Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. I must admit that, when I saw the first few commenters citing WP:DENY, I instinctively prepared for a caustic argument to ensue over the utility of that essay, which is -- at this point -- formally only that. Surprisingly, the consensus here is fairly impressive for deletion, and arguments for retention have mostly (and weakly) asserted the historical value of the page. On the basis of the strength of this discussion, I think a real case could be made that the community values WP:DENY as -- at the very least -- a guideline. At any rate, for the page at issue here, there is substantial agreement that WP:DENY should govern, and that it requires deletion of the page. Those wishing to see a reduced (or radically different) version of this page are, of course, welcome to try their hands at writing one, as this is a wiki. Xoloz 06:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels

We don't need these elaborate pages giving a hall of fame to blatant vandals - if someone is blatantly compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia, we block them. For subtle vandals, such pages are useful, but for page move vandals?

Cowman109Talk 20:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

  • delete: This is what I'll hope be the first of many deleted "long-term vandal" pages. They only serve to glorify the abuse and make the vandals into notable individuals. I do agree that it is imperative that we maintain records in order to properly identify abusers. This is probably a poor way. Bastique▼parler voir 20:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless - we block willy wannabees on sight - we don't need criminology files. --
    Doc 20:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - maintaining records is one thing, giving vandals something to aspire to is another. Shell babelfish 20:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep but shorten to 20 words (squeezing an edit in here Anomo 22:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)) You people need to find a way to make non-glorification pages rather than deleting informative pages. In contradiction to this, it's my belief Willy has long quit and these are imposters. However, you can't delete this page without deleting the pages of less notable people in Category:Wikipedia_vandals so if you want this gone, then will of this category must go. Anomo 20:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is this useful? Yes, undoubtably these are imposters. Yes, we can delete this without deleting other pages. Why not? Delete the useless ones, keep if someone can show why they are useful. --
Doc 20:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
If this is deleted will it all be erased or will it be saved on
Wikipedia:Long term abuse? Basically the URL link about him quitting and mention of imposters may be the only important thing anymore. But erasing everything would be bad. Anomo 21:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
You seem to just be making a vague assertion without telling us why. Why would it "be bad"? --pgk(talk) 21:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that if all is deleted then there is no information and at least some should still be useful. I'm not saying that a lot isn't easily gotten rid of. Anomo 21:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is the gap, I can't see what information here is useful. What is anyone going to use it for? Knowing we've had someone vandalise a load of pages in the past and has stopped now doesn't seem that useful to me. --pgk(talk) 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's useful is this link, "Wikilifespan: August 20, 2004 — present? (Claims to have quit, but may have returned.)", "Physical location: Yorkshire, United Kingdom? [1]" and Image:Willys-Knight1920.jpg. That's about it. By the way, did Willy really get that on the front page of www.wikipedia.org temporarily? Anomo 22:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - you find the image useful? I think that's what glorifies vandals the most: giving them their own images to their templates and such.
Cowman109Talk 22:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Well it's not like the lightbringer image (that's fancy!) I heard he put that image on a lot of places including the front page of all wikipedia portals, that's why. Anomo 22:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are they useful? What do you intend to do with them? How does that information help wikipedia in any way shape or form? --pgk(talk) 22:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are pretty much the only info on willy still useful at the present. Maybe they should be stored as a note somewhere. The image depends on whether it was on the front page of www.wikipedia.org and I would like to find that out. Anomo 22:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give this one last try. Why is that information useful, why would it having been used to vandalise the mainpage make it more useful? You just keep on saying it's useful but don't seem to be able to tell me why. --pgk(talk) 22:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean just the picture or the other stuff I mentioned, too? Forgetting about the picture, the other stuff I mentioned is just a brief info on that vandal that should just be kept as reference. It's maybe 20 words at most. Anomo 22:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other pages maybe stronger candidates for deletion is usually a weak argument for not deleting, we have to start somewhere and we need to look at this page on it's own merit (or lack of), however I'd certainly support deleting more of the pages like this. As to notability of the subject
WP:ASR --pgk(talk) 21:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep, important evidence record. --TheM62Manchester 21:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it important? What do we need such a record for? --pgk(talk) 21:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people seem to think these pages are good; I've seen other wikis using them! --TheM62Manchester 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok so it's important because some people else where think they are good. Sorry you still haven't told me why it is important. What value is it giving us, will wikipedia run any less smoothly for not having it? --pgk(talk) 21:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To quote the last MFD:

for histroical purposes. Deleting this page will also result in mass confusion, for users who have never heard of him, there will be no refrence to him. Beside, most sockpuppets are probably just impersonators.

--TheM62Manchester 21:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't think of a non-sarcastic response to that, so I'll give up for now. --pgk(talk) 21:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see that it adds to anything. Page move vandals will always be watched whether this page exists or not. Most, if not all, Willys are just copycats anyway and will be taken care off whether they add "On Wheels" to the end of the articles they move or not. As it is, it serves no point what-so-ever apart from honouring a vandal.--
    Konstable 21:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete; I think TheM62Manchester's cargo cult reasoning really says it all. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cargo cult programming - is that what you're referring to? Anyway, I'll stop participating in this MFD. --TheM62Manchester 22:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the better link. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That page only severs to perpetuate the wheels meme, so wannabe vandals know what they should do. I believe if such page didn't exist, there wouldn't be so much clones by now. And the actual willy is not ever around, so why keep report on that? In short: it sounds like a good idea, but in practice it's not so much -- Drini 22:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the quality of TheM62Manchester's argument.
    JesseW, the juggling janitor
    22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • There may be some minor value in keeping some of this info around, if so, merge it to the category. But most of this page is glorification of a vandal who should instead be reverted on sight and otherwise ignored. Delete ++Lar: t/c 22:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Probably the only argument for keeping it was based on
    consensus to delete this page. Oh, well, it can always be userfied, I suppose, if there are people who want to keep it. --TheM62Manchester 22:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

*Keep I was formerly a vandal, and like many wanted to be glorified. I see why maybe this would glorify vandals too much, but this page has been around for a long time and many users will lose their edits, more improtantly this is our most persistent vandal, and many other less persistent ones are able to keep their pages.Deloty 22:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has three edits - so I can see why he minds losing one. --
Doc 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Removed comment from Jake Remington sock -- Drini 22:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See? That's precisely the problem with the page. It makes people believe we have important vandals, and they should have pages about them. -- Drini 22:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real use, and keeping such pages probably does encourage vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 22:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree about copycats (e.g. what Tony said it encourages vandalism). I also think Template:WoW needs to be changed to say copycat (the template has been protected as long as I can remember). This kind of phrasing I think is good. I also think if they are called copycats it would discourage them. Anomo 23:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's still useful? If nobody minds, how about we decide on what is still useful, like "Page move vandal; renaming pages to add "on wheels" to them. Wikilifespan: August 20, 2004 — ? (claims to have quit). Physical location: Yorkshire, United Kingdom. Only copycats now." This might be good. I am sure others can find something better. I am also not saying this need to be kept in its own article (I'm fine with the deletion of the article, just not with erasing all information.) Anomo 23:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we block them, yawn, forget them and ignore them, that is more likely to discourage them. Our only real strategy when blocks don't keep them away is to bore them into giving up. Putting tags on their pages, categorising their nil-edit accounts etc. is precisely the wrong answer. I think we need to delete the templates, the tags and all the other useless wiki-'department of criminology' toys. --
Doc 23:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree on the templates. I think they should go. {{sockpuppet|willy on wheels}} and the regular banned template are fine. Today I found Template:WIC-real that before I edited it, glamorized the communist vandal. It seems a number of pages got marked with it. I also see that someone who isn't banned has that as a userbox. Anomo 00:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also a related deletion nomination:
    Konstable 01:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Transwiki ON WHEELS!!!! to countervandalism.org per above deletion reasons - specialised vandal pages don't belong here. MER-C 04:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Essjay wants it on his wiki, he's welcome - but I suspect he wont. --
Doc 11:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
See
WP:ANI. MER-C 05:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
User's 7th edit.--
Doc 12:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Important to whom and why? --
Doc 12:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
It's important for people who don't know about the vandal.That way they can stop them when they vandalize another page.Hmrox 00:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? We don't need to know anything about page move vandals to spot them and block them. --
Doc 01:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, he merits a paragraph saying that users which move pages to 'on wheels' names and usernames which contain 'on wheels' patterns should be blocked immediately without warning. Examples of such usernames are also useful. That means we should have a paragraph in
WP:LTA with a link to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Willy on Wheels. The subpage, however, is a reward for vandalism and needs to be killed with fire. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm with Doc. He doesn't even merit that much. Our admin pool is generally eager enough to block all such move-vandals and usernames very quickly; I'm confident that meme will persist without a page explaining it. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that if we didn't have this page people seeing someone move a load of pages to obviously stupid names would
WP:AGF and do nothing about it? You think without this page people wouldn't immediately recognise it as vandalism? See someone engaging in vandalism and do something to bring it to a halt, don't go running looking for a page describing that vandalism. Same goes for educating those who do want to help, why are you attributing stupidity to those people such that they wouldn't be able to tell pretty obvious vandalism without a page describing it to them? --pgk(talk) 14:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
It is important that people dealing with vandalism know that this is a serious ongoing issue, and not an isolated incident. Yes, dealing with vandalism involves reverting it. However, when a known vandal with an MO which includes multitudes of sleeper sockpuppets takes a chainsaw to the hard work of others, appropriate follow-up measures need to be taken. This can involve a CheckUser to identify the rest of the sleeper sockpuppets, the compilation of an abuse report to an ISP, and a notification to RC patrollers (however that is done) that more attacks may be imminent. I'm sure these hard line vandals use open proxies. While simple vandalism of an isolated nature does not warrant a proxy check, one should be considered if an aggressive vandal is tearing up pages. Police keep criminal records for a reason. WhoMe? 19:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't the police. But I take some of your point but it doesn't square with creating nice little pages with pretty little images, you can write up all you need to know about there being a spate of page move vandalism in a couple of sentences somewhere. In the case of this page since just about everyone agrees that the majority (if not all) page move vandalism of the "on wheels" type is by imitation, this isn't a "criminal record", this is a shrine. --pgk(talk) 19:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Keep vote does not imply that the fluff (pictures, cute descriptions, off-wiki appearances, etc) needs to stay in the article, but rather, merely that the article should exist in the first place, in some form. WhoMe? 20:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I'd like to point out is that there is a great difference between recognizing vandalism and knowing it thoroughly. A 10 year old kid will recognize WoW's actions as vandalism, but associating other patterns/potiential dangers to be aware of with it is an entirely different thing. In some cases it is necessary to inform others about some subtle actions that, to an untrained eye, may seem as simple vandalism not worthy of more than pushing [rollback], while in fact a wider alert (or at least increased awareness) should be raised. I wouldn't like this MfD to be a precedent to deleting a wide range of potentially useful (especially to newcomers) pages - training new vandalfighters personally would be an
13 18:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
And this page doesn't address that, sure expand
cleaning up vandalism and expand that into a useful general purpose resource. I think if your goal is getting people to be more effective at removing vandalism pages like this fail as witnessed by the number of people who spends hours tagging pages as possible socks of WIC, WOW etc. In terms of reversion of vandalism that process contributes absolutely nothing. --pgk(talk) 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
WTF? What the hell is 'tougher than blocking'? Admins don't yet have a 'castrate' button (*although sometimes I'd like one*). Page move vandals, wether they call themselveselves will or not) are blocked - period. There is no more we need to know. --
Doc 15:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Vandalism only accounts tend to be blocked indefinitely very quickly, anyway.
Cowman109Talk 16:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
In what way important? Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopaedia, not self perpetuate its own folk lore. (
WP:ASR) --pgk(talk) 06:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
By that logic, wouldn't
WP:ASR make most of the "Wikipedia:" namespace pages have to be deleted? Anomo 07:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Some possibly but the fact that we still have other pages that should go is never a good argument for keeping something. If you believe that the many of the wikipedia project and policy pages are "self perpetuating its own folk lore" then I think you've misread them. --pgk(talk) 11:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Unintentionally glorifies vandals. --JStalk 04:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With respect to Cyde, does it really matter that he proved Bobby Builders was Willy? Would Bobby not be blocked otherwise? Vandals are vandals. I could walk over to Starbucks with my laptop and in 5 minutes be Squidward, Willy, EnthusiastFrance, North Carolina, Rajput, and every other vandal you can name, and it would all be simple vandalism; revert, block, move on.
    Thatcher131 (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Amen.--
Lorrainier 21:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Regarding the concern over the IPs/ISPs that the vandals used, maybe we could create a page that just lists the IPs and/or ISPs that each vandal uses but nothing else.--

Lorrainier 21:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Are the IPs that vandals use really of use to anyone but administrators? If anything things like that should be left to those with checkuser who can make sure of open proxies and such, but there is no need to keep a public record of user's ips from my understanding.
Cowman109Talk 22:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Most WOW sock puppets are probably just impersonators or joke user names that are not vandal accounts. If this page get deleted good info about WOW will be lost. least keep the talk page. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels already had bin voted keep see here.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 02:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Willy_on_Wheels_2&oldid=1084306436"