This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jc37 (talk | contribs) at 18:36, 4 September 2006 (As stated, Misplaced Pages is not a cabal : )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:36, 4 September 2006 by Jc37 (talk | contribs) (As stated, Misplaced Pages is not a cabal : ))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Older discussion may be found in the archives.
Poll
This proposal was discussed between 26 March and 11 May 2006, during which time it received the support of fifteen users and the opposition of two users. All users who stated their position have been contacted to notify them of the poll, except two (one support who is indefinitely blocked, and one oppose who strongly disapproved of being notified). // Pathoschild (/map) 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- This poll is no longer active. // Pathoschild (/map) 04:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Support
- Support as proposer. // Pathoschild (/map) 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support as just good common sense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support per previous unofficial vote. — Tangotango 15:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support. See my comments wherever I left them last time. Andre (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support per above.--Kungfu Adam 16:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support. NoSeptember 16:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support CalJW 18:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support if.... I can support this so long as the vandal-fighter-tools are somehow preserved. That's my only concern. ---J.S (t|c) 17:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- This proposal will not affect any countervandalism tools; it is intended to remove notoriety as an incentive, not handicap countervandalism efforts. :) // Pathoschild (/map) 01:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support. The policy makes sense; a recent, vandal on Wikispecies stated that they would stop vandalising so long as they got an entry on LTA something akin to Willy on Wheels'. Notoriety is an incentive, in some cases, to vandalise. If this incentive can be removed... Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Seems a sensible move. --MarkS 18:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support per the above. Gyre 23:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support, great idea. --Rory096 06:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support I don't think vandals should get any recognition at all; WP:BEANS seems to agree with you and I on this. Danny Lilithborne 03:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support - I'v heard more about The Communism Vandal and Willy on Wheels than about Jimbo Wales. Fortunately, it's being done - most of the list I keep at User:CP\M/User turned red; I expect the rest to be killed soon. CP/M |Misplaced Pages Neutrality Project| 11:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support - I've seen a lot of copycat behavior, often of multiple vandals. This policy is similar to the policy of sports broadcasts refusing to show fan misbehavior. Don't recognize them; don't encourage them. Fan-1967 14:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. Most ironic policy ever. --Urthogie 10:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, on the simple grounds of humour. Viewing some of the wheels account, very simply, is funny. Also, have lets say Imposters of Computerjoe give Computerjoe a sense of his place. Computerjoe's talk 15:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, per my 'skeptical' comment below. ~ PseudoSudo 15:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, should be (at most) an essay, not a meta-policy. Andjam 14:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I've stated my objections here before; they're available in history. John Reid 08:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Vandals are annoying, granted, but a policy tends to add layers that down the road become cobwebs you can't get out from under. Sorry for mixing the metaphors, but we've all seen what happens when you make laws to solve annoyances. --MILH 05:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- As stated in the box above, this won't create a new policy at all. It'll merely lead to the amendment of related policies like the criteria for speedy deletion. // Pathoschild (/map) 04:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Documentation allows us to examine past cases, and let us think about future ones. But if it does receive enough support to change policy, I think it should only be used with great caution, even more than removing personal attacks. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 00:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose I've been reading a bit on Wikipedian history, and this does nothing to stop the vandals and makes Misplaced Pages basically look Stalinist. I'm new here, so I don't know how this would stop being "proposed", but hopefully it'll never be more than that. Atlantic Gateways 01:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- You're comparing DenyRecognition to the Russian Great Terror? Blatant vandals are not part of a political movement, and the page doesn't encourage imprisonment or mass execution. Refusing to build templates to vandals has nothing to do with an historical period of widespread political repression and persecution. // Pathoschild (/map) 05:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- Polls can't decide whether policies are accepted.--Urthogie 10:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- There are a rather large number of historical precedents which show otherwise. Polls are a good way to measure community support following discussion. // Pathoschild (/map) 18:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- As I said before I support the principle, and most of what is proposed here. However, I think the point about deletion of vandal userspaces should be replaced with blanking of vandal userspaces and replacing with {{Indefblockeduser}} (i.e. not one of those countless custom templates, such as {{wow}} etc). Petros471 10:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- What is the policy for someone keeping track of all that has been deleted for each case, and when it should be restored if the vandal/troll returns? NoSeptember 16:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- This proposal only concerns blatant vandals. If one needs to track previous usernames to figure out that a user should be blocked, then they're not blatant vandals and are not affected by this proposal. // Pathoschild (/map) 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Blatant meme vandal
I'm a bit concerned about the phrase "blatant meme vandal". Isn't calling something that a form of recognition?
