Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition/Archive 2

message: 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). —{admin} Pathoschild 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This poll is no longer active. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: # Support as proposer. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # Oppose. Most ironic policy ever.  --Urthogie 10:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: *Polls can't decide whether policies are accepted.--Urthogie 10:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope people don't use the phrase in edit summaries. Andjam 14:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant meme vandal 

message: I started Wikipedia: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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Offensive username proposal]] 

message: SDhould we delete all of WP:LTA subpages to their entirety? -- FrostytheSnowman ('sup?) 15:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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. —{admin} Pathoschild 04:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...  I can't find much info on handling them.  It only goes to the category page that says, "Essays about Wikipedia and related topics. These are not policy and are primarily opinion pieces."  Anomo 05:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:LTA]] subpages 

message: Herostratus  is the name of an administrator. Anomo 04:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  irony of Herostratus  see also 

message: I just added the vandal subpages] deletion debate to rfc.---Scott3 Talk Contributions  Count: 950+  22:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that link to rfc was intended to point to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Style issues|RfC]] 

message: I still haven't seen any evidence that the "vandal hall of fame" actually encourages vandalism. This seems to be speculation. --causa sui talk 00:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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(talk) 00:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 Wikipedia 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[...].". —{admin} Pathoschild 00:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  On that note, see also [ Wikipedia 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. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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  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? —{admin} Pathoschild 10:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "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)

text: is an example of the sock of one prolific vandal asking for an LTA page --pgk 12:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of notoriety-seeking? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Deleting information 

message: 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 straw poll, in order to determine concensus about whether this should actually be a guideline, as according to actual Wikipedia 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 good faith. - Jc37 18:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't doubt your good faith in this.  Your proposal to have a poll, however, did not command support. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "command support"? - Jc37 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was opposed by three other editors, each of whom went so far as to remove it. --Tony Sidaway 18:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 : ) - Jc37 19:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *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 WP:POL; see also WP:VIE). 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! >Radiant< 16:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: The following deletion discussions were found by examining the links to WP:DENY:
* Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Kitten Vandal
* Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels 2
* Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels/Appearances outside of the English Wikipedia
* Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/North Carolina vandal
* Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Outoftuneviolin
* Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (second nomination)
* Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination)
* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahoo! trolling phenomena (second nomination)
* Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames
* Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stephen Colbert's Neologisms Lack Truthiness
In nearly every case, longstanding pages have been deleted, and the arguments that have carried the day have been those presented in WP:DENY.
In the circumstances, the onus is on those who would argue that this is not a guideline or official policy of Wikipedia to present evidence to refute this evidence of strong support. --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Official policy sounds a little strong, but this may be entering guideline territory. — xaosflux Talk 05:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. --causa sui talk 16:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know nothing of the sort.  Wikipedia guidelines are precisely descriptions of what prevails on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 10:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Success of [[WP:DENY]] and strong consensus

message: It is my opinion that, unlike articles, pages in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:Favorite pages of banned users. I'm sure the main list page WP:LTA is useful as a noticeboard, but please point out the other useful stuff. >Radiant< 20:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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? --causa sui talk 20:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useful information? 

message: 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"? --causa sui talk 13:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--Doc 14:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. --causa sui talk 02:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. --causa sui talk 02:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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. --Tony Sidaway 03:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's incredible to me that you could turn this into a personal issue. I'm not going to respond to this anymore. --causa sui talk 13:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry about that.  I've toned it down a bit. --Tony Sidaway 05:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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. -- Ned Scott 01:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise? 

message: Okay, just to find some common ground to start from - does anyone disagree with me that the following are pointless and thus deletable:
#Any categories or templates of "this user is an imposter of <foo>", as that is generally bloody obvious from the username
#Any list or page about vandalism in wikis unrelated to Wikipedia, as it is not our job to coordinate worldwide vandal control.
*>Radiant< 19:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The second one is unquestionably useless in my opinion. Only information about the Wikipedia project should go in the Wikipedia namespace. As for the first, categories are most likely not needed. Templates can be useful but I would let them go in favor of a generic one since people can always look at the block log to find out why the user was blocked. --causa sui talk 19:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the second one has use in the case of trying to predict future attack styles.Geni 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's really a stretch. Since we're trying to compromise I think it's something we ought to let go. --causa sui talk 04:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason to compramise with something that is a bad idea.Geni 11:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please remove yourself from a discussion. This isn't a democracy, but it isn't a dictatorship either. --causa sui talk 13:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: interesting. Yuo take the position that other people are so closed minded that they will not withdraw from their position even when shown that it is logicaly imposible to support.Geni 13:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start off somewhere 

