Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Deletion of old reports

WARNING!Do not delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/Universe_Daily Spamming by definition is the promotion of web addresses or products with the intention of making money. Wayne Robert Smith does not make money from the net but only posts links at Wikipedia to annoy the people working there in retribution for being called a vandal on his first visit years previously. You called him a vandal so he has spent years vandalising your pages in exchange for the insult. He is currently laying charges against wikipedia for libel and expects about 3 million dollars for mental anguish caused by the innacurate website comments. Please leave all insulting comments intact for the police prosecutor. Deleting them now would be pointless as hardcopy has been printed and is in the hands of his attorney. Jimmy Donal Wales has already been informed of this decision by Wayne Smith to pursue legal action. Thank you. Tony Fitzgerald QC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.155.114.32 (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


As the old long-term abuse project deleted useless old reports, the new long-term abuse project should do the same to maintain a clean project that can easily be searched for information. Thus, I've been reviewing the old reports and looking to see if any of them are candidates for deletion. If it is decided that old reports should be deleted, Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Page_2, Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Archive_2, and Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Archive_1 are naturally candidates for deletion. Should old inactive reports be deleted? And if so, when should a report be considered inactive (I'm thinking no activity in 2010)? Netalarmtalk 14:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree on both cleaning up the project, and no activity within this year is a good cutoff point. Mlpearc powwow 16:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This is so complicated, even more than when abuse response was being revamped. I think I'll go create a subpage that discusses the pros and cons of deleting old reports. Netalarmtalk 20:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I could concur with a one year cut off as well for inactivity, though ive been biased before in favour of deleting these pages (last AFD discussion) so I fully support further discussion of pros and cons on this Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Before doing anything along those lines I strongly suggest discussing and defining the goal, scope, definition and vision of the project, as was done for AR. Once that is established, answering these kinds of technical questions might become more self-evident.   Thorncrag  04:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This is just from the old LTA page, but I believe the goal of LTA has always been to provide a central location for editors to find information on suspicious editors and see if they're actually a long-term vandal. LTA was never designed to contact the Internet service providers, it has always been more of a repository of information about vandals. And with no one managing it, it naturally got messy and useless, hence the multiple MfDs. Long-term abuse handles long-term abusive users, defined as users that have disrupted Wikipedia over a long duration of time. The definition of vandalism can be found here.
There were never any formal criteria for inclusion. It's always been "if a user abuses Wikipedia over a long duration of time..." Formal criteria approved by the community would make LTA more definite and more useful. In the future, I hope to see LTA and abuse response more closely integrated to provide a more effective solution to combating long-term abuse. See User:Netalarm/Deleting_LTA_reports for pros and cons, feel free to modify. Netalarmtalk 11:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not too sure about deleting old reports. That a long term vandal is gone for some time does not mean they is really gone. One case (which is, by the way, not listed here as it is pretty localised) has forced editors to apply long term protection of a page, but .. well .. BLP violation diff, Revision as of 23:55, 2 August 2007, protection diff, Revision as of 23:57, 2 August 2007 (1/2 year), next BLP violation diff, Revision as of 23:14, 22 February 2008; 20 days after expiration of protection. I'd be careful with the term 'useless' and would not delete based on long term inactivity of a vandal. Please, just apply archiving (for that, 1 year might be fine). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
There's at least one active vandal in Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Page_2, and another who returned after a gap of two years. Just recently I looked up another who hasn't been active for two years, when looking at unblocking an IP address (207.7.163.203). The benefit of archives over deletion is that they provide context for older discussions and administrative actions. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, if we use a category based system that will automatically archive old reports, it would both cleanup the system and keep records in the rare even that they are needed. Netalarmtalk 20:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
If the archive is similarly organised as the main pages, and clearly linked, then I think that that would be a good solution. It is a matter of moving 'older' cases to archive pages, where again they can be linked from a table, and on another archive be all transcluded. Problem is, that it is difficult to see when activity stops, that is not automatically 'one year after the last update of the page' .. it would be one year after the 'vandal' (in the broadest sense of the word) 'stops' with their actions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Ya, the table could work here to, but something like Category:Abuse_response_-_Closed could also work, since a user would only be looking for information if they knew what they would be looking for. Regarding the vandal one year limit, that's what I've been doing. Looking at the sock categories and messaging users isn't exactly easy, so this cleanup is going a bit slower. Netalarmtalk 21:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested resolution

  • Old legitimate reports on actual long-term abusive users will be kept, but archived so they will not be displayed on the main page.
  • Old reports that do not fit the criteria of long-term abuse will be removed, or deleted.

