Forum:Deny recognition

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 or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was adopt the proposal. jSarek 05:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I was talking to someone on the Wikia staff on IRC after making a checkuser request (the last few banned usernames were, unsurprisingly, all one person.) They pointed out that archiving the userpages of a serial vandal's sockpuppets can serve to help them keep score. We don't really want to do that: the general idea with vandalism is to calmly revert it and refuse to engage them, so they'll get bored and leave. Even being blocked should be as dull an experience as possible.

We currently have three templates that get slapped on user pages for long-term blocks: {{banned}}, {{proxy}}, and {{impostor}}. Does anyone think we need all three of them? All of them could be easily be taken by a vandal as a mark of success (except possibly the proxy template, since that only goes on open IP addresses which no vandal could seriously "claim.") A lot of the blocked usernames are also insults directed at some regular user — what do we need those user pages for? Should we quit using those templates entirely? Would removing the categorization be sufficient? Would it be best to only use {{banned}} on users who have made significant "real edits" before being blocked?

Also, in Category:Wookieepedia:Vandalism in progress, there are a few VIP subpages which haven't been touched in some time (so if we deleted them, it's not like we'd be giving up on an actively used resource.) Wikipedia has already deleted most of their "Long term abuse" pages, on the grounds that they simply attracted copycat vandals. Is there any point to keeping them? What do the rest of you think? —Silly Dan (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It helps them to keep "score"...okay, I have said it before, and I will say it again: Who is more pathetic, the guys that maintain a Star Wars website, or the people who vandalize them? -- SFH 03:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The answer is of course obvious, but not to them, so no reason to encourage them. jSarek 03:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think any of this is going to dissuade them. They'll keep coming back whenever they're bored no matter how they're treated. The only way to stop them is to get more strict with anti-vandalism enforcement, not to re-arrange our templates. Kuralyov 03:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • [Redacted by administration] jSarek 03:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm honestly not sure how being more strict would scare off those serial vandals whose sockpuppets we block indefinitely on sight anyway. We could watch recent changes more often, but considering a typical vandalism spree hits less than 100 out of 40,000 articles, I don't think there's a pressing need to be more vigilant either. —Silly Dan (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting points I hadn't thought of. I don't think we should get rid of any of the templates. Proxy you already explain isn't going to encourage vandals. Impostor is necessary so uninformed people can know that a given vandal and a given respectable user are two different beings. Banned is less important, but I still see it as being at least somewhat useful, at least at first. Perhaps R2 could be set to delete pages with Banned tags that are more than X weeks old? jSarek 03:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed he could be. Not having admin rights somewhat complicates this task, however, although it can be performed from my own account. - Sikon 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I was kind of thinking of using the dynamic list code like the one we have on WP:COPY to sort the copyright-violating articles by date, allowing admins to pop by every so often and delete the old ones. —Silly Dan (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
        • That'd be a good way to do it; on reflection, I'd be a little hesitant to give a bot the power to delete articles without review anyway. jSarek 18:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • On a related note, shouldn't we be putting these templates on the user's talk pages? -- Darth Culator (Talk) 12:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I think only the {{blocked}} template goes on talk pages, as it's meant to notify users of a temporary block. The others are for long-term blocks: basically, people we have little interest in talking to anyway. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we get separate templates for permanent and temporary bans? It would be easier to weed them out if they went in different categories. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 12:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • We do, more or less: {{banned}} is for the user pages of long-term bans, while {{blocked}} is for the talk pages of temporarily blocked users (i.e. generally good editors who've started a flamewar, or IPs which we can't block permanently anyway.) —Silly Dan (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

  • We should delete the "Suspected sockpuppets of User:X" subcategories, and fix the {{suspectedsock}}, {{sockpuppeteer}}, and {{confirmedsock}} templates so they don't try to create them.
  • This page and pages like it should be deleted.
  • {{proxy}}, {{impostor}}, and {{banned}} should all be kept, as should the associated categories. However, about one month after a vandal-only account has been permanently blocked, the userpage and user talk page (if any) should be deleted. Users who made significant non-vandalism edits before being blocked indefinitely could have their talk pages kept, at least: these are the only blocked users likely to have their accounts unblocked. —Silly Dan (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

For proposal

  1. —Silly Dan (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. jSarek 02:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Imp 15:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. StarNeptuneTalk to me! 16:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Kuralyov 16:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. SFH 16:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. LtNOWIS 21:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Looks like consensus to me. Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 21:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    If so, I'd say we can start blasting the vandal pages here tomorrow. —Silly Dan (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. QuentinGeorge 22:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Great idea –SentryTalk 22:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Riffsyphon1024 04:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Azizlight 07:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Against proposal

Comments

  • How are you proposing we "fix the {{suspectedsock}}, {{sockpuppeteer}}, and {{confirmedsock}} templates so they don't try to create them"? jSarek 00:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • By that, I mean "fix the templates so they don't automatically place userpages into a category." —Silly Dan (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I removed the categorization from from the templates above since we seem to have a consensus. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert them… –SentryTalk 22:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I think we do have consensus. I will start on deleting those pages today: if any other admins would like to help, especially if a bot can be programmed to help in any way, please chip in. The only pages I'm iffy on deleting are the banned templates on IP user pages, which might actually be proxies, so I'll save them for now. Don't forget to take out any user talk pages with only welcome notices, block notices, warnings, and the ravings of drunken fools. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

All done. I'll put a dynamic list on Category:Banned users for future use. Sikon also made {{impostor}} into a talk page template for use on a faker's comments: any future impostor users can just have {{banned}} on their user pages. A few other things I thought of:

  1. Vandal-only accounts with usernames meant strictly as insults should probably have a shorter expiry time on their userpages.
  2. This should be applied to IP userpages as well as registered users: at least, I've done so.
  3. If we're deleting the userpages after a month anyway, there's no point in using {[tl|banned}} template on shorter blocks.

I won't close this thread in case there are more comments/demands for undeletion. —Silly Dan (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's been over a month: only glitch is the recreation of previously blanked and locked user talk pages which were deleted. Turns out, our most persistent trolls have longer memories than I guessed. I suppose we should just leave them blank and locked instead of deleting them: redirecting to WP:CRP isn't really useful. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Good point, though that's why they're persistent trolls. They will most likely continue to torment us, unfortunately. :-( Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 06:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)