message: I've yet to see a valid use of or for this proposal, so I'm being WP:BOLD and marking it as rejected. Marking it as an essay was another option suggested, but this seems to run up directly against Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 06:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this proposal is a pile of crap. Knowing vandals and their patterns is necessary to defend from then. I don't know who got the ridiculous idea that vandals are doing it for recognition. Recognized vandal is much less effective than unrecognized one.  Grue  07:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Recognized vandal is much less effective than unrecognized one." absolutely. So you think the user(s) creating the "outoftune<whatever>" usernames are doing so because it's likely to keep them incognito and therefore more effective as a vandal? It is exactly that sort of stuff that suggests the motivation is more about attention and "recognition" in many cases. Why else create dozens of obvious sockpuppets name "outoftune<whatever>" which is so easily recognisable? Why move everything to "on wheels"? why have dozens of people decided to create "on wheels" usernames? etc. etc. If as a vandal you weren't attempting to be recognised you wouldn't keep these patterns and many of the LTA pages would never have been created since the absolutely bloody obvious connection between the accounts wouldn't be easily spelt out. Now there are some much more subtle vandals and having details of that can be useful, and indeed most people seem in agreement about that. The willy on wheels type vandals are so blatant that writing a page about it is at best a waste of time and worst it is giving undue recognition to a page move vandal. --pgk 11:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with it either, and I think there's enough resistance to avoid marking this as any kind of policy or guideline, but it does describe the strong opinions of several users. Marking it as an essay makes most sense in my opinion. --causa sui talk 08:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think the censorship policy completely applies outside of the article namespace. I would agree that this is better as an essay than a guideline. -- Ned Scott 09:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Some people believe that one motivation behind vandalism is attention-seeking. As such, it may be useful to deny recognition to vandals. If you see any page that describes vandalism and seems to serve no practical purpose, take it to WP:MFD.
*That would be a plausible guideline, I think. Speedy deletion would be appropriate only for attack pages and the vandalism itself. --Radiant! 09:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's seen enough highly successful use to be marked as a guideline.  See my thread above:  "Success_of_WP:DENY_and_strong_consensus." --Tony Sidaway 10:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not call that success. -- Ned Scott 11:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And would you stop editing people's signatures. -- Ned Scott 11:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a wiki. Tony has stated that he will edit down sigs that make it hard to edit comments, if he sees them. You may not agree with it but it's within guidelines... "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.". I found it annoying enough when it happened to me that I changed my sig to be shorter. Perhaps that was his intent. ++Lar: t/c 13:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol, this page is full of people who absolutely must have everything their way...written exactly the way they think it should be written, right down to wiki markup and so forth. They can't even let minor things go. And that's the main source of the problems with Wikipedia. Just thought I would point that out. --causa sui talk 14:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, we should mark it as policy or guideline, whatever. Somebody restored a whole heap of those pages yesterday but I understand they were all deleted again.  It's being enforced. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds more like it's being fought over, but that's all a question of semantics : ) - jc37 16:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, it was undeleted by one admin on one side, and all the MfDs, CfDs, and other admins were on the other side. —Centrx→talk • 16:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marking as rejected 

message: Since I felt the discussion wasn't going anywhere in particular, in a potentially overly bold move, I have reduced this page to "Some pages glorify vandals. If you see any, drop them on MFD". That's what makes sense, and it's what we already do, and it allows for discussion on MFD on whether a page is in fact useful. 
Think this could work? I'd hope so, but I'd like some feedback and additions, as always. Please do not revert unless you really really must. >Radiant< 17:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've partially unsimplified it, but left it much simpler than it was before your change; some explanation and details are still needed. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oddly enough, I see nothing in this formulation that I particularly disagree with. So it is a matter of curiosity to ponder why the other side of this debate thinks this means the Long term abuse pages should be deleted and I don't? How is our thought diverging here? --causa sui talk 05:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplify 

