Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gender pronouns of these vandals

Most of the vandals listed here I see are referred to as 'he'. If they are confirmed to be males that's fine but if we don't know, its better to use gender-neutral pronouns like 'they'. WdS | Talk 08:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

This is still a problem, although we're doing better at it. :( -- a. spam | contribs 21:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I hate reviving a three year old thread but why are we even discussing this? Why should we give preference to people who don't care how they destroy projects and harass editors? You're giving them far more attention than necessary by even debating this. Praxidicae (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Because anything that reinforces the assumption that people are men by default is great fun for those of us who aren't. It's not about the LTA's, it's about the rest of us. -- a. spam | contribs 22:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, why are we bringing up a 3 year old thread but more importantly, why are we wasting time on people who are intent on mass disruption? Praxidicae (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
My thoughts would be:
  • agree with Praxidicae that this is not all that important
  • most WP long term abusers are in fact males
  • But if someone feels this is really important they are welcome to expend the effort to change entries where the gender of the subject is not known to the gender-neutral singular they. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • But if someone feels this is really important they are welcome to expend the effort to change entries where the gender of the subject is not known to the gender-neutral singular they. Apparently not, as I was just reverted when I tried to change an entry to be gender neutral. I think its very poor form to treat Wikipedia editors as automatically male-unless-proven-otherwise. WanderingWanda (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Europefan

Might an LTA page be warranted? They've used a staggering 293 accounts and IPs to sock incessantly for 3 years, filling up 160 SPI reports. They've also gone cross-wiki, requiring stewards to lock some accounts. We would need to be very careful to avoid WP:BEANS, but I think an LTA page might help. I wanted to hear some other opinions on this. Thanks, GABgab 20:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Support: Isn't there somewhere better to suggest this where more people will look? MM (WhatIDo WHATIDO?) (Now THIS... I did.) 19:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Not saying we shouldn't (yet) but would there be any benefit to doing so? It seems that Europefan's socks are already pretty easy to spot, and a lot of users are looking. LTA might be warranted if they were difficult to identify, or special attention is needed when they edit (like revert copyvios, report to an ISP, or something). Everything seems to be covered with the cross-wiki abuse notice at the SPI page already. I was just thinking about creating one for Filipz123 as well, but I'm not sure it would be of any real use at this point. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Who reviews new LTA reports?

When a new long-term abuse report is created, its status is set to pending by default. Who is it that reviews/approves new pending reports? I created Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Fangusu a little over a month ago (thought it was longer, oops) but it has not been reviewed yet. I don't see reviewing in the instructions anywhere so I'm not sure who I should contact, if it was at the point where I should be contacting anyone. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

There is something of a backlog in the review process (probably not helped by the lack of instructions). See thesecomments and this thread. I have marked this case as active. Please keep in mind to keep it updated. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that one, but I'm more curious about what the actual process is, for possible future follow-up. I'm an SPI clerk and I might participate here if I had any idea what a patrolling user ought to be doing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't know, but I watch this page and have occassionally reverted changes, and I think I once got a bad report deleted. One report went to MfD here. I would suggest checking that the purported LTA really is banned (and not just one of the many indeffed trolls with socks), and that there might be some point to maintaining an LTA report. People have suggested that per WP:DENY all LTA pages should be deleted because glorifying LTAs is not a good idea. There is merit to that, but keeping some history is desirable because there are LTAs who go away for a year or more only to return, and it is useful to have a way to explain what is going on to others. Therefore, some judgement about the desirability of having an LTA report is required. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with pretty much all of the above. I watch the page and occasionally nominate bad reports for deletion at MfD. I don't have a strong opinion about WP:DENY. Some banned editors resent having an LTA report about them, and some believe it's the crowning touch of a long career in trolling Wikipedia. It kind of depend whether you need an LTA page or not, but I think sneaky vandalism is one case where it helps quite a lot. Non-obvious disruption that can be easily overlooked by editors who assume good faith is another. Finally, there may come a time when you tire of dealing with constant disruption and want to move on to other things. It's much easier for other editors to understand what's going on if you create an LTA report or some other explanatory note. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
In terms of the process, I simply changed the status to active.[1] That's the easy bit. I also took the decision to not put them in the main list.[2] Before that I applied some judgment about whether they are actually active, as well as whether they merit a LTA page. Some of these questions, as others have pointed out, are rather tricky to write instructions for, as they require familiarity with LTA in general and/or the specific LTA. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I hope I didn't just jump the process by adding Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Brightify to the list. He is not banned AFAIK, but is a fairly prolific socker and active for years. I won't have hurt feelings if it needs to be reverted. - Brianhe (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Discouraging LTA

Picture: You are a new Wikipedia user, decide to try doing some silly vandalism for the heck of it and are blocked promptly. The next day, you do it again, and again after that, because each time, it becomes more fun. Pages are protected, your socks are tagged and such but that only makes it more exciting. This scenario sound familiar? That's how the common vandal becomes a LTA. It feels to me like this is happening more regularly; instead of attracting helpful new contributors, we keep getting these LTA cases. An extreme more recent example would be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Suix. It has to do with the way things work here; this is like a game to them. Other than the standard WP:DENY stuff, does anyone have any new ideas for how to make disrupting Wikipedia and evading blocks boring, and how to make reformation more desirable? Of course there will always be some trolls who will troll no matter what, but surely there has to be something we can do, some changes to the system that will discourage this kind of behavior more. Sro23 (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