I think we can use categories to sort this out. However, criteria on when a long-term abuse report can be created still needs to be discussed, since it would make administration easier. Netalarmtalk 14:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Move category from Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse to Category:Long-term abuse

There's no need for the "Wikipedia" there. Other projects such as WP:SPI and WP:ABUSE do not use the Wikipedia prefix in the category. Can we retag all long-term abuse pages with Category:Long-term abuse and remove the old category? We'll also delete the old category. Netalarmtalk 20:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done - EdoDodo talk 21:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Formal set of criteria

Before I go into detail on a formal set of criteria, I believe it's important to note that the current directions of "In the vast majority of cases Deny Recognition and Revert block ignore are more suitable approaches." still hold, and the both that criteria and these new ones have to be met before a report is to be accepted. The current directions also state that "Names should only be added for the most egregious and well-attested cases." Since these terms have not been defined, I believe that a formal set of criteria would make it easier for an editor to decide whether or not to create a report. I'm proposing that reports only be accepted if the following conditions are met:

  • The user must have a sockpuppet category. This requirement is to ensure that only abusive users are listed at long-term abuse, since a sockpuppet category shows that the user has abused multiple accounts.
  • The user must have at least one blocked account. This shows that the user has indeed disrupted Wikipedia.
  • The abuse must have continued over at least a duration of six months. This shows that the user was abusive over a long duration of time.

Of course, these need to be discussed and modified as deemed fit. Netalarmtalk 03:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Those sound minimal and sensible.   Will Beback  talk  05:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree - Good sound base. Mlpearc powwow 06:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree I think socking is a clear sign of long term vandalism and perhaps the only characteristic that remains common between the two different LTA accounts. Time frame looks ok to me as well. Its a good working principal I think. Ottawa4ever (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree Sounds okay. - EdoDodo talk 11:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Some sects of DENY/RBI advocate listing enough information at LTA for the vandal to be identified, but not having each of the sockpuppets meticulously categorised and tagged. There are several LTA vandals without meaningful categories (Erik Young and AnonTalk spring immediately to mind), and I foresee more of those categories will be deleted in the future. The first criteria should be replaced with a list of example sockpuppets instead. Additionally, one blocked account is not a high enough entry level. I would suggest multiple blocks as a minimum. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Ya, I'm beginning to notice that some of them don't have categories - but have lists. How many socks should we agree on? Bear in mind that there are suspected and confirmed. I'm thinking around 50 confirmed? It should be quite difficult to get reported to long-term abuse, but not too difficult so that we don't have the necessary reports. Regarding the block count, I think one is enough since someone with a lot of socks would likely have all of the socks blocked. Netalarmtalk 02:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-signing of reports

The old prevamped long-term abuse stated that reports should not be signed, and I believe that this should be carried over to the newly revamped system. Also, I've removed the "list of users to contact" section, as there is no need to direct people to certain editors. I believe that all the information should be listed on the report so it can be available to everyone immediately. Thoughts? Note: I'm still cleaning up the reports. Netalarmtalk 23:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think in a way its good not to associated names of editors to the LTA reports, By listing names it opens a level of harrassemnet from some of the listees (assuming the vandal comes to look at this report). In that sense, the report should have detailed information to accurately tell a user if they are dealing with a LTA themselves, refering to an 'expert' per se will slow the process down. And its likely if the report is written well enough that it would be unnecessary anyway. Very much agreed with your non-signing idea. Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I feel that if someone is going to expend the energy and effort to raise a campaign to harass a reporter, then they will easily be willing to expend the effort to look at a page's history to find out who made that report.   Thorncrag  23:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Reports that do not meet criteria

Legitimate reports should be archived, as we have established above, but reports that do not meet the criteria for when a long-term abuse report may be submitted should be deleted. I've reviewed some reports and found that a few of them are either incomplete or not at the level of abuse that warrants a long-term abuse report


  • Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Consist. User is relatively low-key and does not vandalize to the extent that a long-term abuse report is needed. The confirmed sockpuppet category shows only 1 IP and 1 username, and the suspected sockpuppet category shows only 7 IPs and 1 username.