message: Messing with the tag is ridiculous.  Obviously this is a de facto policy, we have implemented extremely successfully in the past few weeks.  Playing silly games with the tags isn't a good idea.  I propose that we either keep the existing tag or, in the interests of avoiding silly wars, remove all tags. --Tony Sidaway 01:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should assume people actually have a reason for putting it up.  It's obvious, obvious that this is in dispute.  Why not talk it out instead of cutting off discussion and steamrolling any dissenters?  That's essentially what you are doing by removing acknowledgement that this is in dispute.  How could you not know an action like that would be inflammatory and distracting?  What can such a childish and dismissive method of "getting your way" hope to achieve?  Karwynn (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Additionally, have a read.  As intentful on reducing frivolous discussion your actions may be, sometimes the best way to avoid having to deal with complaints is to not generate them in the first place.  Karwynn (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is really nothing to be gained by such inflammatory and emotionally loaded language. Please try to discuss this rationally and with civility. Thanks. --causa sui talk 01:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is completely ridiculousness.  It is a childish and counterproductive way to achieve one's ends, and it is hard to believe one wouldn't know that such an action would incite outrage, whether valid or not.  THese sort of steamrolling is completely against any principle of consensus, and generates unnecessary conflict.  THere is absolutely no reason to remove an indication of dispute - there are much better ways of dealing with people who have the "wrong" opinion than just silencing them.  It shows no respect for discussion nor consensus, something we should all agree are two fundamental concepts to Wikipedia's improvement.  Bluntness is not the same as incivility, by the way.Karwynn (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: De Facto Policy? I don't think those exist, nor should they. Also, its relative importance is at best, guideline level. Even Vanity is just a guideline. --tjstrf 01:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: De facto policy exists. That's just the way it is. --Tony Sidaway 01:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You just said we have a de facto existance of de facto policy. The levels of logic, justification, and coherent explanation here are overwhelming, to say the very least. Non-sarcastically, I respectfully request a reasonably well-thought explanation for why a policy, of all things, should need to be de facto rather than have a consensus-determined status. --tjstrf 02:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem to rely on the premise that most people who participate in discussion of Wikipedia policy don't know what's best for it.  Karwynn (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Tony, if that is your attitude, it is really pointless to discuss this with you. If your mind is totally made up and you have no intention of explaining yourself to anyone, then I'm sorry but I don't think you have any authority to edit this page. I can't believe I have to say something so obvious but Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project. You don't get to say "that's the way it is" as if people should just accept your view. --causa sui talk 02:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  Having the "product" of Wikipedia in mind is great, but not so much when you don't have the foresight to see what sort of conflict this action or that edit will generate.  THere are others here as well, who have input in how best to write Wikipedia.  Karwynn (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THe dispute is not over whether or not this should be "implemented in the future", it's about whether or not it's a good idea in the first place.  I think you're misunderstanding the scope of conflict.  Karwynn (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's already been implemented.  The discussion is over and this is policy. --Tony Sidaway 02:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You made that decision, did you? I guess none of our opinions matter and we should just leave the encyclopedia to you then. --causa sui talk 02:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is obviously not over.  Why on earth you would think you alone can determine that is out of my reach.  You need to consider that you may be wrong about this being the best thing for Wikipedia, as is everyone else who is trying to facilitate productive discussion of the best way to prevent disruption of the encyclopedia instead of finding the most gentlemanly way to say that others' opinions are not welcome.  Karwynn (talk) 02:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a de facto policy.  This endless foot-dragging is pointless. --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it is a de facto policy then what's the big deal? Why are you afraid of discussion? And please have a bit more respect for the concerns of editors on this talk page, and try to not be such a dick about it.  Calling valid and reasonable concerns "foot-dragging" is not a good way to get others to see your point of view. -- Ned Scott 07:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Messing with the tag

message: Guys, we do not vote on proposals. >Radiant< 16:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll 