I fear it's a worse form of recognition than what currently goes on. Vandals have only become "notable" on an ad-hoc basis, whereas creating a policy would ensure that any vandal is guaranteed "notability" if they try hard enough. Andjam 11:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- The recognition as a blatant meme vandal would lead to deletion and loss of recognition. Thus, vandals would be faced with the irony that recognition is the best way to remain unrecognized. However, the term "blatant meme vandal" is only used on this page, which won't be policy itself. The term won't be used in the policies it will amend, such as the deletion policy. // Pathoschild (/map) 18:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I hope people don't use the phrase in edit summaries. Andjam 14:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm skeptical
I'm skeptical as to the effectiveness of this proposal. Certainly it will reduce the number of vandals, but also inhibits the future potential of counter-vandalism movements.
Deciding which categories "serve no useful purpose" is very subjective to who you're asking. I feel as if Category:Misplaced Pages:Inappropriate username blocks is a source of knowledge; what's a better example for users and administrators to decide by what are inappropriate usernames?
I would personally support the creation of a page to the extent of Misplaced Pages:Vandals by tactic, so as a fairly new RC patroller, if I notice a particular pattern happening over a couple of days I can have a place to alert others and possibly write a regex to catch the diffs before they slip unnoticed through recent changes. This defies WP:BEANS as well as WP:DENY, but is the most effective way to catch new meme vandals recently on the rise.
This proposal would have to do a lot more to stop vandals seeking notoriety, such as to delete WP:LTA pages in their entirety. I'm worried that the measures outlined by this proposal will only hinder vandal-fighters; I think an active approach to vandalism is always the best approach. ~ PseudoSudo 15:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- Inappropriate usernames, by their nature, should be obvious. There is no need for reference lists to recognize random strings of characters (User:1578187654348713441248131461), non-Roman scripts (User:땡이), curse words (User:Τroll penis), offensive names (User:!!!!!!!!!!Linuxfaggot is the gayest piece of shit on wikipedia), impersonations (User:ṀARMOT), or usernames obviously intended to boost their position in the categories (User:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). If you need to refer to a list, then they probably shouldn't be blocked under the inappropriate clause of the username policy, which is very clear on what is considered inappropriate.
- New account creations are closely watched by the countervandalism channels (see m:IRC channels#Countervandalism_channels); patterns are quickly recognized as they occur, and are blacklisted (often with regex) for bot tracking. Doing so with a category unnecessarily duplicates these efforts, and is entirely pointless— you'd be working from an outdated and incomplete list, since many blocked usernames are not tagged.
