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
: Just an essay, which is apparently almost like a proposed guideline, but not. Certainly not policy. (That said, it's good sense.) ]] 21:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In a few days this proposal seems to have changed the way we deal with recording vandalism. I guess we should stick a policy tag on it. --] 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:did. ++]: ]/] 15:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk page time : )

Scrolling up, I see that others have already commented that it's not policy, though could be considered close to a guideline.

While I agree that it's being used as a rationale for "actions" and "opinions", that doesn't mean that it's justified to do so.

To use some allegories:
*Just because a group of individuals claim "might makes right", that doesn't make that the policy on Misplaced Pages : )
*Just because a group of individuals claim that fair use images can be used anywhere, doesn't make it Misplaced Pages policy.

Besides that, I suggest that you read:
*]
*]

Specifically:
*A ''']''' is something that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Amendments to a guideline should be discussed on its talk page, not on a new page - although it's generally acceptable to edit a guideline to improve it.

That's very much the goal of this essay, and please look at the associated list, for comparison.

To take it a step further, if you nominate it for guideline, I would likely vote for it. : )

- ] 17:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

: Guideline, policy, call it what you like. It's Misplaced Pages policy. And no, we're not going to vote on it. --] 17:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
::I appreciate you taking the time to share your point of view, but since it is totally counter to the ], I obviously must disagree.
::btw... who's "we"? : ) - ] 17:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

: I can't make sense of your responses. I've tagged it as a guideline, which you have indicated you would accept. The meaning of "We" in this case should be obvious. --] 17:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

::Which responses? I would be more than happy to clarify. And no, to me, the "we" wasn't/isn't obvious. Because I still don't think the <s>two</s> three of us can make this decision alone, I'll start a straw poll below. - ]

:::"Guideline" is OK with me, too (though I'd like to see it become policy at some point). It seems to have gathered quite a bit of support recently. ] ] 17:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I will support if revert becomes deletion of record of vandalism. If there is no record of vandalism then that will be really denying recogntiion. WP doesn't need waste bandwith and memory on keeping records of vandalism. But of cource it shouldn't be done all the time just on ]ers---] <sub>]</sub> <sub>]</sub> <sub> </sub> 20:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

:Do you mean, for example, a "destructive rollback" button, which when clicked would remove the previous edits from the article history entirely? (Interesting idea; I wonder if it has been debated somewhere?) ] ] 23:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

====Straw poll====
Well, wow.
:On one hand, I wondering what you all are so afraid of. (I am, of course, referring to the repeated removal of an attempt to start a , in order to determine concensus about whether this should actually <i>be</i> a guideline, as according to actual Misplaced Pages policy.)
:On the other, presuming that you all aren't just sock or meat puppets, I suppose that I could be content that we've at least begun to find out concensus. (Well, at least we can see one side of it : )
As I said, I don't necessarily oppose this as a guideline, but, again, wow at the lack of ]. - ] 18:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

: I don't doubt your good faith in this. Your proposal to have a poll, however, did not command support. --] 18:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:"command support"? - ] 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

:: It was opposed by three other editors, each of whom went so far as to remove it. --] 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Hmm, I was under the impression that you weren't to remove anything from a talk page (except to move it or archive it), save blatant vandalism. But be that as it may, perhaps the sentiment was correct, and I should have made this an RfC to begin with. Thank you for your help : ) - ] 19:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:::*I believe the point Tony makes here is that proposals are not, as a rule, decided upon by voting on them (which, incidentally, is the very next line after the quote you made from ]; see also ]). Removing other people's ''comments'' is not very nice, but a poll is not really a comment, and polls tend to create a barrier to further comments. So instead we ask, what are the objections to this proposal, and discuss those. HTH! ] 16:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

==Success of ] and strong consensus==
The following deletion discussions were found by examining the links to ]:

* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]

In nearly every case, longstanding pages have been deleted, and the arguments that have carried the day have been those presented in ].

