Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grawp

< Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

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 debate was to delete. Maxim(talk) 13:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I closed this a few hours early, as I don't think it's unlikely that Grawp may try to pull a trick or two here; he's already "attacked" this MfD once, I don't see why he won't cause more trouble again.

User:Grawp

This nomination also includes:

We don't need to build shrines for vandals, we don't need to recognise their impact to the point where we label each and every their brand new sock with "look! it's really HIM!". We don't need to feed vandals' vanity by stating that every wannabe pagemove vandal may be them. We don't need to state that Grawp is banned - we simply don't need it to block his socks on sight. And finally, we don't need to turn him into Willy on Wheels The Second - what's next, {{grawp}} expanding to {{sock|Grawp|blocked}} like it was before with {{wow}} and numerous userboxen like "this user hates Willy"? Gosh, we can live with just one concise long-term abuse report. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 18:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • support - what are these useful for? --Random832 (contribs) 18:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Grawp is very much active at the minute, and the categories are helpful in spotting trends in the naming conventions used by him. They also group together a large number of grawp socks so they easily be looked at when users are trying to evaluate patterns in either account creation/page targets or any other area that is relevant to his disruption. Whilst I don't think we need them in the long term, whilst he's active, we need an area to document all the accounts so users have large amounts of information accessible when investigating his actions. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He has too many socks. Many of them have validly-looking usernames. If we are to suspect every user whose name resembles one of Grawp's socks, we'll have to block no less than half of newcomers. Same thing with patterns: we have loads of his typical page titles blacklisted, and it doesn't help to stop him to even the slightest degree, he just invents something new. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 18:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I strongly believe WP:DENY is the best way to handle annoying socks and in the past have been rouge and just deleted the categories and all the tagged sockpages in deny efforts (with oompapa socks). Man, the socks started twitching after they found out I was doing that. All they wanted to do was go down in infamy, and there number of socks was how they were counting how much damage they did.Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Keep - as I have said in my essay on the matter (linked to in my sig), damnatio memoriae in re Grawp only attracts his followers, who have taken to mass-spamming Grawp-style vandalism in the past few days. You need to remember that by actually doing this, you're going to end up trolled by 4channers. However, I am in no way adverse to removing extraneous (sub)pages unnecessary to keeping an eye on him (which includes the subpages of WSoG and SWSoG, but not those two pages themselves). We need to strike a balance between WP:DENY and keeping people informed; this nomination falls squarely towards WP:DENY. -Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 18:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep categories. We need to be able to document his actions while he is active. bibliomaniac15 18:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to delete per the fact that if socks are not being tagged these lose their usefulness, and also based on what was said below re: Grawp likely being multiple people and therefore the paradigm(s) used will change frequently making trend-analysis redundant.Keep for now - as Ryan mentioned, Grawp is still active and having a list of his socks in one place is of great assistance for:
a: monitoring naming trends so that sleepers can be blocked on sight
b: CheckUsers running IP checks on suspected socks. They can use the list to verify whether an account has been blocked as Grawp (and therefore whether the one in question is likely to be so) without having to trawl through the block log.