message: (and I don't, it's a backwards, stupid idea)
Then let's see one of you "supporters" stand behind your conviction and nominate the GNAA article under WP:DENY. Any takers? Someguy555 05:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Failed comparison. The GNAA is not a Wikipedia vandal account, and has notability outside of the Wikipedia community. --tjstrf 06:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They have vandalized WP (they hype this) and their notability is borderline, and their a troll org. They only exist to troll, and all their RS aren't. Forums? Random pages they own? Not really a bad analogy at all. Someguy555 06:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But we aren't including them because of their wikivandalism, we're including them because of their other activities. We're also including them because we included them last time, because we included them last time, because.... This is a meta space proposal, we aren't going to use it as a justification to delete vandalism, trolling, graffiti, and :Category:Crime because they glorify vandals and law-breakers. --tjstrf 06:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This idiocy should never, ever, ever used to get rid of any encyclopedic content.  Wikipedia articles do not take a stand for or against trolling, violence, or even vandalism (although I don't think any vandalism would be notable enough to be included, but anyway...).  This thing is being used as a reason to remove valid links to a website because Wikipedians don't like it.  End result: links to encyclopedia-supporting content that Wikipedians don't like are excluded.  Karwynn (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:DENY does not and should not affect anything in the article namespace. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 13:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If you believe in this 

message: It seems people have lost sight of one important point... this page was reworded lately. When it was an essay, it argued for deleting quite a lot of stuff. That happened, and people objected. So now the (proposed) guideline states to discuss the issues at MFD. The guideline argues against unilateral deletion. >Radiant< 16:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another reason not to "promote" it at this time. The new version will need discussion and test application. Actually, the current version can operate properly without being a guideline, since it merely suggests you do something without implementing any new processes. --tjstrf 16:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And that sounds like what essays are for. jgp TC 17:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Important Difference 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Long_term_abuse#Guidelines_on_subpages
This a good guidline for vandal subpages should this get it's guidline or could it possible be merged with WP:DENY it would be good to have somthing in the guidline about when to give recognition.---Scott3 Talk Contributions  Count: 950+  22:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So could put in there?---Scott3 Talk Contributions  Count: 950+  01:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HaH! I'm amazed that that was mentioned here. I don't know how much of it should be put where, but if you do want to take some of it and add it to this page, the most important part (IMAO) is whether or not the page/category/whatever's "...increased exposure for the vandal outweighed by the increased visibility to the Community and people who may run across them?". If I can suggest conclusions, I don't mind the idea inherent to this page's content, but I'm worried that it might be used to remove information that is far more useful to US (One way or another) then it is useful or entertaining to the malefactor. That's when it's shot itself in the foot and we (all) lose. 68.39.174.238 04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidlines of vandal subpages 

message: All other arguments aside this proposal/essay/whatever, like WP:TGS, does not actually need a guideline or rule status to be effective. Since it is not a speedy criteria its aims and goals can be accomplished quite nicely through the existing MfD process. In other words, the outcome of the status debate is not cardinal, and simply causing strife and reflexive backlash.
So, how about we debate on how this project page should and should not be applied? --tjstrf 00:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is effective without the tag, it already has "guideline status". The tag would just be an accurate descriptor. —Centrx→talk • 01:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's saying that edit warring about the tag is pointless since it represents a common belief among Wikipedians. If you think it's a guideline, it is, regardless of what tag is on the page. Edit warring over it only makes the environment acrimonious and less likely to promote productive dialogue. --causa sui talk 04:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm saying that the effectiveness is independant of the "official status". Since all the suggestion consists of is nominate vandal-related articles for MfD, you can do that without needing a guideline to mandate your actions, and you can cite WP:DENY's reasoning for doing so. So, the edit war is LAME because it won't change anything no matter what the outcome is. --tjstrf 05:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline status? It can work without it. 

message: Does this also include blanking user talk pages of indefinately banned users and putting an indef banned template there? --Nearly Headless Nick 12:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question.  I've also seen redirects from a main user page to the user's talk page. A standard should probably be set, if it isn't already. - jc37 14:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User talk pages of Indef banned users