In the circumstances, the onus is on those who would argue that this is not a guideline or official policy of Misplaced Pages to present evidence to refute this evidence of strong support. --] 23:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:Official policy sounds a little strong, but this may be entering guideline territory. — ] <sup>]</sup> 05:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:Not to be snarky (really!), but this is a bizarre argument coming from you, Tony. You know better than anyone that support doesn't turn a bad policy/guideline/whatever into a good one. --] ] 16:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

== List of reasons why this is a bad idea? ==

OK, there are some people who don't like this, and there are some people who are sceptical as to whether it will achieve much in the way of vandal reduction. I've heard one sensible person arguing for preserving the odd exceptional LTA page on a more subtle vandal. But can those opposed help me? Can they set down their reasons why this is in principle a bad idea? Why the notion is harmful? Please be explicit. Because, so far, ''I'm seeing no coherent reason why this isn't in general a good idea''. Maybe I'm missing somthing? --] 23:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
:It's unfunny? To be serious though, I'd selectively oppose it due to the fact that it removes a significant portion of Misplaced Pages's record. Because of this, I'm opposed to its being used as a retroactive law on existing pages. I have no problems with its being applied to future vandals, but deleting all reference to, for our most famous example, Willy on Wheels, ''including his archived case on the Long Term Abuse page'', simply erases a major piece of Misplaced Pages's cultural history. I think some people also oppose it due to "zomg censorship!" reasons. --] 00:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:I already raised some points up where it says "Deleting information". It isn't an objection, but a call for a bit more brainstorming on the issue... right now, my current thought is that perhaps read-only admin access for vandal pages might be an idea. I'd encourge people to think of ways to improve the proposal. ] 06:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:: Administrators do in effect have read-only access to all deleted pages. --] 11:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::: I'd like to see admin-only access, but only if we could actually update the pages. Right now, there is no easy way to:
:::#Edit a deleted page
:::#Watchlist a deleted page
:::#Post talk message and other communication related to a delted page
:::#Etc
:::If there were some way to make the pages function as normal Misplaced Pages pages, but only be viewable to admins, that would be great. Of course, you would get accusations of cabalism and "secret police" or whatever. But, whatever. --] ] 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:That's a good point, actually... ] 11:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

*My main objetion is that there isn't any evidence that this will reduce vandalism. --] ] 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
**On the other hand, neither is there evidence that ''keeping'' this information will help fight vandalism. And any psych student will tell you that attention seeking is a plausible motive for at least some vandals.
**I think the main point here is that we're keeping way too many records. All the information we need to fight off present vandals could probably fit on a ''single, neutral page''. A ] or ] simply serves little purpose, if any. We don't really need to know that pageblanking or massive page moves is the ''modus operandi'' of any particular known vandal; we only need to know that if an account does nothing but vandalize in whatever way, we block them.
**Of course this proposal should not be blindly invoked to strike any and all information on vandals, only the parts that aren't actually useful (which, incidentally, seems to be about 90% of it, but keeping info on linkspammers and subtle vandals sounds like a good idea) and possibly any vanity-seeming userpages of said vandals. The irony is that such information shouldn't really go to ] because in effect that's creating yet another page with (meta-)information on vandals.
**Bottom line, we don't ''need'' excessive record-keeping. ] a bureaucracy. ] 16:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
***Hi Radiant! I didn't know you had returned to the project. I'm very happy to see you commenting on this issue. :-)
***Unfortunately, I don't think you've answered my objection here. I still don't see evidence that this will reduce vandalism. If the pages are in fact not useful, then they aren't hurting anything. Anecdotaly, I've found them quite useful myself, since about 90% of my edits on the article namespace are vandalism related. Now, that doesn't establish that they are generally useful, but it does establish that they are useful to ''someone'', and I think the precedent toward inclusionism ought to apply here. --] ] 20:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

