Wikipedia talk:Deny recognition/Archive 1

message: This is not a vote. It is just a tool for judging current consensus, and has no effect whatsoever on the acceptance of this proposal. The actual vote will begin with zero votes.
This is a log of users who agree with the proposal so far; as concerns are met, more users support. If you have a concern with the proposal, feel free to discuss and improve it instead of opposing. You should only oppose if you think the proposal can never be improved to your liking.
=== Support ===
# Obviously support, as creator. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 09:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General opinion log 

message: # Obviously support, as creator. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 09:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: Remember: this is not a vote. The actual vote will begin again with zero votes.
#Oppose as well as it been funny to see some of the names of accounts like :Category:Imposters of FireFox (I know, sound unprofessional but I'm been honest) in rare occasions it may slow down sockpuppetry investigations. Computerjoe's talk 16:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: Since it was removed from the page, I'll point out here that this was considered twice (In VfD and then MfD) to (sortof) do the same thing with this reasoning. It was rejected soundly both times. 68.39.174.238 21:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those were unrelated discussions, as they were entirely focused on deleting Wikipedia pages. The policy and this talk page both explicitly state that this isn't one of the goals. I have a different proposal in mind for an alternative to those pages, but it's not related to this project. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 23:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past discussions 

message: I support deleting the piles of categories, specific vandal templates etc that do seem to 'glorify' a vandal without serving any real useful purpose. However, I would like to see a simple 'blocked with reason' template left on a vandal user/talk pages instead of it being completely deleted. This saves a trip to the block log, and I do not see how this would encourage vandals. All warnings given before a indefinite block is applied can be blanked, but not deleted. Petros471 21:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest something like the standard  that says "See the <link>block log</link> for the reasons given for this block" 68.39.174.238 02:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative to userpage deletion 

message: Generally I'm in agreement with this. But we need to be careful that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Throwaway vandal accounts should be unceremonially buried and forgotton. However, not all indef blocked users should be. Arbcom just blocked User:-Ril-, but he's got thousands of edits, and many of them useful. That talkpage needs kept, probably indefinately. Further, the category of his sockpuppets was important evidence in his Arbcom case. Sockpuppeteers will find it much easier to evade justice if we expunge the record. Having said that, 'suspected sockpuppets' categories for pure vandals are useless and should go. We need to tweek the proposal to say that we keep indef blocked accounts which have substantially more than just vandalism edits, and we keep 'suspected sockpuppet' categories for users who are not perma-banned (if they are later perma-banned, these can be deleted as having no further evidence value) --Doc ask? 09:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good, but we also need to simplify the proposal. Feel free to add that in, and we can tweak it a bit from there. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 09:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a good idea, but beyond the scope of this proposal. To help prevent controversy, I'd like to avoid any omnibusing. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 02:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs tweaking 

message: Regarding:
:Userspaces belonging to indefinitely blocked users four weeks after their block, unless the account has made a significant number of useful contributions. 
I have an issue with that.  The user's talk page (and perhaps to a lesser extent, there user page) contains important information about the events leading up to the block.  Should the person someday... lets say 5 weeks latter... request for a block-review then that information won't be available any more. Perhaps blanking/locking would be better so the information is stored in the history.
Oh, another question... how do you quantify "significant number"? ---J.Smith 19:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is mainly targeted at throwaway vandal accounts, not users banned by arbcom or after any long discussions among admins. So to answer your questions:  1) It is unlikely that the vandal would want to use the account again, if he/she decided to become a good editor, they can create a new account. 2) Anyway, the contribution history would still show up the vandalism (and that's accessable to any editor) - in the event of any larger problem, the pages user and talk could be viewed and undeleted by any admin. 3) Actually, I'd be content to say we only deleted accounts with less than (say) 30 edits in total (unless basically all edits are vandalism). Most vandal-only accounts are blocked long before that - and few (if any) are ever unblocked again. --Doc ask? 20:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 slight problem 

message: I'm new to this issue but I found the inclusion of what are basically logos on pages like WP:MPS, WP:WOW and WP:MILK to be a little misguided. The illustrations likely enlighten the day-to-day monotony of the people chasing these yokels, but in the big picture I'm not sure they're helping the greater cause. Cleanr 14:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it hurts exactly, especially if the image isn't "glorifying", like MPSs. Seriously, what vandal wants to be a pissed off looking pelican? ;D! 68.39.174.238 00:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logos and glorification 

message: I wouldn't know about pelican shit until this was posted at the community board.  Haha, hilarious.--Urthogie 20:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhat ironic, no doubt, but there are few alternatives. ;) // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  most ironic page ever