message: Wha? --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some IP editor changed that. And then Doc reverted me when I reverted it. Personally, I think the above debate shows that we don't have consensus for it, but I'm not going to do multi-reverts over the issue. --tjstrf 22:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *I've moved on from this discussion. WP:DENY is policy, as it is happening. Slap whatever tag you like on it, that's still the case. Mark it was 'rejected' if you like, makes no odds. The debate isn't here anymore.--Doc 23:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because everyone loves unilateral declarations... And if DENY is policy, would that be the new version or the old version? And if not here, then where is the debate? --tjstrf 23:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You miss the point, policy pages are ment to reflect what is happening, not create it. Look at the MfDs of vandal-cruft, and see what admins and others are actually doing (or no longer tagging) without serious objection. That's our policy, we can write up this page later. Policy pages are not legislation. --Doc 23:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that's "all of the above", as shown on WP:POL. Right now, it's used the same way WP:BEANS is used.  It's being used as an example, which explains an editor's opinion, without that editor needing to rewrite the essay everytime they wish to offer that opinion.  In order for this to go to guideline status, it needs to have an established set of standards, among other things.  Either be content that it's an essay that's found to be useful, or join in the discussion to improve it, but please let's stop the reversion and fighting. - jc37 23:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I no longer care how it is tagged. My only reason for reverting was that someone had assumed bad faith with an IP. Define this how you like, I'm just going to do it - that's more useful.--Doc 00:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Doc glasgow. Whether it is followed as a guideline or linked to as an explanatory essay, the result is largely the same. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline? 

message: Just as has been done for the change on the main page, and other potentially controversial changes/decisions in wikipedia, starting a separate page to discuss this: Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition/Guideline proposal - jc37 23:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving from Essay to Guideline

message: Just as has been done for the change on the main page, and other potentially controversial changes/decisions in wikipedia, this is to discuss the essay Deny Recognition.  Once the essay is determined by concensus to be in a stable form, discussion will follow to determine concensus for upgrading to a guideline.
===General Comments===
Making this an official policy may cause controversy with Wikipedians, and it won't help the site, rather damaging it. --VelairWight 04:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Making this a guideline will reduce controversy among Wikipedians, and will help the site by discouraging vandalism. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Making this policy will make no quantifiable difference, as its instructions operate entirely within existing policy. This entire page could be 2 sentences in WP:VANDAL and work just as well. --tjstrf 00:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Where do we go from here?

message: Making this an official policy may cause controversy with Wikipedians, and it won't help the site, rather damaging it. --VelairWight 04:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Making this a guideline will reduce controversy among Wikipedians, and will help the site by discouraging vandalism. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Making this policy will make no quantifiable difference, as its instructions operate entirely within existing policy. This entire page could be 2 sentences in WP:VANDAL and work just as well. --tjstrf 00:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Comments

message: We shouldn't do things that make vandals feel honoured, that's for sure. However, I believe this is going too far. If I had gotten here a few months later than I did, I would have no idea about this "Willy on Wheels" people mention and what he did. Shall we not at least keep a paragraph or two about notorious vandals to look out for on Wikipedia:Long term abuse‽ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gray Porpoise (talk • contribs) 
: It might be good to clarify what precisely this will entail. It isn't clear to me whether a single paragraph note would run afoul of it. I think it wouldn't but others may disagree. JoshuaZ 00:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A detailed history of what Willy on Wheels did is unneccessary and probably against the spirit of this. However, a note somewhere saying that 'on wheels' is a common page move vandal meme - and such accounts should be blocked on sight, is certainly useful. Useful things should stay.--Doc 09:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's exactly what I meant. Maybe a subpage of Long-term abuse could be made, with information on the actions/account names of, and what to do when you have sighted, the infamous vandals whose subpages on LTA were deleted. --Gray Porpoise 19:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A detailed history of what Willy on Wheels did is useful. --causa sui talk 05:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it isn't. All we need is words that say "Historically, 'Willy on Wheels' was a page move vandal, and the 'on wheels' theme is one commonly use by vandals. Any account with derivatives of this meme should be blocked on sight, such as 'x on wheels' 'x on skates' etc." Indeed we could just add a list of common vandal memes to the 'usernameblock' guidelines. --Doc 08:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Doc; I think all the information we need on Willy could be summarized in a sentence or two, given that there's no associated IP range or such any more with all the copycats. >Radiant< 08:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hang on. If you successfully reduce all references to the "on wheels" meme to a footnote in Wikipedia history, and delete lots of pages that help people understand what happened, then I can guarantee that in 5 years time someone unaware of the history will, quite innocently, create a "X on wheels" user account, and will be ruthlessly hunted down, quite unfairly. Keep the history. Document the decisions. Avoid glamorising. These are not incompatible aims. Deletions merely cause confusion a couple of years down the line as people find themselves referring to things they can't point people at because it all got deleted. Carcharoth 01:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem here is not a lack of documentation, it's the situation in which users are "ruthlessly hunted down". I block apparent meme usernames with a polite message to contact me by email for verification, which solves the problem of legitimate users being affected by providing a quick way to get the account unblocked. We should not forever prohibit certain words or phrases in names simply because a known vandal used them. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I disagree, the average new user coming here doesn't go and hunt out obscure (to the new user) non main space pages to see if their username may or may not be a problem. They create a name they are happy with. Sometimes that will be considered unacceptable (for various reasons) as Pathoschild says, it is how we deal with that which is important. --pgk 21:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: * is supposed to be reasonably friendly for such cases. >Radiant< 07:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree 