*I repeat my question - why is this a bad idea? '''Because I'm still getting no coherent answer'''. I'm only seeing two things said:
#"Record keeping is good". But why is it good, and why is it helpful? I certainly don't want to delete anything that helps revert vandalism. Ryan Delaney says 'I've found them quite useful myself' - could he please be specific. If he can show what has been useful and why, then I'd certainly not want to delete it.
#"There's no evidence that this will reduce vandalism". That's not actually a good argument in itself. If deleting vanal-cruft it is not harmful, and it ''might'' do some good, then there is no loss and a possible gain in doing so. Further, there is evidence that vandals are interested in their records. M62Manchester was one of those tagging and categorising indef blocked accounts - checkuser showed him also to be responsible for vandal accounts. There are several other single purpose accounts that have also been vandal record keeping - I'm highly suspicious of them. So there is at least some evidence that ] might be a helpful principle - so I ask again what is the actual practical downside to adopting this that counterballances that possitive possibility? --] 21:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:There is only one major downside, and that's when a single purpose account designed for vandalism does pattern vandalism, they should be blocked quickly, without the need for counting up the warnings. If you ''know'' the account is going to just be a vandalism account, as newbie vandalism isn't pattern vandalism, why bother warning for it? But that's the trick. How do you record certain types of recent pattern vandalism without giving recognition and self-satisfaction to them? Where's the limit? But there is no question that the concept behind deny recognition is a good idea, its how far to take it to eliminate the glee from vandalism. The person who joins wikipedia today, and in 2 years is an admin, how to tell them that replacing a page with a sickle and hammer image as the first edit an account makes should be something warrenting an immediate block? How much information do they really need in order to make that decision? That is the merit of why this proposal needs discussion before its really a guideline to be followed. ] 22:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doc. You said that my request for evidence that the vandal pages encourage vandalism is not an argument. That is accurate; I am not making an argument here. I view this as an issue of burden of proof. I do not consider the burden of proof to be on me to show that the articles are ''not'' harmful; rather I consider it to be on those who support this essay to show that they ''are''. Does that clarify your difficulty? --] ] 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, but it still doesn't answer it. Even if there is only a possible benefit in adoping this, if there is no downside, then there is no reason not to do it. What's th downside? Futher I think the evidence of benefit is actually quite strong (see above). --] 22:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::Here's one downside: It makes even more redlinked pages, and destroys the context of talk page posts. In other words, it damages the archive. When we revert vandals, the edits are left in the history, and people can go back and see what people were talking about. When you actually delete the pages, you can't. Under this, unless you're an admin you cannot effectively read archives or tell what people are talking about when they mention some long-dead vandal unless you were there.

::By deleting all the records, but still making it bannable to impersonate them, we turn major vandals from "Oh, he was this moron, and we banned him, as you can see here, here, and here" into a legend. Only now, due to the deletions, he's a ''mysterious'' legend. In other words, for an archive reader WP:DENY has an inverse effect to the one it's intended to have, making the vandal larger than life. --] 23:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Eh? --] 07:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I hadn't even thought of this. A clearer record is inherently more useful than any sort of mythological status that could be gleaned by troublemaking vandals. --] <small>]</small> 12:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

== Vandals favor this guideline too ==

I'm currently trying to examine this deeper, but ] shows that a vandal was actually active in pushing for this as a guideline/policy. The vandals want vandal info pages deleted? What? Some sense needs to be made of this. To a degree, the cutting down of things like Willy seems appropreate, as according to an email on the listserv, there were 6 people participating in it and its likely people have been duplicating that for fun. The communism vandalism is like to the point of , and many of the bad nickname vandals. The trick is to cut down on vanity for the vandals, while not destroying information pertaining to tracking them. The kind of irony is severe. The person behind ] is also responsible for vandalism involving the identity 'bobby boulders', but checkuser shows them to have also done pagemove vandalism. Yet Dr. Chatterjee argues greatly that the 'bobby boulders' identity is not after a pagemove vandal when his LTA page was deleted by Cyde! So what, we've got a vandal who had fun with pagemove vandalism, then decided he wanted to make a personal glorification for himself. He or she decided to take up the name bobby boulders, and possibly enlist others to help. After the deletion of his subpage, he tried to target other stuff. See . His rival subpage is deleted, though it probably should've gone anyways, but so is his/her. Ha, funny. The trick is that we find a good way to see to the erasure of their petty nonsense's identities without unrecording information to quickly render their attempts at damaging the encyclopedia useless. ] 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

