| Revision as of 18:26, 4 September 2006 editTony Sidaway (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →Straw poll-Guideline: Closing poll by order of the cabal← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:11, 22 December 2024 edit undoStaraction (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,213 edits Reverting edit(s) by WhenItComesToAbuseMultipleAccounts (talk) to rev. 1252067220 by Lowercase sigmabot III: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)Tags: RW Undo | ||
| (534 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talkheader|hide_find_sources=yes|wp=yes}} | |||
| ''Older discussion may be found in the ].'' | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WikiProject Essays|importance=mid}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 3 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Deny recognition/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| == |
== Also childish behavior == | ||
| 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). // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Article states: | |||
| : '''This poll is no longer active.''' // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 04:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :"True vandals and trolls (as distinguished from users who dabble in minor vandalism) usually suffer from chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness and seek recognition and infamy by interrupting and frustrating the Misplaced Pages project and community" | |||
| :Here I would like to add: | |||
| :''"or alternatively, is a person who regardless of actual age more or less cannot help behave childishly"'' - or something in line with that | |||
| :I don't expect this to "help" against vandalizing trolls, but is nevertheless also true, I believe. Especially regarding those who only vandalizes without any kind of agenda. ] (]) 00:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::I do not see how that would help. Any summary describing human behavior will be incomplete, and a psychiatrist could probably provide dozens of cases showing somewhat different backgrounds of "true vandals and trolls". The point of WP:DENY is that a large proportion of dedicated vandals/trolls seek recognition for the reasons currently mentioned, and denying recognition is often best. Undoubtedly trouble comes also from people who will never mature, but why would such people persist at Misplaced Pages if they were not getting some recognition from it? At any rate, it would be undesirable to expand possible reasons for why some contributors are vandals/trolls because such a list would always be incomplete and unhelpful. ] (]) 00:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == DENY means DO NOT escalate the level of attention == | |||
| === Support === | |||
| # '''Support''' as proposer. // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # '''Strong Support''' as just good common sense. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 10:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # '''Support''' per previous unofficial vote. — ]]] 15:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support.''' See my comments wherever I left them last time. ''']''' (]) 15:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' per above.--] <sup>(])</sup> 16:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support'''. ] ] 16:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' ] 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. ---] (]|]) 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. :) // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 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... ] <small>(],],])</small> 10:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support'''. Seems a sensible move. --] 18:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' per the above. <font color="#0033cc">]</font>]] 23:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''', great idea. --] 06:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Support''' I don't think vandals should get any recognition at all; ] seems to agree with you and I on this. ] 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 ] turned red; I expect the rest to be killed soon. ]<sup> ]</sup> |]| 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. ] 14:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] attempted to modify the fourth dot point in the section "How to mitigate vandalism", which says: | |||
| === Oppose === | |||
| <blockquote>* Otherwise, quietly revert or blank. Reserve ] (if you see a group of similar pages, make a group nomination) for serious matters, noting that a high profile forum discussion of vandalism is the opposite of "deny recognition".</blockquote> | |||
| # '''Oppose'''. Most ironic policy ever. --] 10:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Why? Nominating at MfD is actually the opposite of DENY, it is an attention-escalating reaction. The troll wants the attention. This feeds the troll. --] (]) 23:59, 19 July 2018 (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. ]] 15:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's not clear to me what you are supporting. The current text (shown above) is fine although it needs copy editing as "list" should be "listing" and the stuff in brackets is too clumsy. The point is that there are a lot of vandals/trolls and simply blanking their pages might generate the least fuss. Often someone will cruise in and have fun for a few days, then disappear. People should not spend a week arguing over the sanctity of a user page in such cases. OTOH if the blanking is repeatedly undone then deletion is available. ] (]) 03:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
| # '''Oppose''', per my 'skeptical' comment below. ~ ] 15:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just CSD the page and get on with it, as long as there isn't any meaningful history available in the userpage. ] (]) 04:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
| # '''Oppose''', should be (at most) an essay, not a meta-policy. ] 14:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: ]s G3, G5 and G10 are the first three suggestions. If these can't be applied, it is rarely that serious. --] (]) 04:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :: I am opposing the diff provided and supporting its by ]. Copy edit? I the parenthetical stuff. I agree with all you wrote. --] (]) 04:19, 20 July 2018 (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. --] 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 ]. // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 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 ]. ] (]|]|]) 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 ]. I'm new here, so I don't know how this would stop being "proposed", but hopefully it'll never be more than that. ] 01:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #: You're comparing DenyRecognition to the ''''']'''''? 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. // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 05:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Why have deny recognition if talk pages get locked? == | |||
| ===Comments=== | |||