Netalarmtalk 02:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I've removed one of the LTA "names" above, which was causing harm to the reputation of a RL person who probably had nothing to do with whatever was being addressed here. Risker (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Shortcuts for reports

Providing the information on a one-page report is fine, allowing access to it is fine, but having a shortcut to the report? I don't feel there is the need to have shortcuts such as WP:TREASON. I'm proposing that we remove the shortcuts and delete them. Netalarmtalk 02:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Treason can go, especially since he's fallen by the wayside for a long time. I WOULD however keep WP:'T for quite reference because of his noxiousness. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Long-term abuse and user rehab

Please see this. Netalarmtalk 05:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


Please look into User:Mtking for his constant and persistent disruption of the UFC wiki pages. It is clearly a witch hunt and part of a personal agenda, neither of which are tolerated under Wiki user rules. I'd really hope that a proper admin will remove his privileges to nominate articles for deletion after months and months of repeated abuse over pages just because he doesn't like the sport. Not a single one of his reasons stands beyond "I don't like it so it shouldn't be here." Wiki is not User:Mtking 's personal information website and many fans have spent time to create these useful and relevant pages. Their work shouldn't be harmed just for 1 person's long term obsession with something he doesn't like.

Question

How useful is this towards stopping or getting quicker attentions against a sockmaster who is determined to continue editing through a community ban, who is stalking multiple editors and who has become quite nasty in some comments made about it's main target stalked? There are a few of us who have been catching the socks and getting them blocked but it takes time to get this done and usually some damage is incurred to articles and/or editor(s). We haven't added the sockmaster yet because we aren't sure if this is a viable thing to utilize. Thank you for any helpful information. I am going to share my posting here with the editors who are interested which includes an administrator, thanks again, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Long-term abuse isn't helpful in stopping or getting quicker attention against long-term abusive users at all. The intent of this page / project is to provide a central place to provide information on users so they may be identified in the future. Basically, this is a place to record the behavior and typical actions of long-term abusive users in the hope that someone will recognize them when they see them. If you've found someone who you suspect to have been abusive WP for a long time now, enter some keywords into the search box and see if any reports show up. Alternative, you can message me about his behavior (I've read every case to clean them up) and I can tell you if there's a match. Quick response needed? WP:ANI would be where you want to report that. Just link to the long-term abuse report so people will know who you're talking about. If you want to report sockpuppetry, WP:SPI would be the best place. Netalarmtalk 03:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Added note: Are you asking about whether a report should be created, or are you asking about the purpose of this project? Netalarmtalk 05:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

How to edit this page?

How do I get into this page to edit it? I want to change the article in the sentence beginning "Consider providing just an summary of the behaviors and nature of disruption . . ." Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The page you want is Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Header. There's a tiny little "v * e" near the bottom right of the orange box which is the links to view and edit that particular template. If you can't see it just go to Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Header and click "edit". —Soap— 23:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. A tiny e? Fine, I did it. Is there a page somewhere that tells editors about this function? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really, as that "e" was coded into this template and isn't part of anything bigger. Most pages that have a header have it saved at /Header to make it easier to find. Netalarmtalk 03:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

A cleanup

WP:LTA/MPS can be deleted. He was a really old project vandal (before my time mostly) who is easily detectable and preventable with modern methods. Also WP:TREASON can probably go. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

A note: I had to abbreviate MPS because I was blocked, undoubtedly by "P e l i c a n s h i t". We definitely don't need that page anymore. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Orowole.S.Oyedele

The Help talk:Special page was recently edited by Orowole.S.Oyedele, who deleted and spammed the page. Not sure what the procedure is, but I am hoping someone could take this case up. Cheers --Squidonius (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Fake Report

There is a case in the category that shouldn't exist Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/RussBot. The file was created by a user who haas be warned for disruptive editing, and the subject of the report is innocent. for a conversation I had with operator of the bot in the report see here the user talk linked from the report. Fastpatrol, wikimaintenance and counter vandalism unit hows it goin? 13:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this. I have reported it to RussBot's owner: User talk:R'n'B#Fake LTA report. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive User

User:GoodDay is a chronic troll and disruptor who primarily attacks, disrupts and inflames articles on Irish related issues and persons, highlights himself as a Canadian to appear unbiast, but it is obvious he is not. When a issue has been resolved he drags it down again for his own entertainment, constantly trys toprovoke reactions from people and trys to delete the evidence from his talk page, how can I report him?Sheodred (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm mildly annoyed by this vendetta. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
All evidence onthis page. 143.239.70.75 (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
You could atleast sign-in. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
He can't, he's blocked. And has just been blocked for longer for trying to circumvent it. JonCTalk 09:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
And I've deleted the LTA page he created about GoodDay; as the link to Snowded's sub-page suggests, the correct venue to investigate any user's behaviour is by starting an RfC, not messing about with the LTA pages which are for long term vandals. Black Kite (t) 09:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Black Kite. I suspect that Sheodred is likely a sock-puppet of a indef-blocked editor. A bloke, who's seeking to get me indef blocked. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Vintagekits? JonCTalk 15:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Nope, I opposed his indef block. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I refute all your false and malicious allegations.Sheodred (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any long-term abuse from the Raleigh-Durham area?

I know you can't name names, but I also know that records are kept about banned users to help identify their socks in the future. I've got a contentious dynamic-IP hopping user I am pretty sure is evading a ban. I'm looking for a yes/no answer about banned users in the Raleigh-Durham area for additional info before filing this report. Yworo (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To simplify this process, Yworo's false accusation (one of many) is about me. I welcome -- I request -- a checkuser to put this matter to rest. Thanks. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
As you well know, a checkuser only works for someone with a recent username. However, you can be blocked for similar behavior to a banned user. A checkuser isn't necessary, nor is it appropriate in this case. Yworo (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Another of Yworo's self-created rules directed against anon IPs. If Wikipedia blocked every anon who made one revert, there would not be a Wikipedia. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I've got a whole list of evidence of your previous stalking, as well as previous reports of your harassment of other editors. You are clearly the same person who harassed me in the past, and if you don't stop you will end up with several broad subnets blocked to IP editors, requiring registration and login. Yworo (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Got my list too, Yworo. And it's not just comments made by or about me. You see, with your history of attacking IPs and new editors, you leave a nasty trail. And please stop it with the self-created rules. No one is required to register. That's a very cornerstone of Wikipedia. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Hiding bad behavior behind a dynamic ip is a clear violation of Wikipedia rules. You asked for it, you got it, I've filled the SSI case. You may not remove warnings or tags about a sockpuppet investigation while is is active. Ciao. Yworo (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and feel free to file a user-conduct RFC about me. Oh, that's right, only registered users can create new pages. Oops. Yworo (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for filling the sock investigation request (seriously). BTW, Yworo, sarcasm does nothing to help your case and adds a bit more evidence of your style in dealing with IPs and new users. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
If you didn't keep following me around, "tweaking" articles you've never edited before just to make sure I know you are following me around, and then post on my talk page when you know you've been repeatedly asked not to, this wouldn't be necessary. You have been being a complete @#$%^&* and you know it. And your behavior is IMO enough to get you banned even if it can't be proved that you are a formerly banned user. Yworo (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Watch the name-calling, Yworo, even when it is masked by symbols. Let's see if I get identified as a sock of a banned user or get banned for reverting one of your edits today. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
If the shoe fits, wear it. Yworo (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll only ask you one time, Yworo. Stop changing my comments. 174.99.127.20 (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not know what this is about, but the IP is correct about the recent edit war: the struck text is not an attack and does not need to be struck or removed. The "you leave a nasty trail" is borderline, but is nevertheless standard abuse for a noticeboard (or a page like this, where one editor is suggesting bad things about another). The IP is correct on that procedural point, but that is not relevant to whatever is the underlying issue. Yworo: I suggest that you not be sidetracked by disputes over striking text here or at any noticeboard (like SPI). Also, anyone, IPs included, are free to remove notices at their talk page. If there is evidence of stalking or inappropriate editing, post at the talk page of an admin with some subject knowledge, or at WP:ANI if none known (but don't make such a post until good evidence is available). If confidential info is involved, email a suitable admin, or if none known, post at ANI and very briefly outline your concern (with no details) and ask for an admin to reply if they are prepared to receive email with details. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You will please note that I came here with a simple query that did not name anyone. IP chose to identify itself by voluntarily posting here, and attacked me even though I had not named it. Yworo (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting...

...I see someone took up this page. I had abandoned it ages ago, but I guess it's still worth while. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

help please

Nobody Ent 20:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Defining long-term

How long is 'long-term'? We often see pages like User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67 in user space, because someone is actively tracking a significant problem, but it isnt a 'long term' problem. I would prefer to see pages like that under active management from a team, so that these pages arnt left in userspace years after the problem has .. grown up. See also Template_talk:Infobox_vandal#split_lifespan. --John Vandenberg (chat) 02:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Disapprove:Unnecessary.74.163.16.52 (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
The above is a sock of a banned user. See User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
In this particular case it was decided not to send it to WP:LTA per WP:DFTT, though a case could certainly have been made without significant issue. Salvidrim! 00:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Michigan IP

(proposed)

I have been asked to create a page for an IP cluster in Michigan (recent incarnations in User:Arthur Rubin/IP list, so that I can put a link to it in my edit summaries when reverting them. The problem is that the abuse changes over time; I don't think he is a vandal; he just wants to get his way in Wikipedia regardless of the rules. I would say about 5% of the edits are constructive; 20% are neutral (not helpful, but not in violation of any particular policy, other than WP:CONSENSUS), and 75% are in violation of one or more Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Because it's an IP cluster, there have only been occasional blocks, when one of the few stable IPs is involved in the edit warring. I don't think it meets any of the three requirements. Any ideas of where I could put a description of the problem in Wikipedia space so I (and the few other editors who recognize this problem) can put something like WP:LTA/Michigan IP in my edit summary? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone? Bueller? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

W word user

Please look how long term W word user vandal abuses WP and no one on meta cares: http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Beau&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.204.153.10 (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on unblocking policy

A request has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Proposal: third party request for unblock

Should the proposed change, "A third party may request the review of a block at the Administrators' noticeboard," or some variation of that change, be added to the unblocking policy. Penyulap ☏ 23:11, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Time to close

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I propose that Long-term abuse is closed. The page is inactive and rarely used, with WP:DENY and WP:RBI working more than giving recognition. There is no result in adding them here, and the users here are (almost always) banned. The community can also easily find "This is a sockpuppet of User:Example" without using LTA. And so these are some reasons to close this page. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 20:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support There are a number of files here that are simply reports of user contributions, which are, in all likelihood, just as easily found at WP:ANI or ArbCom discussions that resulted in their ban/block. If we consider recent visits as a rough measure of how useful the page is as a reference, the page has received between 10-60 hits per day recently (though it averages to maybe a little over 20 hits per day). Previous years show this degree of usage to be not that different, so it hasn't declined, but I'd argue it doesn't get used very much. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Some trolls aren't motivated by the recognition received here, and would not become demotivated if this page went away. The editing patterns of historic trolls, which are still with us to this day, are helpful to admins in recognizing them and correctly identifying them. This page isn't often used, but it serves a purpose, and I use it from time to time to look up historical notes on some of our worst trolls, to help identifying them when they come back. I find the page useful enough as an administrator to warrent keeping it around. Yes, denying recognition is a good idea, but for anyone that has crossed the LTA threshold, we've long passed the point when WP:DENY is a reasonable response. --Jayron32 21:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron32, and adding that the information here is often important to recognizing LTAs.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Jayron32. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose DENY is very important (and I'm not sure if all the activity at WP:List of banned users is useful), but I also know of an abuser for whom recognition on the LTA list is not a big deal—more fundamental issues motivate them. The knowledge in this list is important and it should be retained. That can be reconsidered if there ever is good reason (not speculation) to believe it causes a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above. Knowledge of the editing patterns of these tendentious contributors is incredibly useful to administrators and non-administrators alike, and it helps stop disruption as soon as possible when it does recur. — madman 08:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I withdraw this proposal. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 12:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LTA "not a noticeboard"

If it is not a noticeboard, as it says at the top of the project page, then why is it in the noticeboards template?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 02:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wiki brah

Shouldn't Wiki brah (talk · contribs) be listed here? Toccata quarta (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The two, round, counter vandalism logos

They appear in many of the infoboxes. Example.

Per DENY, I suggest that they be removed. They may give a sense of fame, glory, and importance to the individuals. There is no good reason to have them there, and good reasons to not have them there. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. Medals or logos provide no benefit on these pages, and they should all be removed. It was these three edits that added the iimage in January 2010. The user who added them was a was a sock (see contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I made a list (on my computer) of all WP:Long-term* pages and was thinking of using AWB or whatever to remove the images. There are 109 of them, after removing redirects and project pages (that's all pages; I haven't looked at which have images). One page is a mistake and should be deleted: WP:Long-term abuseVitalik2008 (created by Austinov; the target only has a handful of edits and no blocks). Anna Frodesiak: as an admin you can just delete that page with no bureaucracy. If no one else wants to give removing the images a go, I'll try it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to delete that page. As for the pages with the logo, whatlinkshere gives me:
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, that was too easy, so I just deleted them manually. Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Counter Vandalism Unit.png is now reasonably clean. I have requested speedy delete for the above broken page. Johnuniq (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

general question

is it ok to start a report on user:PennySeven here? i just discovered this page and am unfamiliar with who's writing and coming here and such.

I have seen (of the 32) socks of the user damage the page I have edited over the past 2 years.

goal would be to field this person earlier, as I am sure the socks will continue coming and stink up the page. --Wuerzele (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

How to transclude on the list?

I have just created Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/ItsLassieTime. I am not sure if I am supposed to somehow list this on Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/List and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Full or if this is an admin job. Please advise? Montanabw(talk) 21:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The history of both those pages shows mortals adding/removing stuff, so I think you should use one of their recent edits as a model for your addition. They are the correct pages. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
LOL, and thanks. Please feel free to fix anything I don't do properly, will do my best. Montanabw(talk) 02:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Done: @Johnuniq: now who (you? someone else?) does sprinkling of magic-wiki-pixie dust on the page to remove the "pending approval" tag? Montanabw(talk) 17:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I set status = active, so it's all done, I think. Johnuniq (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I hope this LTA page being up will help all of us who are trying to avoid jumping at shadows, but yet trust that feeling in the gut you get when someone's editing pattern seems just toooooooo familiar. Montanabw(talk) 05:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Should a new entry for Gabucho181 be added?

I have been thinking about opening a LTA case over User:Gabucho181, however Gabucho181 claims to be a troll so WP:DENY can be a better venue. The question is, shall a LTA case be opened or not? --TL22 (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

They seem to have only been active this year (and a few months last year) so I think we should stick to WP:DENY for now. PHANTOMTECH (talk)
@ToonLucas22:: I was thinking the same way as well, as I have seen some cases involving personal attacks/harassment, trolling, and and a virulent level of vandalism, and I have seen a case involving a user who has been disrupting Wikipedia since September 2014, younger than G181's account, but the youngest account whose case was accepted was from 2013, but the real question is; should we proceed with the case, or we should stick to WP:DENY, as PhantomTech said? Racer-Ωmegα 22:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Gabucho just resumed its disruptive activity yesterday. Looks fine enough for an LTA case. --TL22 (talk) 23:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Before proceeding with the LTA, what duration of abuse is enough to consitute a long-term pattern of abuse? Gabucho181 first abused Wikipedia with no socks in June 2013, then engaged in sockpuppetry in 20th June 2014 and in 31th July 2014. Then, since 31th January 2015, they engage in adding incorrect information to TV show and channel pages, attack other people (mainly Geraldo Perez, EvergreenFir and me) and make usernames that impersonate a company or attack an user (there was a period where Gabucho made accounts with usernames that impersonated EvergreenFir). --TL22 (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
No wait someone already sumbitted an LTA case at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Gabucho181. If anyone wants to review it, go for it. --TL22 (talk) 00:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Talking to LTAs

Our regular approach to LTAs and most sockmasters is zero communication, whack the socks, and hope they stop, right?

I've started to talk to sockmasters and have managed to persuade a few to give up. I figure that if 10% (of certain types) can be persuaded with 10 minutes of communication each, that would be worth it, no? (I'm aware of DENY, but in many cases, there is nothing to lose because it cannot get worse.)

There was no interest when I raised this before I started trying. Some scoffed. Some laughed. A few fainted. Many got uncontrollable hiccups, which I can't explain.

So, why don't we try? Win some, lose some, all the while acquiring knowledge to improve.

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure some success would result from trying a reasonable conversation, so thanks for what you have achieved. I once engaged a very persistent and banned user who asked a question at my talk, after harassing a particular editor literally for years. As you report, after a small number of back-and-forths, he announced that he was stopping. There appears to have been no resumption in over two years so that was a big success. On the other hand, a lot of LTAs are simply disturbed and beyond our reach. I think DENY is all we have with them. I don't think there can be any generic advice as it depends on where the LTA is in their life, and the communication ability of the editor. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq. :) Good on ya! Well done. So that's further proof that this can work. And yes, if they're bananas or have some unstoppable agenda, then no, they are probably not good candidates to invest our time on. But certain LTAs, such as those who may be trying to help Wikipedia, or love Wikipedia but have a hate-on for someone here, well, we might be able to sway those type.
What may be useful is an off-Wikipedia, IRC brainstorming session sometime. We could share what we know about LTAs like their motivation, and cook up communication strategies. I'd bet if we put our heads together, we could get a pretty good success ratio. Heck, maybe even eventually blast boilerplates at selected non-LTAs and really make a dent. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
While I am not an admin, nor even a long-term experienced editor, I agree with Anna Frodesiak. I think that some attempts to find some common ground with a few of these LTAs may bear some fruit. I think that, psychologically, an LTA is often thriving from the attention received, which is where WP:DENY comes in. Other times, it's folks that either simply don't understand what precisely is going on. These folks qualify under WP:CIR, but simply need it politely (as possible) that they just aren't good candidates for editing Wikipedia. In these cases, redirection may be appropriate, suggesting they write blogs, tweets, etc., to release their creative energies. If we manage to divert at least some of these folks, it will be some relief for our admins who already spend too much time dealing with this stuff. Thank you all for your hard work here, btw. Chrisw80 (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: Thank you for your efforts to dissuade long-term abusers. I agree with you as well on the point that LTAs want attention, so dissuading them could help defuse the situation. If we can persuade them to stop and to not crave so much attention, it will be less stress on other Wikipedia editors who'd otherwise be improving articles, and at the same time, the (now-former) LTA will probably come back in 6 or more months and possibly become a constructive editor.
I know that everyone has something that they want. In most cases, LTAs only abuse their accounts because they want to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but can't because they are indefinitely blocked (and if they try to edit constructively with another account, that one is also blocked eventually, and then there is less chance of qualifying for the standard offer). epicgenius (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
(Redacted) epicgenius (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC) (Anna pointed out that I shouldn't have mentioned that, so I deleted the preceding comment. epicgenius (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC))
Hi Epicgenius. I never said "...LTAs want attention...". I'm not sure where you are getting that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: OK. I retract that statement's attribution to you. Sorry. (That was my personal statement, BTW.) Regards, epicgenius (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
LTA is like ice on your windscreen, every winter you scrape it off, and you'd rather it wasn't there, but the perpetual recurrence is neither impresses nor angers.
Perhaps that is one perspective LTAers don't see.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC).
Hi Rich Farmbrough. The resources consumed by LTAs and socking in general distresses me. I think it is a needless waste. Surely we can do better just bludgeoning. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. And the resources they are expending are also wasted.
My point was that if their motivation is, for example, to impress us with their tenacity they are not achieving their goal. Disabusing them of this notion might therefore be helpful.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC).
Of course, Rich. Discussions could point out just how much they are on the losing end and that their tenacity is no bargaining chip. We are in a situation with LTAs called "lose-lose", or more accurately "lose-boy-do-they-ever-lose". :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion right now on whether your approach would be successful, but if you should expect for editors to bring up cases like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive275#Review of Reguyla (Kumioko) reblock if you float a proposal for LTAs to return to editing on Wikipedia. If you can actually persuade a socking editor to move on? Well, I'm impressed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Liz. Kumioko would not be on my list. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion

Thanks for your time, folks. I've been chatting a bit elsewhere too to see if this is worth it. This is where I'm at:

  • LTAs are not such a huge problem.
  • They stop on their own.
  • They may be too messed up to communicate with. I mean, they're blowing hundreds of hours for a thrill, out of anger, or some other silly reason. We roll our eyes and click one button. So, not the most rational folks.
  • I'll probably continue to spend ten minutes here and there on selected LTAs or non-LTAs who seem worth it. I've been successful with two out of six, but that could have been luck.

Thanks again and all the best,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Every LTA who stops is a good thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/Archive_5&oldid=1140108508"