Forum:CT:Excessive useless edits

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Excessive useless edits


This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall, this page's talk page or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was over 500 user page edits to less than 100 useful main space/template/category edits consitutes excessive "useless" edits. Admins will protect offending pages after a warning and only unprotect after they start working on articles. This will be added to Wookieepedia:User page and profile policy. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • This was discussed on the admin's noticeboard under Forum:Regulating user contributions? about users who only seem concerned with userpage and/or talk page edits. Obviously, this is becoming a growing nuisance to those of us who work on the articles like we're supposed to.

Below are options for a proposed policy for users who:

Crime

Definition of "Pointless"

  • Pointless means A) User page edits

Support

  1. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 20:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. User talk can be good. Grand Moff Rhell 20:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. We can always modify the definition later if the WookieeSocialites intensify their bandwith-wastage via Talk pages. But it seems to me userpages are really the main issue. Gonk 20:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. SFH 21:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. User talk could have a point. - Fnlayson 22:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Jaina Solo(Goddess Stuff) 05:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Must edit articles of some sort. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Imp 20:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 17:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Yoshi626 04:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. --Shaelas(Ahto City)CzerkaCorporationLogo-KOTOR 19:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. --Ryluk Shouja(Bounty Hunters Guild)!08:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pointless means B) User page + user talk edits

Support

  1. Havac 20:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Ozzel 20:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. .... 22:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Kuralyov 05:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Sarendipity (Talk to me) 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 12:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. jSarek 23:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. JMAS 19:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Chack Jadson 22:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • Your definitions are currently too vague. They could be misinterpreted as ALL user page and talk page edits are pointless. Surely you mean something like "exclusive user page editing" or "exclusive user page and talk page editing is pointless" - well, those definitions are also too vague, but at least more precises than the ones being voted on now. Any suggestions for even better definitions of "pointless". KEJ 12:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • A pointless usertalk edit would be an edit that does not contribute anything to Wookieepedia (discussing ways to improve articles, consensus tracks, reasons for a change, etc.). Meaning fanfic discussions, other discussions, "who's your favorite", "sign my guestbook", "LOOK AT THIS!", and others that do not relate to the Wiki.--RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 15:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • For the admins, we're not going to sift through all someone's edits. That would be a terrible pain. And the definition of pointless is mainly relevant to the options below. Any user would have to have a certain number of total edits before admins took action. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 16:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • With the bars set as high as they are below, I'm comfortable calling all user page and talk page edits "pointless" for the purposes of this rule. Yes, that would mean I have 60+259=319 "pointless" edits . . . out of over 6,000. jSarek 23:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I must be frank. Let's climb off of the "administrator ivory tower" where everyone is compared to an administrator and think along less . . . dedicated lines. And is it really worth it to make an enormous mountain out of this? I agree that there's a need to limit chronic offenders, but I think this action alone with trigger a stronger response from less flagrant offenders. This is all IMHO. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 00:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I had already climbed down from said ivory tower when I made that comment. I was a regular editor for nine months before I became admin, and this was the greatest extent of my userpage in that time. That was 16 edits in nine months. I made my first 80 regular edits (which is five times those userpage edits, the more restrictive of the below options) in a little more than a week, by comparison. I may not be the best person to compare to, but I think it's pretty clear that if your userpage and user talk edits exceed your other edits, let alone exceed them by a 3:1 or 5:1 margin, your priorities as far as this site goes are askew. People don't need to be dedicated to Wookieepedia; they just need to be as dedicated to the work we do here as they are to flexing their their userpage muscles. jSarek 01:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I see your point. I just don't want to discourage new members who see this and think, omg a Cabal is trying to crack the whip. Of course, There Is No Cabal. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Pointless means "not editing main namespace articles". How does that work? -- Riffsyphon1024 04:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Not so well when people might be working on WookieeProjects, Templates, Categories, or other legitimate but non-main-namespace areas. jSarek 06:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Ok so there isn't any easy way to word it. It's not just main articles. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 1 "Three (to 1) strikes, you're out"

  • These users have a greater than 3 to 1 ratio of pointless edits to article edits, with a minimum benchmark of 1000 total edits.

Support

  1. Heck, I could go lower. Two-to-one would be fantastic. Havac 20:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. See note below. - Ozzel 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. .... 22:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. I'm surprised you guys would go this high... I'd say no more than half. Sarendipity (Talk to me) 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 12:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 17:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Chack Jadson 22:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. I'm all for two-to-one, like Havac, since the benchmark is 1000 minimum edits, but this is the next-best thing. --Ryluk Shouja(Bounty Hunters Guild)!09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 2 "Batting .200 is bad"

  • These users have over 500 pointless edits to less than 100 article edits. (In other words 5 to 1 pointless to useful ratio, with 600 total edits as a minimum for action).

Support

  1. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 20:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Grand Moff Rhell 20:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. The absolute numbers and the ratio are both important, of course. Otherwise we'd take sanctions against anyone whose first edit was to their user page, which is not what we're aiming at. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Gonk 20:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per Silly Dan. Wildyoda 22:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Seems like a reasonable threshold, not too strict. Fnlayson 22:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. ATATatarismall.png 22:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Evir Daal 20:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. --Shaelas(Ahto City)CzerkaCorporationLogo-KOTOR 08:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 3 "Add as necessary"

  • Place great idea below.