| *Polls can't decide whether policies are accepted.--] 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. // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * As I said 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 {{tl|Indefblockeduser}} (i.e. not one of those countless custom templates, such as {{tl|wow}} etc). ] 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? ] ] 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. // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| That basically tells us that something is going on and the main article is likely full of sanitized half-truths. ] (]) 23:09, 27 October 2022 (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 was not aware we locked talk pages. --]<sup>]</sup> 14:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] 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 ]. // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| There is some logic to the principle, but some would point out that ignoring has not been a good response in the more recent environment. Some politicians have taken the stand that people should be called out, and there is also concern that letting things go unchallenged means some uninformed people will believe that incorrect statements are true. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::I hope people don't use the phrase in edit summaries. ] 14:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Strangely unhinged tone in first paragraph == | |||
| == 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. | |||
| The psychological analysis included in the first paragraph is remarkably dark, uses basically dehumanizing phrasing in assessing people as pathological while also not citing any sources at all to back up this rather extreme assessment of motivations behind a problematic phenomenon. I feel like the problem of vandalism on Misplaced Pages can be handled without employing the tonality of a law-and-order right-wing politician talking about perpetrators of urban graffiti. Seeing as this page is being treated as an official guideline on Misplaced Pages, should it perhaps be toned down a bit, or if such strong statements are going to be made about psychological traits motivating vandalism shouldn't they be sourced? ] (]) 14:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Deciding which categories "serve no useful purpose" is very subjective to who you're asking. I feel as if ] is a source of knowledge; what's a better example for users and administrators to decide by what are inappropriate usernames? | |||
| :I agree. It's very offputting and not a good look for Misplaced Pages as a neutral resource. ] (]) 06:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I would personally support the creation of a page to the extent of ], 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 ] as well as ], but is the most effective way to catch new meme vandals recently on the rise. | |||
| == How to answer to abuse of this == | |||
| This proposal would have to do a lot more to stop vandals seeking notoriety, such as to delete ] 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. ~ ] 15:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| For context, I have often done anti-vandalism. This has led me to leave the standard warnings on a variety of pages, including on pages of probably good-faith disruptors (e.g. someone adding to their own page unsourced information about their children). In some cases, I have been reverted by others, with no other justification than "]". I think others will agree that this is a blatant misuse of this page, aimed at those that intentionally disrupt Misplaced Pages. Still, I wouldn't have objected that much if the editor in question just didn't themselves use warnings, as opposed to trying to impose their way of doing on others through reversion, which is disruptive. This has not happened many times, and last example I remember was months ago, but I was wondering, how should I answer/react to such reverts? Thanks, — ] ] 10:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : Inappropriate usernames, by their nature, should be obvious. There is no need for reference lists to recognize random strings of characters (<small>]</small>), non-Roman scripts (<small>]</small>), curse words (<small>]</small>), offensive names (<small>]</small>), impersonations (<small>]</small>), or usernames obviously intended to boost their position in the categories (<small>]</small>). If you need to refer to a list, then they probably shouldn't be blocked under the inappropriate clause of the ], which is very clear on what is considered inappropriate. | |||
| : New account creations are closely watched by the countervandalism channels (see ]); patterns are quickly recognized as they occur, and are blacklisted (often with ]) 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. // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 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 ], and ] as targets for removal, since they are more specific, and, I would presume, more useful for prevention, and aren't as useful for noteriety. - ] 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.--] 22:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I started ] without knowing that this proposal was underway - I think they would work well together. ] ] 22:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] subpages == | |||
| SDhould we delete all of ] subpages to their entirety? -- ] <sup>]</sup> 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. // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 04:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: This page is only an essay and not a policy, but it is being treated as a policy. ] 04:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Not at all; it's cited as an essay, much as ] (or ]). For discussion on making it policy, see "]" on the ]. // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 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." ] 05:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == irony of Herostratus see also == | |||
| Herostratus is the name of an administrator. ] 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? —] ] 21:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Feel free to propose it. :) // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 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. --] ] 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'. --]<sup>]</sup> 00:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: If you're looking for an admission from a vandal that they're seeking notoriety, please see . 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.''". // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 00:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: On that note, see also , where a user claiming to be a notorious vandal claims notoriety (through ] vandal userpages) to be their goal. // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 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.---] <sub>]</sub> <sub>]</sub> <sub> </sub> 03:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The ] I provided above are just supporting evidence for the well-known fact that ], as ] pointed out above. Returning your question, do you have any evidence that indefinitely keeping ] containing <nowiki>{{attackuser-m|Hall Monitor}}</nowiki> helps countervandalism and does not in any way encourage vandals ''à la ]''? Does the fact that ] make a difference? // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 10:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : "Don't feed the trolls" is good advice to a point, but ] 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 ] 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. --] (]) 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. --] ] 20:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I just added the ] deletion debate to ].---] <sub>]</sub> <sub>]</sub> <sub> </sub> 22:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I assume that link to ] was intended to point to ]. // ]</small>] ] (<sup>'']''</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 03:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == proposed guideline? == | |||
| Is this essay a proposed guideline or policy? -- ] ] 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.) ]] 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? ] 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. --] 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. --] 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :did. ++]: ]/] 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: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| Specifically: | |||
| *A ''']''' 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. : ) | |||
| - ] 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. --] 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 ], I obviously must disagree. | |||
| ::btw... who's "we"? : ) - ] 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. --] 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 <s>two</s> three of us can make this decision alone, I'll start a straw poll below. - ] | |||
| :::"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. ] ] 17:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:11, 22 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing Deny recognition and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Also childish behavior
Article states:
- "True vandals and trolls (as distinguished from users who dabble in minor vandalism) usually suffer from chronic alienation and real or perceived powerlessness and seek recognition and infamy by interrupting and frustrating the Misplaced Pages project and community"
- Here I would like to add:
- "or alternatively, is a person who regardless of actual age more or less cannot help behave childishly" - or something in line with that
- I don't expect this to "help" against vandalizing trolls, but is nevertheless also true, I believe. Especially regarding those who only vandalizes without any kind of agenda. Boeing720 (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
- I do not see how that would help. Any summary describing human behavior will be incomplete, and a psychiatrist could probably provide dozens of cases showing somewhat different backgrounds of "true vandals and trolls". The point of WP:DENY is that a large proportion of dedicated vandals/trolls seek recognition for the reasons currently mentioned, and denying recognition is often best. Undoubtedly trouble comes also from people who will never mature, but why would such people persist at Misplaced Pages if they were not getting some recognition from it? At any rate, it would be undesirable to expand possible reasons for why some contributors are vandals/trolls because such a list would always be incomplete and unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
DENY means DO NOT escalate the level of attention
User:Septrillion here attempted to modify the fourth dot point in the section "How to mitigate vandalism", which says:
* Otherwise, quietly revert or blank. Reserve list them as miscellany for deletion (if you see a group of similar pages, make a group nomination) for serious matters, noting that a high profile forum discussion of vandalism is the opposite of "deny recognition".
Why? Nominating at MfD is actually the opposite of DENY, it is an attention-escalating reaction. The troll wants the attention. This feeds the troll. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me what you are supporting. The current text (shown above) is fine although it needs copy editing as "list" should be "listing" and the stuff in brackets is too clumsy. The point is that there are a lot of vandals/trolls and simply blanking their pages might generate the least fuss. Often someone will cruise in and have fun for a few days, then disappear. People should not spend a week arguing over the sanctity of a user page in such cases. OTOH if the blanking is repeatedly undone then deletion is available. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Just CSD the page and get on with it, as long as there isn't any meaningful history available in the userpage. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- WP:CSDs G3, G5 and G10 are the first three suggestions. If these can't be applied, it is rarely that serious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- I am opposing the diff provided and supporting its revert by User:CFCF. Copy edit? I removed the parenthetical stuff. I agree with all you wrote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Just CSD the page and get on with it, as long as there isn't any meaningful history available in the userpage. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Why have deny recognition if talk pages get locked?
That basically tells us that something is going on and the main article is likely full of sanitized half-truths. 88.234.197.238 (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
- I was not aware we locked talk pages. --DB1729 14:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
There is some logic to the principle, but some would point out that ignoring has not been a good response in the more recent environment. Some politicians have taken the stand that people should be called out, and there is also concern that letting things go unchallenged means some uninformed people will believe that incorrect statements are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Strangely unhinged tone in first paragraph
The psychological analysis included in the first paragraph is remarkably dark, uses basically dehumanizing phrasing in assessing people as pathological while also not citing any sources at all to back up this rather extreme assessment of motivations behind a problematic phenomenon. I feel like the problem of vandalism on Misplaced Pages can be handled without employing the tonality of a law-and-order right-wing politician talking about perpetrators of urban graffiti. Seeing as this page is being treated as an official guideline on Misplaced Pages, should it perhaps be toned down a bit, or if such strong statements are going to be made about psychological traits motivating vandalism shouldn't they be sourced? 80.56.159.130 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. It's very offputting and not a good look for Misplaced Pages as a neutral resource. 107.12.51.118 (talk) 06:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
How to answer to abuse of this
For context, I have often done anti-vandalism. This has led me to leave the standard warnings on a variety of pages, including on pages of probably good-faith disruptors (e.g. someone adding to their own page unsourced information about their children). In some cases, I have been reverted by others, with no other justification than "WP:DENY". I think others will agree that this is a blatant misuse of this page, aimed at those that intentionally disrupt Misplaced Pages. Still, I wouldn't have objected that much if the editor in question just didn't themselves use warnings, as opposed to trying to impose their way of doing on others through reversion, which is disruptive. This has not happened many times, and last example I remember was months ago, but I was wondering, how should I answer/react to such reverts? Thanks, — Alien 3
3 3 10:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)