message: I have started a deletion review that concerns problems I have with the speedy deletion criterion G5 ("delete pages created by banned users"). My concern is that this currently goes too far, and what is happenning 'out there' is that people are deleting stuff on sight without checking to see if a good-faith debate or extensive good-faith editing has taken place. The basic idea is that speedy deletion of stuff created by a banned user should only take place if spotted immediately. If (during the period that the banned user remains undetected) others engage in the page or talk page, and this results in salvageable content, then G5 should not be applied. Instead, the debate, talk, or whatever, should run its course (with an appropriate tag used to notify the participants that it was started by a banned user), and the appropriate action be taken. In other words, if something useful emerges from the banned user's creation of the page, keep the useful stuff (deleting useful stuff would be like shooting yourself in the foot). If there is nothing useful, apply a "rejected" tag (to avoid repeating the debate later, and to point people at later) and move on. The argument I usually encounter against this, is that banned users are monstrous creatures that poison the minds of good, honest Wikipedians. I believe, however, that we should have more faith in the community to reject or accept the ideas, regardless of who proposes them. The deletion review in question can be seen here. Carcharoth 01:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That criteria is a different attitude for dealing with a different kind of bad-faith user. The criteria has little to do with DenyRecognition, and [ predates the essay] by about three years. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I was getting the impression that this might be the case. Thanks for pointing this out. I suspect that others might be confusing these two things as well. Would you have time to explain the difference? Carcharoth 03:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about CSD G5? 

message: This is bad policy; deleting the associated category "Wikipedia vandals" was a bad move. The LTA pages are the pillory for web trolls on a wiki. 
Maybe restore the pages/categories/templates/and export them to the test Wikipedia. --82.42.237.173 09:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting claim since that IP identifies itself to be User:Gold-Horn, who is clearly a sock of User:Sunfazer/User:Sunholm etc. etc. who had dozens of vandal accounts "sharing" his IP, reincarnated as User:TheM62Manchester who also had page move vandals "sharing" his IP, and was obsessed with WoW, keeping the WoW LTA page etc. His comments here actually reinforce why this is sensible. --pgk 21:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is bad policy 

message: I think that this policy is a good one; it will really make vandals wither away. I know as a fact that bored schoolchildren vandalise Wikipedia and think it's funny (until I tell them they're being stupid and immature).
BUT! The "revert, block, ignore" policy is dangerous. I was once a vandal; I did not seek attention, I just got a little goofy sometimes. Well, I got ignored and generally abused when I attempted to commune with the admins (who thought I was a troll). Now, I'm a contributor, and a a darn good one at that. So I see things from a vandal's point of view.
In conclusion, the policy really has to distinguish between glory-seeking vandals and lost souls who are getting hosed. ~ Flameviper 16:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Revert. block, ignore is precisely the right policy here. RBI makes vandalising boring as it provokes no response - hopefully the perpetrator will wither give up, or consider that editing constructively might be more fun. Blocks are generally temporary anyway (unless on logged in accounts, in which case new ones can be created after 24 hours). So there is plently of scope for reform, whether the user wishes to say 'I was a vandal - but now I'm not', or simply wants to get one with good contributions. We differentiate between serial-vandals and lost souls based on their subsequent actions, no more.--Doc 16:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This policy is a little "err" 

message: Now people won't understand Willy on Wheels jokes, thanks to you idiots. I fart in your general direction!!! oTHErONE (Contribs) 05:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That somehow came off as a personal attack. I'm sorry, I was pissed at the time. oTHErONE (Contribs) 06:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I doubt anyone will mind if you refactor it, with notice that you have done so. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 14:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIGHT!