Forum:Talk/user pages for vandals

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Talk/user pages for vandals
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 18 October 2008 by Azaz129.

I've noticed some very well meaning people who have recently been putting up warning notices on talk pages of vandals, and in particular for anonymous "ip user" vandals. I completely understand that sometimes people do make mistakes and deserve a second chance, but in this case I want to focus on users who exclusively vandalize the wiki or set up incredibly offensive user names meant to incite flamewars or simply piss off administrators.

Simply put, I believe that attempts to reason with trolls simply is feeding their behavior. Or more to the point, what is the likelihood that one of these blatant vandals even read the warning message? More often than not, they are already well versed in the basic mechanics of wiki editing... indeed a great many of them get into cute games to fight against specific administrators and are pushing for a fight. Some are previous users that have been banned from this wiki for some reason or another.

What I'm proposing is a general policy to delete (aka a "speedy delete") all user pages and talk pages of users that have made zero contributions to this wiki and are being used exclusively for the purpose of vandalism. In other words, treat these users as if they never existed in the first place. They deserve no recognition, and even the distinction of being a "banned user" is giving them too much notoriety.

Warning messages do have a place, but I believe they are much more effective if they are place on pages of what are obviously new users who have made a few mistakes and have other edits to show they have made some valid contributions somehow. I am not asking that users of this nature be denied the ability to edit their talk pages or to be punished more severely.

I can understand a few minor exceptions when a banned user page/talk page is repeatedly hit with offensive content for some reason, but I believe that to be a major exception rather than typical behavior even among trolls. This exception is that a minor note ("This is a banned user") can be posted and the page protected from all but admin edits. Use common sense here, but I don't believe that these sort of vandals are unaware of what they are doing. Unfortunately, a great many of the current set of users who have been banned (see Special:Log/block) have talk pages, and it certainly seems unlikely that they will be monitored in the future even if the user tries to respond there. --Robert Horning 16:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I don't mind us having a policy about that. Are you also suggesting deleting IP talk pages, like ones with the "No Vandal" temp or a "Test" temp? I wouldn't mind deleting those too. --Rollback crown.svg Spencer (Talk | Edits | Contribs) 18:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to swear in this reply, so anyone who dislikes foul language should probably just skip past the example I give here.
I totally support this idea. Trolls are ridiculously stubborn, let alone forgiving, and their flames usually take a while to smolder away to nothing. In fact, I have a VERY good example. of what trolling does to people, should some of you not understand their idiocy.
This site, which appears to have a few users from the wiki appears to be preparing for a flame war with these bastards, who actually worship Tehnoobshow. Yes. That's right. Tehnoobshow really DOES have no feelings. And why would I say this about the godlike YouTubing RuneScape moviemaker? Well, personally, I think he's waaaaay overrated, but that's not the point. From what I see, Teh is trying to just harrass people who dislike him by spamming any sites they go to. For example, Danger Pks U, one of Chia's friends (not sure if he has a wiki account) has had his YouTube spammed by Teh and his subscribers. Which of the many spammers/flamers happens to be Teh is a complete mystery, but both sites have suffered. From what I can see, started this whole problem, and a few dedicated users from that site were spamming's shoutbox. Chia alerted me of the problem on IRC, so I went to check it out (even though there was practically nothing I could do). The THREE users there flamed me relentlessly, believing that I had spammed that fucking Ubnub. When I provided proof that I hadn't, they *miraculously* accepted it, but kept flaming me, thinking that I just wanted to leech off of their "diety's" YouTube popularity! After 20 minutes of attempting to trigger their brains into acting reasonably, I gave up, just as one of the fuckers was about to launch a VERY racist commnent (I saw it when I came back later and they were gone...they called me an Aisan, which 1. I'm not, and 2. is racist).
My main point is that if we fuel the troll's will to flame, like I was inadvertantly doing, we'll lose in the end. So, without further ado, I support this idea. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko)
I mostly agree with this proposal. While I often like to give people the benefit of the doubt and offer them a chance to redeem themselves, I often go straight from rollback to CVU, then the warning. Often times, a week or so later, I find the vandal back being stupid again, with a {{No Vandal}} tag with my sig on their page from the last time I reverted their vandalism. It really seems to be a waste of time sometimes, but I don't think that pages that currently have them should be deleted. I personally feel that the majority of the vandals to the encyclopedia are very young and just think they can do it and get away with it, usually not checking back to see if their vandalism has been reverted. In time, they will most likely mature, and perhaps the warning on their page will cause them to stop and think: "Damn I was stupid, what was I thinking?" I hate to stereotype, but I feel it's entirely correct. By acknowledging that they were once here, and now they are not, I feel it gives the Administrators an aura of authority, and could show people that vandalism will not be tolerated. We are all here to better the encyclopedia, and to ensure it provides accurate information for everybody who needs it, and I think those who have a different mindset deserve to be labeled as they are; vandals.
On the other hand, I think just one warning is sufficient, and the {{Warn3}} could probably be done away with. The no vandal template lets whoever the individual is know that what they did was wrong, and they should review the rules. Warn3 is, in my opinion, and as Stinko would say "fueling the trolls". If they didn't get the hint the first time, then tough for them. Ugh, I'm getting way off track... Their talk page needs one template. No other comments, not "DON'T DO THIS AGAIN!!!!!!1!11!11one!1" or anything else. Keep calm, and let them know they screwed up. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I like Ubnubs and Kiotomis...=s. 00:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I support this policy. Simply put any sort of feedback is basically giving the vandal what they want which is, in a word, attention. That type of vandal doesn't care if the attention is positive or negative, so, I feel that giving zero feedback ala the "never existed" treatment/policy is definitely the way to go. ~kytti khat 14:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)