There's advice somewhere about not creating an LTA case when a user is obviously just trolling for the sake of trolling, along the lines of WP:DENY. Generally when it becomes clear that a user is just in it to rack up a blocked accounts score, we stop tagging their socks. LTA should really only be for cases of specialized disruption, like the various civil POV-pusher sockmasters who aren't always easy to detect, when there's a benefit to tracking and publicly sharing information about them, and especially when a sockmaster has a tendency to "go quiet" for very long periods of time, so that when they turn up again it's easier to link them back to their old pattern. In your example, for editors who are just doing it "for fun", we have WP:RBI. And frankly I question the worth of reporting petty vandals to SPI in the first place if the common behaviour that they're known for is behaviour that would get them blocked without prior socking history anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


Two comments:
  • Having identified a true vandal, it would be desirable in the spirit of DENY to leave them in the dark about the fact that their edit has been reverted, and simply keep showing them their vandalised version while everybody else gets the repaired version. However, if we designed such a system, some portion of vandals would eventually figure out what happens when they brag to their friends and look stupid, and would learn to always check on a second device if their vandalism is still "up".
  • We have a system designed for immediate response. If response to minor acts of vandalism could be delayed by a few hours or days depending on the traffic at the article, the "game" would be more boring. Samsara 14:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Another issue is that some admins seem to just dismiss inquiries for speedy-deleting talk pages of trolls, citing talk page guidelines or something. I think it's useless to ever communicate with such uncooperative trolls, and leaving warning messages (either from bots or human editors) isn't worth the keystroke or two. Once I had an SGK talk page speedy-deleted, seeing the MfD consensus made, but I had cases of admins declining G6 requests recently hence my vent. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC: LTA Knowledgebase

Please see RfC: LTA Knowledgebase at the Village Pump. Sam Walton (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Severity levels

Under most investigation pages here, there is a descriptor for "Severity". however, I cannot find any policy delineating what distinguishes "High", "Medium", "Low", and "Severe". I feel some guidelines about this would be an asset to the utility of the project/descriptor. DLMacLeod (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It might be better to remove the level as pointless. If the LTA is active, it is a problem, and knowing someone's opinion of whether the problem was once high or low is not useful. Ultimately, the simpler these pages can be made the better as there is no reason to glorify LTAs. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree, I don't understand the purpose of a "severity level". Severity in this context is very highly subjective. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking at some examples, it seems to increase with persistence against reversion, aggression when confronted, whether the vandalism could be considered slander/libel (eg. Cause of Death) or considers a politically sensitive topic (eg. Ararat arev), whether counterfactual vandalism could be mistaken for real information (eg. Cause of Death), and how badly the vandalism disrupts the legibility of the article (Compare Snuffereet, low, to Bambifan101, high). This does not change that the criteria is very subjective and not especially useful.DLMacLeod (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
That looks like we have agreement so I removed "severity" from the infobox (Template:Infobox Wikipedia vandal). Purging LTA pages would cause them to be updated, or just wait until they are next edited, or for the server cache to expire. Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

"low impact" LTA case, should it be listed here?

I've got one that is basically my own pet project. They only go after one article and are really, really obvious. This has been going on for over two years now. It doesn't feel like trolling, I think they really just don't get that the article on the area where they live is not a place for them to spam their own name and make ridiculous claims about being a CEO or whatever. So, not a huge deal, the only thing is that it appears I am the only one who is aware of them. Last year i took a long break and they went hog-wild spamming this article and generally making a mess out of it. So the issue is that if I'm not around, nobody seems to notice, and they don't realize this "new" user is not new at all, having had about a dozen previous incarnations.

Maybe this post wil be enough to get more eyes on it? The article in question is Phalia, a district in Punjab, Pakistan. Socks are pretty obvious. More details available upon request. This discussion I just started at Commons can tell you basically what you need to know. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record: I had to take a very long break last year and once again this user socked in the same article, I reverted and protected the article when I got back, and the second that protection expired earlier this month they returned again, so the article is now indef semi-protected. Since they basically target this one article that may be the end of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2017

Please capitalize that Taiki0409 note because LG-Gunther still creating LTA cases with caps 66.87.69.4 (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:51, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Detailed instructions subpage

"Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Detailed instructions", currently linked in one of the banners at the top of the talk page, seems to be abandoned or not well updated. It links to the inactive WP:Abuse response. What to do with the instructions? --George Ho (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Why does anything need to be done? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
(Talk Page stalker): I think what George Ho is trying to say is that the instructions are outdated, and should be updated to reflect the current state of Wikipedia. He can correct me if I'm misinterpreting that. DarkKnight2149 01:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2017