Comments

  • If we do this, we should allow some kind of minimum time period before we take action, because often one of the first things people do when they come here is start their user page. What might be good? 2 weeks? A month? -- Ozzel 20:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • NEW PROPOSITION, maybe.
    • You know, looking over these options, I'm extremely surprised as to just how high each percent is. For example, the 1 to 3 policy has users allowed to make around 66% of their edits at the "pointless edits". The .200 option brings that number up to 80%. Now, let's say, based on what it looks like now, that the .200 option gets ushered in, and that userpages only determine pointless edits. That means users like this guy (70.2% pointless), and this guy (68.44%), the biggest offenders that I can think of off the top of my head, make it through. Even with the 1 to 3 option, they both are just barely over the limit (66%). The totals change slightly when you take into account whether "pointless edits" include User Talk Pages too, but it's still way too tight to really determine.
  • So, basically, I'm saying that we really need to stoop our percents, maybe down to 25% at the highest (a 3 to 4 ratio), maybe even lower, down to 15%. I have an entire list of equating percents, and, if enough people agree, I'll post them here as well. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 08:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It looks like just about everyone agrees that we need to do something, but the votes are split on the technicalities. I think we need a new proposal, one that would indeed apply to the users we are trying to take care of, and simply have a for/against vote. -- Ozzel 00:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • That's a good idea. Let's see this one through, and then repropose the technicalities in a different CT. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 01:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Hopefully this one will narrow down the options for another round (thread). I think the ratio depends on whether user talk edits are counted or not. Anyway, we'll see how this progresses... -Fnlayson 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I generally applaud the idea of preventing pointless edits and from preventing people from using the Wook primarily for social purposes. I have a question, however, when this policy is agreed on and put in effect, will it apply to users who already had more "pointless" edits than useful edits before the policy was established? KEJ 15:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I believe this is the case. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 15:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Hmmm.... isn't that kind of unfair? It seems strange to punish someone for something according to a rule that didn't exists when they did what they did, because, technically, it wasn't a crime back then. Of course, it's easier to indiscriminately apply the rule to all users, I'll give you that. KEJ 15:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Look at it this way. If we warned them but didn't lock their user pages, they STILL couldn't edit their user pages without freshly putting themselves in violation of the new rule. jSarek 19:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Oh yeah, the first time they'd edit their user page after the implementation of the policy would be a justifiably punishable violation of the policy. How cunning ;-) KEJ 23:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • Cunning, but neccesary. And, IMO, deserved. I assume we'll be adding a template to tell users that the amount of their userpage edits now conflict with this new policy, correct? JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 03:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Punishment

This section is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This section is no longer live.
The result of the debate was Option 3. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 1 "Let the children be"

  • We do nothing and practically ignore these pointless contributions like we have largely done.

Support

  1. Leave them be. Just give them weekly (very stern) sermons on the need to be useful. Karohalva 17:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. I just don't see how this is a major problem that actually merits admin attention. Red XIV 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 2 "Wipe them out. All of them."

  • Sysops ban them after a warning. And quite possibly call them rude names while we do it (Okay, kidding about the second sentence. Jeez.)

Support

  1. BAN. Havac 20:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Ozzel 20:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. .... 22:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 12:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 17:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kuralyov 16:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Chack Jadson 22:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Hencho414 16:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 3 "Into exile, they must go"

  • Sysops protect their pages after a warning and only unprotect after they start working on articles.

Support

  1. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 20:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. SFH 20:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Gonk 20:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Can we call them rude names anyway? Besides, chances are that person will whine (resulting in a ban), have their edits reverted, therefore never getting their page back and thus leave (or whine - resulting in a ban) RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    No, unless you want a personal attack block. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 20:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    Joking...(forgot the *smirk*)--RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 20:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, I see. Yes, sort of funny. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 05:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Actually, I think this is a really creative solution. Much more satisfying than a ban, and probably more motivational. Wildyoda 22:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Send 'em to Dagobah. -Fnlayson 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Jaina Solo(Goddess Stuff) 05:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Imp 20:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Sarendipity (Talk to me) 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support, with the option of resorting to blocks or bans for chronic talk page violators (who aren't affected by this option as much). jSarek 23:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. JMAS 19:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. They deserve a shot at redemption. Some may be irredeemable, but not all, I think. A new user might not realise what he's doing. This way we may actually reform some, and the lost causes are still weeded out anyway. Evir Daal 20:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. —Xwing328(Talk) 04:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. --Shaelas(Ahto City)CzerkaCorporationLogo-KOTOR 08:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Followed by Option 2, if they continue their activities. Also, I think it would be necessary to delete areas of their userpage which are clearly intended to be for user page spamming (guest books, and the "Friday Night Fight" pages are examples of this). —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Comments

  • There would no doubt be situations where such users would have to be blocked after this, if they responded by serious incivility, harassment of other users or something like that. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Frankly, anyone who can get to 600 or 1000 edits with such a huge portion of it being useless is extremely unlikely to change their ways. A ban would be a much stronger statement against it. Furthermore, anyone who is banned and honestly wants to start actually contributing can always petition for an unban. The third option also has grave issues with enforceability. When do they count as "working on articles"? One edit? Twenty edits? One hundred edits? Once they're out of the naughty ratio? What if all the edits they make to articles are pointless little tweaks done just so they can get back to socializing? Havac 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Is it really worth all that effort when they can just hit the forums on TFN or the Official Site? Or the Fanon site? Gonk 20:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
      • When the user feels that they "deserve" their page back, they can ask to have it back. And an admin will review the edits and determine if they deserve it. I believe our admins are pretty reasonable to determine that. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 21:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As we have an overwhelming vote for doing something, and the third option is ahead 2:1, I hink we can close this section. We will do something about this problem, and it will start with warnings, page locks, and deletions before we block users. We just need to hash out the details. —Silly Dan (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to end this CT

Since about a month has passed, Forum:The Happy Fun User Page Super Friendly Cleanup Project has deleted many of the contentious user pages, and option 3 in the "punishment" section has been chosen, I suggest we take the least restrictive option — over 500 user page edits to less than 100 useful main space/template/category edits — and make that the policy. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)