Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Debearing egu 77

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was: delete. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Debearing egu 77

Vandalism is obvious, LTA case not need and discouraged per WP:DENY PHANTOMTECH [TALK] 20:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Maybe this LTA file should not have been created, but going to the effort of deleting it is more recognition, in the absence of a guideline concerning deleting LTA files, and in the absence of a procedure for approving the opening of LTA files. Leave this alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are requirements for LTA files and, though not well documented, there are procedures for opening them as well. PHANTOMTECH [TALK] 02:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:PhantomTech, what is your role at WP:LTA? I think that for clerking, you should minimally be qualified as an SPI clerk. Are you? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe There's unfortunately not a lot of attention paid to LTA so it's very lacking in processes, base on Category:Wikipedia long-term abuse – Pending approval I may be the only person to have attempted to process any new cases since 2017. I used to be active in LTA including dealing with pending LTA cases before taking a long wikibreak and have since returned. LTA has a list of "helpers" here Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Helpers, which is the only "role" I'm aware of that it has, but I'm not aware of any process for people being added or removed. I added myself to the list the first time I became active, was removed several years into my wikibreak for inactivity and added myself again now that I'm back.

I am not an SPI clerk and have never applied to be one. I'm also not aware of any distinction within LTA between SPI clerks or anyone else, even the listed helpers. The most relevant information I'm aware of for removal of cases is at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Detailed_instructions#Criteria_for_removal which explicitly allows anyone, not just helpers, to remove entries. As far as accepting or archiving cases, the only criteria I'm aware of is in the template used for new cases as a comment that new cases should not be accepted by the filer and that comment was added to the template by me in 2015.

I don't particularly like the current system and would like for there to be changes, but others have made attempts and have been unsuccessful so unless someone would like to make a proposal, I'm not sure what the alternative is right now. LTA is useless if someone is not both able and willing to maintain it. PhantomTech[talk] 21:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That “relevant information” you found is pretty sad, looking at its history.

Do Any of the LTA cases serve any justified purpose? I have tried telling the SPI people that they should take ownership of WP:LTA, but they seem uninterested, as if WP:LTA is an abandoned thing of no net value. Why don’t we archive (blank) the whole thing? SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe The most useful purpose of WP:LTA as it currently exists is to save time and resources by providing enough information for someone to identify an editor as someone who should be blocked before they rise to the level where anyone would be blocked. All cases at WP:LTA should be LTA users but, with the current system, it is not beneficial for all LTA users to have a case at WP:LTA. For example, an LTA user who always vandalizes articles in a specific and obvious way can just be blocked immediately at ANI. An LTA user who frequently adds the same unsourced genre to music would be much more difficult to deal with unless everyone involved shared the same knowledge that this user was an LTA user. LTA cases prevent already completed processes, in the example case two ANI discussions, from needing to happen again without the downsides of using an undocumented or decentralized system.

There have been multiple attempts (1, 2, 3, 4) to delete WP:LTA with many keep !votes explaining their view on why WP:LTA cases are beneficial, without a replacement I don't think another would go any different especially considering that I'm currently struggling to get both an almost blank report and a report of an obvious vandal deleted. There have also been attempts to reform LTA, but those have stalled. PhantomTech[talk] 04:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure why you link 1 as an attempt to delete. 2 and 3 are ironic, deletion nominations by users later checkuser-blocked. This is indeed the suspicion on every user wanting to selectively expunge an LTA record, the suspicion that they have an ulterior motive.

My input: everyone, including you, fails to articulate why deletion is required, and not archiving? Can I challenge you to update #criteria for removal, with archiving, not deletion.

Much of the argument against LTA is DENY, and bringing individual LTA cases for a formal discussion at MfD is the opposite of DENY. Consistent with DENY is a responsible person quietly blanking and and archiving.

I also believe that LTA has overlap with SPI, and that the most serious LTA involves SPI. Please someone tell me if I’m wrong. On the rare occasion that anything at SPI or LTA requires deletion, it is extremely unlikely that MfD is appropriate, and I believe that a new CSD criterion should be created for it (and ending the misuse of G6 for these things). SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe Link 1 was meant to be Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse, I just got the links messed up.

In my opinion deletion is needed, at a minimum, in situations where an LTA case is not and was never needed. There needs to be a way to delete unfinished reports, reports for obvious vandals, and reports for cases that are just one off vandals and not long term by any definition. I used to CSD cases like these that do not qualify because I felt it was more in line with DENY but my CSD on these was rejected.

There is overlap with SPI, though not always. A better system might be one where SPI is not just responsible for WP:LTA but one where WP:LTA is merged into SPI, but that isn't the current system. Creating a new CSD criteria for these deletions would require defining who is allowed to use that criteria and how it can be used. For both WP:LTA and WP:SPI the obvious answer is clerks, but that requires creating clerks for WP:LTA, and that's an issue with a neglected area of Wikipedia since there may only be one applicant. PhantomTech[talk] 06:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. The irony.

I don’t agree with your opinion that deletion is needed. I think archiving is sufficient. I think archiving is better because archiving is a low stakes process, you can just do it, no need for administrative reviews. If anyone finds you are archiving poorly, the history can be read and the archiving reverted.

I don’t think LTA clerks are desirable, I think the training to be an SPI clerk is required and sufficient to be deleting LTA subpages. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe To clarify, do you think archiving is what should be done even for cases that blatantly do not require LTA cases, such as someone making a case for a one off vandal? You've indicated that SPI and by extension SPI clerks have no interest in WP:LTA. There is currently no distinction within LTA for SPI clerks, even if SPI clerks were given the ability to somehow delete WP:LTA cases, their lack of interest in the area would result in it continuing to be unmaintained. PhantomTech[talk] 20:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that to justify deletion, there has to be a very reason why archiving is not good ok. Why is it not ok for people interested to track the history of someone creating the LTA case? Archiving can mark it as unjustified. If deletion is needed, the process is much heavier, as mistakes in deletion are very hard to discover.

I think that an LTA clerk would need to first be an SPI clerk.

I don’t know that SPI has no interest in LTA, just that they haven’t shown much interest. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe In my opinion, the reason for archiving not being enough in some cases would be WP:DENY, especially with no system currently in place that prevents people from continuing to update or otherwise treat a case marked as archived as an active one. Would you be interested in creating a proposal for the changes you feel should happen to WP:LTA regarding handling of unjustified cases and whatever else you'd like to include? PhantomTech[talk] 05:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Creating an MfD discussion, attracting community formal input, and administrative close, is inconsistent with DENY.

Just archive it.

If anyone edits the archived page, then there’s a dispute worthy of MfD, nominate it then.

My proposal is that unjustified cases should be archived by any competent editor. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe Everything I'm aware of points to this being the current process, so could you propose that somewhere so that any changes are supported by consensus? PhantomTech[talk] 21:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but let’s let this MfD close first. WP:Ping me if I forget. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the merits of this page as it stands, Strong Delete as a completely and utterly useless LTA page. Debearing egu 77 made 4 vandalism edits on one day in 2019. There is no evidence they have ever returned - there is no English wikipedia sock puppet investigation associated with this person and there are no accounts tagged as suspected socks. Most of this page is speculation that this person is in some way related to an LTA on the Korean wikipedia, I don't see why we need to keep notes on LTA's who we have no firm evidence of actually editing here? I fail to see the value in an archive, per WP:HISTORICAL the point of marking a page as historical is if they actually have some kind of historical interest or future use - I don't see how the story of a 4 edit vandal who may or may not be someone from the Korean wiki and who never returned anyway could be worth keeping as an archive. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IPs should not be editing projectspace, including here. You should WP:Register, if you have not, and if you have you are violating WP:SOCK by editing projectspace. This is important for accountability. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that all contributors to projectspace be registered. If you want your personal view on this matter to become policy, you should push for policy to change, not run around telling editors not to participate. 205.210.158.252 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever registered? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. And now? Is this really what is happening here? Someone disagrees with your vote, you tell them not to contribute; you get called out on your bs, you imply a violation of WP:SOCK? Get a grip on yourself. 142.112.7.45 (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You’re contributing here now from three different IPs. You know a lot more about the culture than normal IPs. You look like you are editing logged out. I’m telling you to Register and log in. The least you could do otherwise is sign some name to let us know it is the same you, from different IPs. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not editing from three IPs, you're talking to multiple people. The only comment I have made here (apart from this one) is the original vote. It should be obvious that 205.210.158.252 and 142.112.7.45 are a different editor - how many people refer to themselves as "someone", and they're on the opposite side of the planet. I have been editing here for years. I have never used an account, I have no current intention of making an account, and as the Canadian IP editor says your claims that an account is needed to participate in deletion discussions is entirely without any backing in policy. If you are going to make accusations of sock puppetry (which are also incorrect and without merit) then do so at WP:SPI and provide actual evidence of wrongdoing (which you won't find, given it doesn't exist). If you continue to cast baseless and evidence free assertions that I am engaging in sock puppetry and wrongdoing and continue to try to bully IP editors out of project space on the basis of non existent policy that you've pulled out of your arse then I will, in return, treat your comments as personal attacks and elevate appropriately. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not obvious that you are different people, though it was always a definite possibility.

In order to discuss anything meaningfully, could each of you please sign with a nickname? SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The anon above pretty much covers my view of this page. It's not a helpful page and is out of scope. And in general if there's a crosswiki LTA, then we'll just use their page on another wiki. I appreciate Robert McClenon's (and SmokeyJoe's) 'weak keep' comments, but we're already here so it's no hassle to delete it. Archiving may indeed have been a better default option, but as I say, we're now here and have had a good chance to review it. I agree there needs to be some discussion about the case management process, and don't object in principle to other people helping out with that process. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:07, 20 July 2022 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Debearing egu 77

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Debearing egu 77

zproxy.org