:Who the fuck cares what the vandals think, or what they do? ], move on. --] 21:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::Uhm, this entire proposal is based on a psychic reading of the mind of the wily Misplaced Pages vandal. Saying we don't care what they think is obviously untrue, since we're discussing this propsal. --] 22:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't care, no one should, that's why I support this policy. --] 22:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::::Actually, caring enough to go around hosting MfD's, large talk page discussions, and undoing the work of other editors just so that you can spite the fame-seeking vandals is far more "caring" than just slapping a "yet another idiot sockpuppet of ''x''" template on them ever will be. If you really didn't care, you would not participate in the discussion at all, as it's just one more supposed glorification of them.
::::This entire proposal is based on spiting the motivations of certain vandals. However, the fact that certain vandals support it either means they've moved beyond merely disrupting articles into attempting to disrupt the meta, and are playing games with our discussions, or that its premise is inherently flawed. --] 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:::::Utter codswallop! Vandalism is countered by ]. The role-playing game of cops and robbers is just bs, which both distracts from the encyclopedia and encourages vandals to enter into the same game. We've got hard evidence that's what's happening. This isn't psychoanalysis it's just common sense. --] 23:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::Oh yes, I want to revert the vandalism and then get an admin to block them. Then I want to be rid of them from sight and mind(ignored) so I can go back to seeing the encyclopedia grow nicely. Revert block ignore is probably what they did years ago, then it got annoying enough that they started recording it. They must've recorded too much, and we're at now. If every last tidbit of information about vandalism is deleted, then people will get slowly get dumb about it, and I don't want to see 4 years down the road some new admin thinking that some newer editor reporting an account needs to be given a warning for moving a page to its name with "on goodyears" at the end. RBI could be applied in excess, and newbies get bitten. But as long as there's enough information to differentate that, everything's cool. As I said, need to record just enough to know what to do. Anything more could glorify or be a how-to guide. And the what-to-record needs to be specified better. ] 06:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::So stick a sentence on the username blocking bit of the blocking policy to point out certain vandal memes that should be instantly blocked. But the problem with your argument is that a) it isn't the end of the world if these accounts are not instantly blocked. b) I routinely block vandal accounts at creation - and I've never read an LTA page in my wiki-life. I suspect I'm not alone in that.--] 07:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::To me, this is all a waste of time. That's my verdict. :) --]<sup>]</sup> 12:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


::::::: From my point of view the ones who have got LTA pages have done so because they are active over a period of time. Those doing RC Patrol soon notice a new format of vandalism. Along the same line as Doc, I've blocked plenty of these and I've never felt the need to read an LTA page to tell me history behind them. As to if everyone forgets, to me this seems unlikely, but assuming it does happen does it really matter if we have no page move vandalism for the next 4 years, that we then get a week or two when we have to deal with it as if it were a new form of vandalism? Quite honestly if someone offered me that deal 4 years of no type x vandalism, but then a week where you have to get up to speed again, I'd quite happily take it. Blatant vandalism will always be readily recognisable and blockable. --] 18:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

== Oppose proposal ==

By nature vandals are attention seeking people, and the barebone logic behind this proposal (from what I understand) is that if you take that away what vandals want (attention/recognition), vandals wont be vandalising as much as they would get bored.

However in my opinion, this proposal emboldens vandals. Vandals will now be much more destructive to get their "recognition"/"attention". Even if we dont give them what they want, they will still work "hard" for it.

That is at the very least apperant with ]'s case, or shall I call that WoW, BB or wharever. The deletion of CVU is by him.

Furthermore this lack of information makes it harder to deal with vandalism. Information such as what ip ranges WoW uses is more than useful. Keeping track of the user accounts created by him or his imposters can also be useful, I made heavy use of that when writing my vandalism detection bot. Those keywords were more than useful.

--<small>] ]</small> 17:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

== Useful information? ==

It is my opinion that, unlike articles, pages in Misplaced Pages space need to be useful (or funny, I suppose) in order to be kept. "It does no harm" is no compelling reason to keep pointless clutter in our project space. The main argument against deletion of vandal-related pages is that some of the information would, in fact, be useful. Note that nobody here suggests ''blanket'' deletion of such pages, only of the parts that are pointless or vandal aggrandizement.

So the obvious question is, what of the vandal-related pages are useful, and what for? And I'm talking about real usability, not hypothetical situations. Now frankly I'm not familiar with all of those pages, but if a disruptive account is permablocked I don't see any need at all to neatly pigeonhole it as an "imposter of foo" or "sockpuppet of bar". It's a permablocked vandal, so who cares? Similarly, I fail to see the point of ]. I'm sure the main list page ] is useful as a noticeboard, but please point out the other useful stuff. ] 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


Article states:
:This sort of debate is puzzling to me. Some people ''do'' apparently find these pages useful. If you go around deleting everything you think isn't useful, sometimes you'll be right, and sometimes you'll be wrong. Is it worth the times you'll be wrong to go through the debate and process and drama to delete all that "clutter"? The people who do think it's useful will obviously not want to let it go because they feel like they ''are'' losing something, both in terms of past effort (effort taken to create these pages) and future effort (the expected gain). Why not just leave it alone? --] ] 20:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:"True vandals and trolls (as distinguished from users who dabble in minor vandalism) usually suffer from chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness and seek recognition and infamy by interrupting and frustrating the Misplaced Pages project and community"
*Yep, that's why I'm asking "which parts are useful" before deleting anything. This guideline needn't state "delete everything", it could give an indication of what is and is not necessary. If people indeed find all of these pages useful, that would be a surprise to me. ] 21:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
:Here I would like to add:
*In general I think it is best to bring any contentious case to MFD, and the community will be able to decide whether or not the benefits on keeping such tabs on vandals outweighs the benefit. Although a page like ], gives attention and a brief recognition of vandals, it is a functioning page with an obvious benefit, and I don't think we would get a consensus to delete that. I remember tagging the WoW and WiC pages for deletion over a year ago and losing (]) because several users at that time felt that the pages were beneficial in combatting the vandals. I disagree with them, but fair enough. Attitudes towards such pages have obviously changed over the past year and both pages are gone now. In general, I think ] has some very useful arguments against such pages, but it should be used as an argument in a broad discussion, and not on the whim of a single admin who decides to delete right there. Arguments against inclusion of indiscriminate lists, speculation on future events, one-man companies, etc. have also made their way to guideline status, but are still only used as arguments in a discussion where people may present valid counterarguments. By putting more borderline cases up for discussion, a decision which everyone accepts and respects is far more likely. ] ] 11:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
:''"or alternatively, is a person who regardless of actual age more or less cannot help behave childishly"'' - or something in line with that
:I don't expect this to "help" against vandalizing trolls, but is nevertheless also true, I believe. Especially regarding those who only vandalizes without any kind of agenda. ] (]) 00:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
::I do not see how that would help. Any summary describing human behavior will be incomplete, and a psychiatrist could probably provide dozens of cases showing somewhat different backgrounds of "true vandals and trolls". The point of WP:DENY is that a large proportion of dedicated vandals/trolls seek recognition for the reasons currently mentioned, and denying recognition is often best. Undoubtedly trouble comes also from people who will never mature, but why would such people persist at Misplaced Pages if they were not getting some recognition from it? At any rate, it would be undesirable to expand possible reasons for why some contributors are vandals/trolls because such a list would always be incomplete and unhelpful. ] (]) 00:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)


== DENY means DO NOT escalate the level of attention ==
== Compromise? ==


] attempted to modify the fourth dot point in the section "How to mitigate vandalism", which says:
Would supporters of this measure be satisfied if we could get the devs to implement a page protection level that included "viewable only by admins"? --] ] 13:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote>* Otherwise, quietly revert or blank. Reserve ] (if you see a group of similar pages, make a group nomination) for serious matters, noting that a high profile forum discussion of vandalism is the opposite of "deny recognition".</blockquote>
Why? Nominating at MfD is actually the opposite of DENY, it is an attention-escalating reaction. The troll wants the attention. This feeds the troll. --] (]) 23:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
:It's not clear to me what you are supporting. The current text (shown above) is fine although it needs copy editing as "list" should be "listing" and the stuff in brackets is too clumsy. The point is that there are a lot of vandals/trolls and simply blanking their pages might generate the least fuss. Often someone will cruise in and have fun for a few days, then disappear. People should not spend a week arguing over the sanctity of a user page in such cases. OTOH if the blanking is repeatedly undone then deletion is available. ] (]) 03:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
::Just CSD the page and get on with it, as long as there isn't any meaningful history available in the userpage. ] (]) 04:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
::: ]s G3, G5 and G10 are the first three suggestions. If these can't be applied, it is rarely that serious. --] (]) 04:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
:: I am opposing the diff provided and supporting its by ]. Copy edit? I the parenthetical stuff. I agree with all you wrote. --] (]) 04:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


== Why have deny recognition if talk pages get locked? ==
:I'm not convinced that's neccessary. I think there's a consensus for the ''principle'', but also a consensus that stuff that is actually and specifically useful should ''not'' be deleted. Perhaps we need to list the different things that WP:DENY might encompass and try to work out what is 1) vandal-forensic cruft - which should be speedied. 2) What is actually useful and for which a real convincing case can be made - which should be kept whilst it remains useful - but minimised. 3) What is debatable, borderline, or about which we have no consensus - which should also be kept or only be deleted upon a successful xfD.--] 14:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
*I wholeheartedly agree with that. ] 21:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
All right well this sounds like a jumping off point for discussion -- it sure beats unilaterally speedying all of the anti-vandalism pages outright. --] ] 22:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


That basically tells us that something is going on and the main article is likely full of sanitized half-truths. ] (]) 23:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
To make a page viewable only by administrators, you can delete it. There is no need for extra developer work, and I'd rather see them get on with other stuff that we need. --] 00:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:Deleting it to make it read-protected cures the disease by killing the patient because it's far too much effort to update the pages. If you won't accept any compromise, discussion is pointless. --] ] 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


:I was not aware we locked talk pages. --]<sup>]</sup> 14:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
:: Yes, being able to update the pages would be good. This could be achieved equally well by using an external, private, wiki. You can get one at schtuff.com. No need to bother the busy devs. --] 02:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


:::And then vandals would get their "notoriety" from the off-wiki site instead. Again, I'm not optimistic about the productivity of this line of dialogue. --] ] 02:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


There is some logic to the principle, but some would point out that ignoring has not been a good response in the more recent environment. Some politicians have taken the stand that people should be called out, and there is also concern that letting things go unchallenged means some uninformed people will believe that incorrect statements are true. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::: Absolutely not. schtuff.com wikis, for instance, have full access control systems. The dialog will only become productive if you accept that you may not know everything and that the suggestions I'm making could be implemented here and now by anybody who wants to. No developer expertise required, no long waits for the devs to code and test. Just do it. --] 03:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


== Strangely unhinged tone in first paragraph ==
I'd like to agree with what Doc said above, but doing things like going after the CVU '''is''' deleting everything including that which is useful. In that same way, I'd like to agree with the basic idea of what this essay is, but it seems to me that this is just a way to sneak in flat out deletion rational instead of improvement. I'm sorry that some people want to glorify vandals (even if they don't mean to), and I agree with many of the points made, but the spirit of discussion is going down the wrong path. We're supposed to improve things, not destroy things. I don't think ] will be used responsibly, but instead it's a knee-jerk reaction out of frustration. We all know that stuff like this happens with articles, where two editors disagree so one of them makes a POV fork of the article. We don't allow that, so why is this different? If you don't agree with how some pages and groups (such as the CVU) handle things then change the issue ''there'' and place this as a guideline in those places. Right now this is just a band-aid. -- ] 01:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:In other words, I agree with the text, but it seems to have different meaning to different people right now. A lot of that misinterpretation has to do with how these recent events have been handled, causing a lot of mistrust and resentment. -- ] 01:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


The psychological analysis included in the first paragraph is remarkably dark, uses basically dehumanizing phrasing in assessing people as pathological while also not citing any sources at all to back up this rather extreme assessment of motivations behind a problematic phenomenon. I feel like the problem of vandalism on Misplaced Pages can be handled without employing the tonality of a law-and-order right-wing politician talking about perpetrators of urban graffiti. Seeing as this page is being treated as an official guideline on Misplaced Pages, should it perhaps be toned down a bit, or if such strong statements are going to be made about psychological traits motivating vandalism shouldn't they be sourced? ] (]) 14:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
==evidences==


:I agree. It's very offputting and not a good look for Misplaced Pages as a neutral resource. ] (]) 06:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
"Vandal userspaces are archived and exported to over twenty thousand mirror websites, including highly visible websites like About.com"


== How to answer to abuse of this ==
Most don't bother with the wikipedia namespace and I don't think we have 20,000 mirrors.] 01:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


For context, I have often done anti-vandalism. This has led me to leave the standard warnings on a variety of pages, including on pages of probably good-faith disruptors (e.g. someone adding to their own page unsourced information about their children). In some cases, I have been reverted by others, with no other justification than "]". I think others will agree that this is a blatant misuse of this page, aimed at those that intentionally disrupt Misplaced Pages. Still, I wouldn't have objected that much if the editor in question just didn't themselves use warnings, as opposed to trying to impose their way of doing on others through reversion, which is disruptive. This has not happened many times, and last example I remember was months ago, but I was wondering, how should I answer/react to such reverts? Thanks, — ] ] 10:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree 20,000 seems like a lot. <font color="SteelBlue">]</font> <font color="red"><sup>]</sup></font><sub><font color="Green">]</font></sub> 03:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:11, 22 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing Deny recognition and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMisplaced Pages essays High‑impact
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Misplaced Pages essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Misplaced Pages essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Misplaced Pages essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysTemplate:WikiProject Misplaced Pages essaysWikiProject Misplaced Pages essays
HighThis page has been rated as High-impact on the project's impact scale.
Note icon
The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Also childish behavior

Article states:

"True vandals and trolls (as distinguished from users who dabble in minor vandalism) usually suffer from chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness and seek recognition and infamy by interrupting and frustrating the Misplaced Pages project and community"
Here I would like to add:
"or alternatively, is a person who regardless of actual age more or less cannot help behave childishly" - or something in line with that
I don't expect this to "help" against vandalizing trolls, but is nevertheless also true, I believe. Especially regarding those who only vandalizes without any kind of agenda. Boeing720 (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not see how that would help. Any summary describing human behavior will be incomplete, and a psychiatrist could probably provide dozens of cases showing somewhat different backgrounds of "true vandals and trolls". The point of WP:DENY is that a large proportion of dedicated vandals/trolls seek recognition for the reasons currently mentioned, and denying recognition is often best. Undoubtedly trouble comes also from people who will never mature, but why would such people persist at Misplaced Pages if they were not getting some recognition from it? At any rate, it would be undesirable to expand possible reasons for why some contributors are vandals/trolls because such a list would always be incomplete and unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

DENY means DO NOT escalate the level of attention

User:Septrillion here attempted to modify the fourth dot point in the section "How to mitigate vandalism", which says:

* Otherwise, quietly revert or blank. Reserve list them as miscellany for deletion (if you see a group of similar pages, make a group nomination) for serious matters, noting that a high profile forum discussion of vandalism is the opposite of "deny recognition".

Why? Nominating at MfD is actually the opposite of DENY, it is an attention-escalating reaction. The troll wants the attention. This feeds the troll. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you are supporting. The current text (shown above) is fine although it needs copy editing as "list" should be "listing" and the stuff in brackets is too clumsy. The point is that there are a lot of vandals/trolls and simply blanking their pages might generate the least fuss. Often someone will cruise in and have fun for a few days, then disappear. People should not spend a week arguing over the sanctity of a user page in such cases. OTOH if the blanking is repeatedly undone then deletion is available. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Just CSD the page and get on with it, as long as there isn't any meaningful history available in the userpage. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:CSDs G3, G5 and G10 are the first three suggestions. If these can't be applied, it is rarely that serious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
I am opposing the diff provided and supporting its revert by User:CFCF. Copy edit? I removed the parenthetical stuff. I agree with all you wrote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Why have deny recognition if talk pages get locked?

That basically tells us that something is going on and the main article is likely full of sanitized half-truths. 88.234.197.238 (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I was not aware we locked talk pages. --DB1729 14:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


There is some logic to the principle, but some would point out that ignoring has not been a good response in the more recent environment. Some politicians have taken the stand that people should be called out, and there is also concern that letting things go unchallenged means some uninformed people will believe that incorrect statements are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Strangely unhinged tone in first paragraph

The psychological analysis included in the first paragraph is remarkably dark, uses basically dehumanizing phrasing in assessing people as pathological while also not citing any sources at all to back up this rather extreme assessment of motivations behind a problematic phenomenon. I feel like the problem of vandalism on Misplaced Pages can be handled without employing the tonality of a law-and-order right-wing politician talking about perpetrators of urban graffiti. Seeing as this page is being treated as an official guideline on Misplaced Pages, should it perhaps be toned down a bit, or if such strong statements are going to be made about psychological traits motivating vandalism shouldn't they be sourced? 80.56.159.130 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It's very offputting and not a good look for Misplaced Pages as a neutral resource. 107.12.51.118 (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

How to answer to abuse of this

For context, I have often done anti-vandalism. This has led me to leave the standard warnings on a variety of pages, including on pages of probably good-faith disruptors (e.g. someone adding to their own page unsourced information about their children). In some cases, I have been reverted by others, with no other justification than "WP:DENY". I think others will agree that this is a blatant misuse of this page, aimed at those that intentionally disrupt Misplaced Pages. Still, I wouldn't have objected that much if the editor in question just didn't themselves use warnings, as opposed to trying to impose their way of doing on others through reversion, which is disruptive. This has not happened many times, and last example I remember was months ago, but I was wondering, how should I answer/react to such reverts? Thanks, — Alien  3
3 3 10:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Categories: