Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:LONGTERM)
Jump to: navigation, search

Deletion of old reports[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

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)

Yes check.svg Done - EdoDodo talk 21:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Formal set of criteria[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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...[edit]

...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[edit]

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

Defining long-term[edit]

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[edit]

(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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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


LTA "not a noticeboard"[edit]

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[edit]

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

The two, round, counter vandalism logos[edit]

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)