However, if/when Grawp becomes inactive then the categories can safely be deleted as they will no longer serve any purpose. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:38, June 11, 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everybody knows these guys by now; any administrator who doesn't know and needs to will still be able to find out. There's really just no point in keeping a public scoreboard, which is all these are at the moment. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I thought they had bots to auto-revert an account that moves a lot of pages at once since back in the Willy on Wheels day. I don't know why Grawp is getting people so worked up. William Ortiz (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have blocked hundreds of grawp accounts, mostly sleepers discovered by checkuser, and I haven't tagged a single one. I am dubious of the value of categories in "tracking or spotting trends." Thatcher 18:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All I needed to know about Grawp is on WP:LTA. Given the number of socks involved, a significant number of which have not been tagged or placed into these categories, it's a waste of time and gives him nothing more than a brag sheet. Risker (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've added a few accounts to these categories. However, Risker is right: Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Grawp gives up all we need to know, and if this has now spread to multiple users, then as has already been said, this is simply a brag sheet that will encourage others to take up the grawp banner. He never will go away (since there is no "he") until this fad fades, and that won't happen until we stop encouraging it. kwami (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is, if we stop encouraging it, there will be more trolling guided by his hand as he copy-and-pastes revisions onto 4chan for the purposes of mass-harassment where his hands aren't tied (as most 4channers that come here come here in the name of "anti-censorship"). Damnatio memoriae does not work. --Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 19:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:DENY is one of the most effective tools we have for fighting vandalism, and one of the least used. If we stop believing in him, he ceases to exist, just like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. This too shall pass. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't see them merit of keeping this, given the multivariate nature of usernames & IPs used. There's no plausible case for analysis of usernames. Per WP:RBI & WP:DENY. --Rodhullandemu 19:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pages like these didn't do anything to stop Willy on Wheels: it was boredom that got him in the end. That will happen to Grawp too, unless we keep him interested with nonsense like this. — Dan | talk 19:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether he continues or not is a question completely separate from the value of maintaining these pages. Since it is clear they are not particularly useful, and are definitely not complete, there seems to be little value in keeping the pages. Risker (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- What preventative purpose do these categories serve ? If new users are being created without pattern and we can't spot the problem ones until a page is moved anyway, these categories are useless. And useless categories should always be deleted. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as this is all documented somewhere, I would not oppose deletion. Here is what I suggest: Delete userpage (in the deletion long provide a link to the abuse report), but rename category to something like "page move vandals". -- Ned Scott 02:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is neither a keep nor delete, but seriously, are you aware that he is being glorified at ED and that he is not one person, but rather a group of people who want to get attention. Face it, deleting this page will serve no useful purpose as he/she/they are being motivated by multiple sources (ED, 4chan, etc.) WP:DENY dosen't really apply to this case based on the fact that deleting this guy's userpage won't have a useful purpose. Just a heads up. PrestonH (t ♦ c) 03:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also proposed, however, are the deletion of the sockpuppet categories. FWIW, I prefer Ned Scott's suggestion of renaming the cats. --Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 04:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because off-Wiki sites glorify him, that doesn't mean we have to. Though your main point is well taken. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make Private/Delete, Move the sockpuppet records off of the Web, and keep this information on a local computer, perhaps a users personal computer. We could then have several of these trusted users with the records updating them, talking to each other, actively dealing the sockpuppteer's current actions, and acting as a resource for other users, communicating by email. If Foundation employees are not to busy they could do this themselves.