Please fix summary for Taiki0409 209.249.5.130 (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. It's also possible that you are Taiki0409 and are requesting this change to clear your name of any wrongdoing. If so, then this is what we call sockpuppetry, which is frowned upon in the encyclopedia. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Help with banned account

August 31, 2017: Hello. My phone was IP banned from editing any articles and the explanation was a bunch of unproperly formatted code about the Dog and rapper vandal and need help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.244.241 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Propose LTA case for WikiExperts

Banned in October 2013; still active in 2017 (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremy112233). The only link I know of to use e.g. for G5 nominations is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive254#Community ban proposal for paid editing firm wikiexperts.us. We also need a place to hang this linkage. Just as a matter of convenience I'd like to create a LTA case, if nobody objects. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. This company is unfortunately not going anywhere any time soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

A recent case page up for deletion

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Massachusetts vandal, a fairly recent case page has been nominated for deletion. Feel free to add your thoughts on the matter. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Filing instructions

To editor Enterprisey: I don't understand your reversion. The instruction text now appears in a tall awkward column under the roman numeral I. I had move the text to the cell to the right to fix that problem. How is was my edit causing a visual problem? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

After Chris's edit
After my revert
Hmm, that's weird! When I viewed the page after your edit, all of the instructions in the "I" cell had been moved to a second column on the right (top image). I viewed the source and it looked like there was an extra cell in the row with the instructions, which I removed. After this, the columns looked good (bottom image). Are there rendering differences on your computer? Enterprisey (talk!) 18:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for a multilingual LTAwiki

I have an idea: why not put LTAs on a multilingual wiki (maybe at lta.wikimedia.org)? We could start by importing the en, de, nl, ja, and zh LTA cases. This would allow more coordination between each wiki's checkusers. Lojbanist remove cattle from stage 18:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

There was a proposal for a crosswiki LTA database a while ago, but I'm not sure what happened. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-Protected edit request

Please can you remove Joelhazelton and a few others, the case has been archived, but i moved it to the archive. i am not autocomfirmed, so i cannot move it myself. Sincerely, Cæsey Shine! 07:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope. Request doesn’t make a lot of sense, doesn’t explicitly use “change x to y” format. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Cæsey Shine! 19:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Unarchiving Supreme Genghis Khan

I'm going to unarchive WP:LTA/SGK per [3]. LinguistunEinsuno (Linguist111) 16:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Linguist111: That's just RJCola undoing a previous edit. Now as for the unrelated 128.163.237.26 who made the original edit, that looks like another current socker, who I probably shouldn't link to their IP, but it doesn't look like SGK. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe DatBot spotted some possible socks and reported them at UAA recently, but I’m not familiar enough with this case to know if there was any merit to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for letting me know. I'll put everything back the way it was. LinguistunEinsuno (Linguist111) 21:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A couple of questions regarding LTA filing

I've encountered a specific SPI case multiple times this month. From SPI filings they appear to be quite active, but cases only date back to April and I was wondering what the time threshold was for a case to be considered LTA. It seems likely that they meet the last two criteria for an LTA filing. Also, I encountered an established LTA case with its own page that is not on the LTA front page and would like to know what additional criteria, if any, need to be satisfied for the case to be on the front page. Aspening (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

There should be a reason to make an LTA page. If an abuser has been active for years, and has specific methods of operation that are not obvious to onlookers, then it might be worth recording what is known. Otherwise, why bother making a page which could actually encourage abuse (by doing the opposite of WP:DENY)? SPI information is available in its archive. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Question

Are LTAs prohibited from creation if the sockpuppeteer/vandal in question seeks attention and endorses a LTA page for themselves? I'm pretty sure that LTA pages for attention-seekers are supposed to be forbidden in accordance with WP:DENY, but I'm not 100% definitive. Campuscarrot (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are pretty well no rules here. My view is that you are correct and an LTA page should only be created if there is a realistic chance of it being useful. That is, an LTA page should provide an identifiable benefit to the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, the irony. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Daciproteasa09

Now, I just demand editors to put it User:Daciproteasa09 in LTA list. 95.91.212.63 (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC

I want the English Wikipedia to adopt the LTA namespace like the Japanese Wikipedia. For example: WP:LTA/BMX will become LTA:BMX. –User456541 16:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Page by Jazz1972

What's the best procedure for deleting an LTA subpage itself created as an attack? Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cinadon36 czar 23:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I raised the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion needed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2019

Change 'anti-soy bean propeganda' to 'anti-soy bean propaganda' ActualYellowJournalism (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@ActualYellowJournalism:  Done Chris Troutman (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Willie On Wheels

What happened to the Willie on wheels special long term abuse report? I remember seeing itSpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/BMX On WheeIs ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 23:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:WILLY Not the same person. I think Willie on Wheels is probably no longer active. Maybe he grew up. Rockstonetalk to me! 20:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Or got a flat tire. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts on this page

It's a very useful resource for preventing vandalism. ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 23:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Russian politics IP vandal

I added the above vandal to the table and documented their activity, but I am not documenting LTA activity every day. Any further guidance/help will be appreciated. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Lists of Banned Users

Which was closed as delete by RL0919 (talk) 19:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of new LTA page

Take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nevada IPs and comment if you want. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

No need for discussion. The new page was speedily deleted because it was created by a sock. Binksternet (talk) 04:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation project

Hello all,

I’m writing to let you know about a new project, IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation, that the Wikimedia Foundation is starting.

Because people in general are increasingly technically advanced and privacy conscious, our users are now more aware of the collection and use of their personal information, and how its misuse may lead to harassment or abuse. The Foundation is starting a project to re-evaluate and enhance protections for user privacy through technical improvement to the projects. As part of this work, we will also be looking at our existing anti-vandalism and anti-abuse tools and making sure our wikis have access to the same (or better) tools to protect themselves.

The project page is on Meta. This project is currently in very early phases of discussions and we don’t have a concrete plan for it yet. We’d like your input. And please share with other people who you think would be interested. SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

New LTA page

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/The abominable Wiki troll. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/70.164.201.138

Created, but little confused by style of this page and also whether i need to enter more information.

IP has a history of abuse, came off a ban and has since continued. Slywriter (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Slywriter: Thanks but 70.164.201.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is not what is considered to be a long-term abuser and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/70.164.201.138 should be deleted as unnecessary. There are many vandals but it is not useful to document their silliness unless that documentation would actually help remove the problem. If there is evidence that an IP or user is causing problems, they should be reported at WP:AIV. In this case, I blocked the IP for 1 year as every edit they have made since the last block expired has been bad, and more were reported in the IP's filter log. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect and slanderous information was added to Arthur E. Chase

I deleted the information. I am not experienced enough to know whether I should have performed UNDO instead.

Please identify the editor or create a filter that blocks him/her from reposting this type of information. There was no footnote identifying the source.

I identified the date of the posting from the history. See the lines below copied from the history.

curprev 05:38, 2 October 2019‎ 65.246.252.82 talk‎ 25,482 bytes +4‎ undo curprev 05:38, 2 October 2019‎ 65.246.252.82 talk‎ 25,478 bytes +115‎ undo

Unclefeet (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Unclefeet: That was just an IP mucking around. It has been removed, and has been removed from the article history. Sorry but anyone can edit at Wikipedia and that means idiots can edit as well. In the future, please ask for assistance at WP:Teahouse and someone there will help. This page is not for short-term issues like that. Johnuniq (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Unarchive LTA page for Supreme Genghis Khan

@Oshwah, @Widr: Sockpuppeteer has returned from inactivity; see User:Kamala_Harris_Genghis_Khan. Passengerpigeon (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please don't create a fuss about an attention-seeker. Ignoring them is what works best. Johnuniq (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I am aware of WP:RBI, but it said in the header to post here to get the case unarchived if the vandal came back. I don't think merely unarchiving the case to avoid misleading users is making much of a fuss. Passengerpigeon (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
It would be better to focus attention elsewhere. Johnuniq (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

LTA pending backlog and WCF

Hello everyone! I am well aware that I'm not the first person to bring this up, but between then and now there has been an increase in pending LTA reports. From what I understand after a pleasant chat in the IRC, the filing of an LTA report can sometimes be counterproductive and give a persistent troll or vandal the recognition and attention that they desire, and so for that reason lots of them should not exist. This may have led to a common practice of neglecting newly filed LTA reports for a long time due to a perceived low urgency, which is understandable. However, as I had mentioned earlier in the IRC, the frustration over the slow evaluation of pending reports has led even certain admins to change the status to active immediately upon creating a report themselves. Though I do not have the authority to do this, the LTA report that I have been contributing to is one of a notorious cross-wiki POV vandal that is well-recognized and had been known by many admins on the English Wikipedia long before I came into the picture. Wouldn't you agree that the evaluation and updating of these reports should be prioritized over those that seem counterproductive by a more active vetting process? Months after my initial filing of WorldCreaterFighter, none of the info that I know many of these admins and checkusers have and can contribute has been added, and the status remains on pending approval when all parties involved are well-aware that they are highly active. I would appreciate any response and welcome a conversation. Thanks! Coderenius (☎) 00:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for assistance at en.wikivoyage

Over at the English Wikivoyage we have a long-term problem with the "fuerdai" vandal (aka "BMX On WheeIs"). We are using a combination of blocks, page protection, and edit filters to stop the vandalism, but with less-than-satisfactory results. The edit filters stop some of the vandalism, but a significant amount still gets through. Can anyone help with other ways to stop this disruption? —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: This is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/BMX On WheeIs. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Yes. Do you have any advice for how to deal with this user, beyond the usual reverts, blocks, and page protection? Or advice for how to create a more effective edit filter? —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
As it says under "Other notes", any future suspected sockpuppets need to be reported to Steward Requests on meta. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Okay, I'll do that. I see that section also lists Special:AbuseFilter/918. Would it be possible for you to email me the text of that edit filter? I'm an admin on Wikivoyage, so I can implement it as a new edit filter there. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:LTA/TTI" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:LTA/TTI. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 22#Wikipedia:LTA/TTI until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Backlog+WCF

Hello! Please refer to my above post from May – once again, any response would be appreciated. It does seem unfair that most posts receive replies but mine did not despite outlining the issue adequately :)

At the very least, I would like to formally and with all gratitude request for any willing admin to update the information on WorldCreaterFighter and set their status to active in the infobox, and for other high-priority abusers still on pending as well if possible, even though it seems much has been done to remedy the issue with WCF across Wikimedia since my previous post (props for that). After all, checkusers have for the longest had access to and remain fully aware of which IPs WCF socks operate under, so it shouldn't be too much of a hassle to simply transfer some general info on their whereabouts to the infobox. Thank you! Coderenius (☎) 19:09, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Coderenius. I've set the WCF page to active. It was already transcluded to the full list page. I'm not familiar with WCF's location, but a CU is going to be disinclined to add it from CU information due to the privacy policies. Even if it's already been made public it's going to be preferable, and more likely, for someone else to add that. As for the other information on the page itself, it's really for those who are familiar to fill in the blanks. Yes, this page has experienced a persistent backlog since it was redesigned a decade ago. It doesn't help that it's the nichest of niches, often requiring a level of expertise, and rarely generates much enthusiasm. Still, someone might want to go through a knock a few more to active. I find it helps to not think of this page as something to be pointed to, but instead think of each sub-page as a thing to be pointed to. I'm sure that's how many others think of it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@Zzuuzz: Yes, all that you've said makes sense – I agree with that assessment. Thank you for coming through so quickly with the change and a reply! Coderenius (☎) 20:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Sanity check, please

Could someone tell me if I'm crazy for thinking these all might be related? If I'm not, we might have a LTA going back to 2009, and over 100 confirmed and suspected socks. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Should we really be including personal information in LTA reports?

Quite a few entries here have very specific personal information, that if likely put anywhere else on WP would lead to it being oversighted very quickly.

I won't be linking the exact reports for obvious privacy reasons, but here are some privacy concerns I have noticed:

  • One LTA report lists the vandal's location as being in a small town in the US with a population of roughly around 300 people. While IP addresses are hard to exactly track down without contacting the ISP, and that vandals in more populated places such as The Bronx and Mobile, Alabama (using actual LTA examples here) are also hard to track down, should we really have a very small town listed as a vandal's location? With the size of the town, and considering how easy this page is to find, it could potentially be very easy for a person with bad intentions to track that editor down.
  • At least three LTA reports either have the usernames of what could be a full legal name or they use their full name as part of their modus operandi. While it may be useful in identifying socks, I'm pretty sure full names are oversightable. Some of these editors may be minors, which makes it even more dangerous. I'm surprised that some of the full names haven't been oversighted already.

I would immediately email the oversight team if this was on any other page, however, with a page like LTA, I want to see consensus first, so I don't make any mistakes. wizzito | say hello! 06:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Some of the stuff might be bad, but I think it's pretty easy to simply just not use your real name as your username when, say, spending a decade emailing graphic death threats to dozens of people. jp×g 06:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
None of the editors I'm talking about have emailed death threats, as far as I know. wizzito | say hello! 07:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Personal information that the user themselves have given away is not considered private on Wikipedia. If you use your real name on Wikipedia then behave badly then that is a matter of public record.
Now if someone went off Wikipedia and figured it out then yes that would not be appropriate to include here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 07:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup Help

I've cleaned up the list significantly by removing archived/pending pages, then went through the pending pages backlog & set the status to active for a bunch of the ones that were.. active. I didn't fully finish the pending backlog because they're either more tricky cases in which activity is not easily determined or are tricky for other reasons. I also archived some as there were many that haven't been active since 2012 or before. Out of the cases I set from pending -> active I selected the most egregious ones to either add/readd to the main list.

Besides what I did, there's still more work to do. I think we need to:

1. Decide on a general set of guidelines for LTA (this is probably best suited for administrators, but apparently previous attempts to get this place noticed on AN failed) — the reason there was this much work to do in the first place is because nobody knows what to do, as evidenced by discussions on this very talk page. I had to analyze past diffs for about an hour before even making a single edit just to see what the established, unspoken rules were regarding marking as active, archived, etc.

2. Encourage more people to help out. Currently there's only 4 people listed under the helpers page for LTA, three of which don't even do LTA work — practically a single person, who is me that I just added today. The people in the past who reviewed the pending cases are either completely inactive or inactive when it comes to LTA.

3. Finish up the pending backlog.

Does anybody feel like helping out with this? Although many people call LTA pointless and say it gives vandals unneeded attention, it's a useful system for SPI & helps significantly with more easily identifying socks/repeat vandals. I plan on tackling it myself soon, but have some other stuff to get to first. Thanks. 0qd (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning LTA on targeted article talk pages

I'm thinking of creating a new entry for a certain birth date vandal. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to also mention the vandal in the talk pages of their target articles? The pages don't have many (if any) watchers, and some of them are quite poorly sourced so it's difficult for patrollers to notice when the vandal changes the birth date, and also tedious to keep checking the sources to see if the added DOB is incorrect. On the talk page the sourced birth date could be mentioned with a link to the LTA page. Or is that a bad idea? The vandal doesn't communicate, so hopefully they wouldn't notice the information on the talk page or react to it. kyykaarme (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure an LTA page would help and it might just give others ideas. The first step is to become really confident that the DoB is correct with a reliable source. If it's not clearly known, removing it might be best. Then, revert with an edit summary that identifies the source and the correct DoB which makes it easier for others who are willing to rely on your judgment. Maybe duplicate that on talk. If wanted, put links to the articles (just a few) in a sandbox and I'll have a look to offer more of an opinion. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! I'm almost never "really confident" that the original DOB is correct, but I am confident that the vandal is vandalizing the articles and has been doing it for at least a few years. Here is a short recap of what they do. They have many targets (I know of about 30), and some of the pages they don't vandalize for a long time and then target them again. kyykaarme (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Form removed from main page

I have removed the form for creating a new subpage from the main page to encourage DENY. Most of the sections weren't being filled out anyway. The header now links to the filing instructions. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
In general, probably a good move. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Remove Runtshit?

The person reportedly behind the Runtshit-vandal died earlier this year, perhaps we should remove his name from the list? User:RolandR, what do you think? Huldra (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I think that's fair - removed - Alison ❤ 23:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
    • So long as this can be reactivated if one of his epigones resumes the campaign. RolandR (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Of course. Alison ❤ 23:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
How do you know he died? If that is not an appropriate question, please ignore it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
His RL identity is (allegedly) pretty well known and may or may not have been a notable person who died earlier in the year. Either way, the vandalism stopped, so this can be archived - Alison ❤ 05:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I have known for many years who is behind this, and have informed others, including senior members of Wikipedia's management. My understanding was shared by many, and has been discussed openly in several blogs and forums. The evidence (of IP addresses, style, MO and content) was mainly circumstantial, but utterly convincing. The last recorded disruptive edit was in fact just over a year ago, at the time when the Supposed Perpetrator became ill. I agree that, unless a disciple takes this up, the case can be considered dormant, and archived. RolandR (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

IRC Channel

I've created the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-lta connect for discussion, coordination, etc. regarding LTA cases or users. In the channel a bot is being configured to automatically send relevant messages. Anyone who is currently active on the English Wikipedia, with no recent blocks, is welcome to join if they either have a wikipedia IRC cloak or are eligible for one. Cloaked users are automatically invited, I can manually invite users who qualify but are not cloaked.

There's currently no formal or clear process for requesting invitations, please let me know if you have any suggestions. PHANTOMTECH [TALK] 07:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

On LTA management, and archiving weak LTA cases

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Debearing egu 77, where User:PhantomTech and I are discussing improvements in the management of WP:LTA. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe Hi, this is the reminder you requested on the MfD for creating a proposal after it closed. PhantomTech[talk] 23:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. It was deleted, after a checkuser !voted “delete”.
My opinion is that these things should be either speedied, or archived. MfD is not a good route, due it it freshly rehashing something that should be quietly put away. Does anyone disagree? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I think WP:LTA cases should be marked as historical and no new ones should be created per the spirit of WP:DENY and the fact that SPI archives pretty much all the relevant behavioral issues, not to mention this seems to be a hot spot for over eager new editors dabbling in areas where they shouldn't be. Overall LTA entries have very little value and do far more harm than good. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
That's another argument, which I probably wouldn't entirely agree with. However, I'm also of the opinion that these should be generally speedied (or archived) rather than MfD'd. Probably the best way to speedy is informally with IAR or G6. And probably the best way to achieve that is by getting hold of checkusers or other relevant admins (whether directly, or by posting here or at WT:SPI). It has traditionally been a bit tricky having a regular speedy process that is not part of CSD, and I don't know if CSD is ready for LTA. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with MfD not being a great option. In the past I've typically archived anything that would have qualified for a case at some point and G6ed anything that never qualified. I tried to CSD the two MfDed cases, those CSDs were both declined which led me to believe that G6ing LTA cases was no longer acceptable. PhantomTech[talk] 00:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I have a separate dislike of G6 over liberal misuse. There have always been admins over liberal with G6, and it is not ok.
I am happy to argue the case for CSD#G6a, or any other code, to make legit the speedy of any SPI or LTA subpage by a checkuser. LTA and SPI should be handled internal. The deletions should never involve article content. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Zzuuzz, do you have any opinion on the following:
  • A CSD criterion that requires the dealing admin to be a checkuser? What about a SPI admin clerk?
  • Is there any criteria for when a subpage should be archived vs deleted. Eg, to be worth deletion, should it contain personal information? Unproductive information (eg unreliable allegations)? Or would it be ok for checkusers to be asked to cleanup any inappropriate LTA subpage by speedy deletion?
  • Is there a difference between LTA subpages that were ill-advised, versus old cases that are resolved.
  • Should any editor in good standing be welcome to work LTA in archiving mundane pages or tagging for speedy deletion inappropriate or unwanted pages?
My personal thoughts are that the project wide strong limitations to deletion are really intended to preserve content, and content-oriented discussions, preserving the history of improvement of the content, and that deletion policy should not be so strict on LTA and SPI business. I also believe that in practice, it is not. I think a CSD line would serve to legitimise long-standing good practice of DENY and sensitivity and personal-information deletions by checkusers, and maybe their admin clerks too. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd draw a fundamental difference between pages which are out of project scope, versus old expired cases, with the former suitable for speedy deletion and the latter suitable for archiving and preservation in almost all cases. I do think checkusers and SPI-experienced admins (not necessarily clerks) are probably competent to do the deletion in such (out-of-scope) cases. I have my doubts about whether such speedy deletion would work well with a CSD tagging system, and I'm not a fan in general of carving out CSD criteria for a subset of admins. In defining out of scope I'd have to evaluate each case - I think we all know what I'm talking about, a few IPs doing a bit of vandalism is not LTA. I'd probably also evaluate personal information for out of scope cases, but out of scope is out of scope.
I do support "editors in good standing" helping out with LTA. I should mention some caveats. It's not a good place for beginners to concentrate for a variety of reasons, and I'd observe that a number of people who have helped out have been blocked or given up. It requires experience of knowing what LTA is, knowing how to find it, and knowing how to collaborate with relevant admins and other people. If they can do that and spot the right cases, I've no problem with them archiving or recommending pages for deletion. Hopefully that clarifies my opinion; I'm a bit short of concrete recommendations. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Let's not remove useful information. Aside from obvious vandalism which should certainly be deleted, the LTA case pages are generally informative. I see the LTA case pages as preserving institutional memory; a living history to inform new shepherds of the wiki. Marking a case page as inactive is sufficient. Deleting a page is an extreme measure to be applied sparingly. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
This goes to my concern about seemingly random people seeking deletion of LTA subpages at MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change to 3RR exemption

There's a discussion happening at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users., and input from people experienced in anti-LTA work would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:53, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Mention on boingboing.net

Wikipedia's list of "long-term abusers" reads like a roster of pathetic supervillains --2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:9593:9F2A:DF7D:5B03 (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess it was only matter of time. Well, it will be interesting to see how long it takes before "top 10 weirdest long-term vandals on Wikipedia" listicles appear. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
They must have missed when list of banned users was an actual list (instead of a redirect to a category. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 20:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Blanking practice

At special:permalink/1125251255#Blanking_inactive_LTA_pages some editors set a practice to start blanking documentation of long term abuse which is over 5 years old.

I am not sure what to make of this. I suppose it does not hurt. I am not aware of a real problem which it addresses. I am not aware of routine blanking elsewhere on Wikipedia. I am just posting here to put a record of the practice on the talk page of this, the concerned practice. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Quiet blanking is much better that starting a federal case over unimportant things. The bigger concern is whether the person editing old LTA pages has the trust and competence for it. I wish that there were a rule that only SPI clerks or checkusers were qualified. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
To avoid fragmenting discussions, let's continue this at the unarchived AN thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Blanking inactive LTA pages. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but after it archives, if any progress is made, we should come back here. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
@SmokeyJoe the AN discussion has been archived. While the general feeling was that selective blanking of inactive LTA pages is okay, there was some talk of deprecating all LTA pages and merging its content with SPI. Do you think it is worthy trying to get consensus for?
I for one think that actively maintained LTA pages have a function that SPI does not - it provides a quick summary to help identify an LTA in plain English. SPI archives do not have such summaries, use a lot of insider jargon and the page formatting can be hard to read to those who are not used to it. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Doesn't CU have their own private wiki with information? Do the LTA pages help veteran editors spot? I often forget to even look at them when trying to identify primary to file an SPI against. Slywriter (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
This is not to mention that continued listing of IP addresses and so on may break GDPR principles - given that residential proxies are common among vandal nowadays which can put innocent households in crossfire. As a disclaimer this is one too because the network which I'm on was abused by date changer vandal.
Given recent bad press coverages and scrutinies against Wikipedia due to Elon Musk's remarks about political bias, it's hard not to imagine at some point in the future, all public LTA pages will provide a perverse incentive for wingnuts to attack Wikipedia, by acting as a troll shrine or a cookbook. At minimum these pages should be moved to "countervandalism.wikipedia.org", only accessible to auto-confirmed users and higher. 176.115.14.1 (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Mcclian

I'd like to help create an entry for Mcclian, a persistent WP:SPA vandal of wrestling-related articles since 2009. A brief history can be seen at his SPI archive, which summarises it well. After his block in 2015, he has almost exclusively used Canada-based IPs numbering well into the hundreds, and remains active as of last week. He usually returns under a new IP every month, but it would be a fairly easy task for me to collate most IPs used by him since at least 2017.

My rationale for opening up an LTA case would be to establish a one-stop repository for all his IPs so that users unfamiliar with his vandalism can learn to spot it across the fairly wide range of articles he's touched, in the same manner as this (vandal unrelated). I've managed to acquire lengthy PPs for two such articles – WWF Full Metal: The Album and WWF The Music, Volume 2 – but he still springs up plenty elsewhere and I alone cannot keep track.

Denial should no longer be relevant because he'll continue regardless, and an LTA would be beneficial for the above reason. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see the discussion "blanking practice" which is directly above. I don't think that making a page is a good idea given it is moribund, risks backfire by giving attention to trolls and on top of that, the GDPR. Perhaps it'd be useful if you can ask for help at edit filter noticeboard instead to make filters that automatically flag and deny such vandalism? 188.121.168.73 (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2023

The following eight discussions have been archived and should be removed from Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/List:

  • india against corruption sock-meatfarm
  • jesuisbilly
  • komail shayan
  • malusia22
  • schwabacher vandal
  • scibaby
  • thomas.alrasheed
  • vnisanian2001

I already posted them in Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Archive.

Additionally, I posted at Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/Scibaby that someone should blank his page. Someone added an archive tag, but did not blank. I still recommend blanking. 2620:8D:8000:10D5:C4A0:B6FC:B66B:A381 (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I found the eight by copying and pasting all the names from Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/List and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Inactive_project_pages?from=Lo, then comparing the two lists in Excel. 2620:8D:8000:10D5:C4A0:B6FC:B66B:A381 (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done:  On hold -Lemonaka‎ 12:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 Done -Lemonaka‎ 21:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

RFC on marking the Long-term abuse page as historical for declining involvement, and to also deny recognition to vandals

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Non admin WP:SNOW close to keep this page and not mark it as historical. -- Prodraxistalkcontribs 21:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

One thing leads to another. I saw a bunch of LTA pages that should have been archived and requested that to be done [4].

Looking at the discussion, I saw that one admin recommended that the page be marked historical due to a relative lack of recent edits over the past 7-8 years [5].

I think Wikipedia has gotten better at preventing long-term abuse, so the number of LTAs has declined in the past few years. Many vandals also celebrate the recognition they get from these kinds of pages. The Long-term abuse page should be marked as historical. What do you think? 2620:8D:8000:10A6:71B7:9282:F1A9:BA79 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Oppose The page is incredibly useful for identifying and keeping track of the vandalism patterns of the LTAs so we can block any new socks of them. interstatefive  22:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
    Can you give an example? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not Interstatefive but I'd say WP:LTA/HOY has helped me identify a lot of Piermark sock puppets. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sock 23:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Interstatefive. Jusdafax (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. LTA is mostly operated on sub-pages, so the number of edits to this page is not particularly relevant. By the same logic, Wikipedia:Village pump isn't looking too active either. Not only that but the pages need to be judged by usage instead of edits. I've been doing this a while, and I don't see anything to suggest that the number of LTA users (or even page users) is declining. LTA is far from a historical phenomenon. And when we see someone "celebrate the recognition", that's often taken as a queue to altogether avoid recognising them. Lots don't want the recognition. Lots who do don't get it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • IPs should not be welcome in projectspace. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia backroom process talk, register, so that we know who you are. If you have previously registered you are violating WP:SOCK by editing projectspace while logged out. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Support per reasons provided by nominator Jack4576 (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, need ways to track their abuse in case they show up again. Heart (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per zzuuzz; the edit history does not particularly indicate abandonment to me, and it is only meant to be used sparingly anyways. Theepicosity (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose because a lag, of any duration, in abuse does not signify measures against abuse should be relaxed or dropped - or even mummified in the History museum. There is absolutely no technical or procedural need for what is proposed here. -The Gnome (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: If the use of this page has declined, that can also simply be a sign that we got better in stopping vandalism early. That still doesn't mean the page is obsolete, because new stuff can still be hidden somewhere deep in an article, and then we have to list that to get even better at fighting it: Vandals sometimes change their methods, and then we have to learn about these methods, and the best place to do that is right on this page. Qxyz123 (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose marking historical, as the pages here are still in use. I do think, however, that there is a legitimate discussion to be had about reforming this page as I think the process could be better structured and more useful. This is still very much rough ideas rather than a firm proposal, but in my opinion we should be looking at merging these pages into SPI as "notes" subpages attached to cases. By doing this they could better serve as records of behaviour that is useful for identifying socks, we could remove a lot of the duplication of efforts that leads to outdated information ending up here (e.g. I don't see the point in maintaining a list of accounts at SPI and a duplicate of that list at LTA) and we would avoid splitting information across multiple places. This would also bring the pages under the control of the SPI clerks, who are best placed to deal with sockpuppet related pages and could merge/redirect/blank/delete the pages as required. As an example of the kind of implementation I have in mind: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime could be moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Notes, the table of accounts and IP's would be removed from the page as being redundant to the SPI archive, so we would end up with just a list of behaviour to look for. 192.76.8.94 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose LTA pages are still being used, with the most recently created ones being WP:LTA/HOY and WP:LTA/LB2. Not to mention as Interstatefive mentioned the LTA cases are useful to keeping track of long term vandals so new socks are dealt with quickly and efficiently. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sock 23:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose – my LTV submission above is contemporary and plenty valid. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment It's snowing hard, should we close up? interstatefive  18:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
    I shall close the RfC, then. -- Prodraxistalkcontribs 21:55, 5 June 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Long-term_abuse/Archive_6&oldid=1227389482"