- This proposal isn't intended to entirely eliminate notoriety as an incentive, only significantly weaken it without handicapping countervandalism efforts. // Pathoschild (/map) 02:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- If so, then, while I think I support deletion of the general "blocked" categories and lists, I suggest that we remove Sock puppets, and Suspected vandalbots as targets for removal, since they are more specific, and, I would presume, more useful for prevention, and aren't as useful for noteriety. - Jc37 16:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- This handicaps it because it deletes information that may be useful to a new admin and/or vandal fighter.--Crossmr 22:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Offensive username proposal
I started Misplaced Pages:Offensive username proposal without knowing that this proposal was underway - I think they would work well together. BD2412 T 22:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:LTA subpages
SDhould we delete all of WP:LTA subpages to their entirety? -- FrostytheSnowman 15:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- They do serve a purpose, and the proposal (now an essay) explicitly stated that they should be considered separately. Whether their usefulness outweighs the hefty notoriety they provide vandals is a matter of debate. // Pathoschild (/map) 04:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- This page is only an essay and not a policy, but it is being treated as a policy. Anomo 04:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not at all; it's cited as an essay, much as Ignore all rules (or Don't ignore all rules). For discussion on making it policy, see "Indef blocked userpages - new policy" on the Administrators' noticeboard. // Pathoschild (/map) 04:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm... I can't find much info on handling them. It only goes to the category page that says, "Essays about Misplaced Pages and related topics. These are not policy and are primarily opinion pieces." Anomo 05:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not at all; it's cited as an essay, much as Ignore all rules (or Don't ignore all rules). For discussion on making it policy, see "Indef blocked userpages - new policy" on the Administrators' noticeboard. // Pathoschild (/map) 04:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
irony of Herostratus see also
Herostratus is the name of an administrator. Anomo 04:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Push to guideline
From what I've seen, this has become a very popular essay to be used. Perhaps it could become a guideline? —this is messedrocker
(talk)
21:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Feel free to propose it. :) // Pathoschild (/map) 02:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Evidence?
I still haven't seen any evidence that the "vandal hall of fame" actually encourages vandalism. This seems to be speculation. --Ryan Delaney 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'. --Sam Blanning 00:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you're looking for an admission from a vandal that they're seeking notoriety, please see Administrator intervention against vandalism (oldid 46068278). 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.". // Pathoschild (/map) 00:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- On that note, see also Misplaced Pages talk:Long term abuse (oldid 11349398), where a user claiming to be a notorious vandal claims notoriety (through Google bombing vandal userpages) to be their goal. // Pathoschild (/map) 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.---Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 03:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- On that note, see also Misplaced Pages talk:Long term abuse (oldid 11349398), where a user claiming to be a notorious vandal claims notoriety (through Google bombing vandal userpages) to be their goal. // Pathoschild (/map) 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The comparison links I provided above are just supporting evidence for the well-known fact that trolls like to be fed, as Sam Blanning pointed out above. Returning your question, do you have any evidence that indefinitely keeping User:Hall Monitor is an unfair jerk who never answers questions containing {{attackuser-m|Hall Monitor}} helps countervandalism and does not in any way encourage vandals à la Herostratus? Does the fact that the page is indexed by google make a difference? // Pathoschild (/map) 10:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Don't feed the trolls" is good advice to a point, but WP:LTA 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 WP:WARN 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. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 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. --Ryan Delaney 20:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
RfC
I just added the vandal subpages] deletion debate to rfc.---Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 22:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I assume that link to rfc was intended to point to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Style issues. // Pathoschild (/map) 03:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
proposed guideline?
Is this essay a proposed guideline or policy? -- FrostytheSnowman 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.) +sj + 21:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, but then...
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? RN 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. --Crossmr 21:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Policy
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. --Tony Sidaway 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- did. ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Proposal vs guideline or Policy
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:
- Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#How are policies started?
- Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc.
Specifically:
- A guideline 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. : )
- Jc37 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. --Tony Sidaway 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 5 pillars, I obviously must disagree.
- btw... who's "we"? : ) - Jc37 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. --Tony Sidaway 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
twothree of us can make this decision alone, I'll start a straw poll below. - Jc37
- 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
- "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. Antandrus (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Straw poll-Guideline
Since the poll at the top of the page is closed. Starting this straw poll to determine concensus about whether WP:DENY should be a guideline at this time (starting September 4) - note that it's already been marked as one. This does not preclude future editing or streamlining, obviously; this is a wiki after all : )
Support
- Support - while I think it still needs work, I think the sentiment is a valid one, and can be rather useful to Misplaced Pages. - Jc37 18:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)