    WP:DENY is important, the admins and checkusers are already refering to him as 'You-know-who'. The more attention he gets, the more awesome he becomes, the more awesome he becomes, the more awesome he tries to act. --209.244.43.112 (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just point out that the two people who are dealing most intensely with this situation, checkusers Alison and Thatcher, have both essentially said that this information is of no value to them in addressing the situation, and although between them they've blocked hundreds of the accounts, they aren't adding information to these categories. This should be telling us something, I think. Risker (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I meant a copy on each users computer, such as highly active administrators. We can keep this information, it just does not need to be on a wiki page. Another idea, keep this information on a WP page that is only visible to users to with rights. 209.244.43.112 (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - A page labeling him as "banned" and categories of his sock puppets do not a shrine make. We need to keep records of this stuff readily accessible for the new admins/vandalfighters who will undoubtedly run across him at some point. --jonny-mt 06:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you encounter him, it's usually pretty obvious what to do, with or without the documentation: block him, then move the pages back. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the flipside, though, knowing that Grawp uses a pretty good-sized group of sock/meatpuppets has definitely prompted me to move protect a number of pages that would not normally require this restriction. I think you're absolutely right that fixing the damage doesn't require any special knowledge, but I'm more concerned about making sure future editors/admins can prevent it. --jonny-mt 02:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone will look at a HAGGER? move and think, because of a lack of these pages, that it is a reasonale move. Fribbler (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I've tagged many of Grawp's socks and have been active in trying to limit his vandalism. I'm now persuaded, based on the above arguments, that these lists just feed his ego. Also, he's started using more random usernames that the lists don't help detect. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As pointed out above, tagging things into these categories hasn't been happening so they really are just stuff collecting dust in the closet. Then there's that whole ignore thing. Q T C 17:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete socks, keep main - I first learned about Grawp's activity from that userpage. However, all the socks are unnecessary. Soxred 93 01:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - I had to find about his discussion from the most unlikely of sources (ED), I think its time to DENY this troll, he is just doing this for fame and pleasure, lets not give it to him and he will leave, and delete his list of socks as well !!..--Cometstyles 04:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Molag Bal is a different issue - he had good hand/bad hand accounts, and even prepared some of them for RFA. He is not a simple vandal. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 14:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. I was just trying to make a point that mentioning Molag Bal being successfully denied (How?) isn't exactly the best example, considering there are numerous pages about him. --Conti|✉ 14:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Denied in terms that unlike Grawp, he wasn't looking for fame, there is another troll who practically updates his own sockpuppet list, probably not a bigger threat in comparison to Grawp, but sadly people forget that Grawp is NOT one person, there is a whole bunch of them creating accounts at different times of the day so admins will not notice what he is doing and in the recent weeks, their choice of user names are really very hard to detect, and they no longer uses the simple "Grawp wants to ***" etc names, he probably evolved ..hehe..and since its the admins that deal with him more than any other wikipedians, its better if all his categories and "existence" were deleted, since admins can easily see things for themselves..--Cometstyles 05:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't need tomes of documentation to recognize simple (albeit widespread) vandalism - just leave the normal user page like any other vandal. In fact, can we delete this MFD also? Also, I don't buy Jéské's argument at all about how deleting the category feeds the trolls. DENY is about Wikipedia, who cares what 4chan thinks? Wickethewok (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4chan often gets oldid URLs posted there by Grawp; they generally target those users who deal with Grawp's socks, and many come of their own volition when we show any signs of enforcing WP:DENY. Thus, by denying one, you feed others. As I have said before, there needs to be a balance of information we can use and flat-out WP:DENY; not this damnatio memoriae in the guise of DENY. --Jéské (v^_^v E pluribus unum) 04:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone is suggesting deleting all information on Grawp: that would be futile. However, one short entry at Wikipedia:LTA#Grawp, with User:Grawp redirecting or linking to it, should be all that is needed: extra pages, categories, templates and so on are simply redundant. -- The Anome (talk)
  • delete, WP:DENY, I wonder why that has to be discussed even, --birdy (:> )=| 13:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all categories, pages, and tagging, might be useful to have one single LTA subpage though. The information on significant sock users is useful to people who deal with him, but emphatically not sprawled across user space. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - If he has a life, Grawp will get bored and move on just like WoW. And when that happens, there's no need to leave behind these eternal shrines. This guy obviously looks at his pages as an achievement, so don't give it to him. Spellcast (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to HAGGGER????????????????? Delete per WP:DENY. Let's not build shrines to vandals. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this is a long term vandal, and we need to keep his user page there to keep it easy for the vandal fighters who want to track his socks. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:LTA can take care of it. Nakon 00:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say delete sockpuppet pages and keep the main user page as {{banned}}; WP:DENY applies. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the excellently reasoned nom. Naerii - Talk 12:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing on that page as it currently is could be considered a shrine to him ... like all banned users, it simply states that he's banned. And having the user page makes it at least possible that any antivandal patroller unfamiliar with the case will take proper action ... I know when I see a report that someone's a sock of so-and-so, I want to look at the user page of the puppeteer to access the contrib history and verify it and understand what action I should take. Any new admin looking at a page with "This user is banned ..." knows that however innocuous the sock's vandalism, the sock is to be blocked indefinitely. Otherwise you risk some of these socks only being blocked for 24 hours, which just sets up more vandalism.
    As an addendum, I'd say long MfDs on vandals' user pages are probably more of an ego boost to the vandal than their pages and sock categories. Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: feeding trolls is generally a stupid action to do. If you are here because you like writing and adding useful stuff you should ignore such nuisances and vote to delete, but if you are more inclined to play around and tag accounts like User:VelairWight you will find this template very useful. It all depends on how you see wikipedia: an encyclopedia O RLY? database to be improved, or a big Role Playing Game where everyone can do whatever they want.

If you have given up on doing both things i can only salute you for your wise decision! John Stalvern (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Grawp&oldid=1223121418"