Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/The abominable Wiki troll

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| [soliloquize] || 16:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/The abominable Wiki troll

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/The abominable Wiki troll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) ToThAc (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no value in having this page about a highly disruptive LTA and it should be deleted per WP:DENY. Praxidicae (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on weak arguments. Further elaboration is required. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how this works. WP:DENY is plenty reason and there is no added value into describing all the doings of LTAs who crave attention, which is exactly what these pages do. Praxidicae (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the page is pointless. A simple search of ANI and SPI gives the same results (maybe more.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - As long as there is a class of LTA pages and this troll is a Long-Term Abuser, there doesn't seem to be a policy reason to delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think this is warranted because of this: List of music considered the worst. For almost a year, and heavily for the last six months, there has a been a continuous, often heated, discussion about the inclusion of The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (album). The entry was added by a suspected sockpuppet IP of TAWT, then re-added by other suspected sockpuppet IPs and confirmed sockpuppet accounts multiple times after attempts to remove it, with the rational being a consensus is needed to remove it. Several months ago an RFC was started to reach such a consensus on its removal, with TAWT being one of the chief proponent's of its inclusion through his various sockpuppet accounts (which ironically includes him insinuating multiple remove votes are from sockpuppets), and after two months it was finally closed with "no consensus" [1]. Since it's close there has been continued discussions to improve the article by creating a criteria stronger than the one that allowed its addition, but it is moving below a snail's pace (after four months, it is now in its third "pre-RFC" discussion), and in that time it has been discovered that TAWT is architect behind this whole mess. However, even after discovering this, his trolling of the entry has been allowed to continue. Earlier today, before making the LTA, Electricburst attempted implementing DENY and preemptively remove the trolling (the multiple pre-RFC discussions are all leaning extremely heavily to criteria that will see the album removed), only to be reverted [2] and told DENY does not apply and TAWT's troll entry must remain. So how do you DENY when you're not allowed to DENY? It's not a very strong anti-trolling message WP is sending when obvious trolling is allowed to continue so long as you use sockpuppets to get people to parrot "Consensus! Consensus!" An LTA may not be the best route to take when dealing with a troll, but then again it should not be this difficult to remove trolling. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:895A:7F9:59E0:50B6 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, great. An anonymous editor comes out of nowhere to parrot the same argument of this page’s creator, that somehow this needs to be kept because of some content dispute. Nothing fishy here... Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely nothing to do with that IP address. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 02:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm the IP who for months have been one of the people trying to improve the Worst Music list by getting entries that don't belong (i.e. Sgt. Pepper) removed [3] [4]. And as I said when I brought news of the dispute to WP:NPOVN (which at the very least got something to happen to the then never ending RFC) I'd be happy to provide you with a list of every IP I've ended up posting under. 2600:1700:B280:B1C0:895A:7F9:59E0:50B6 (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The page was created five hours ago and has no purpose other than to record the achievements of yet another troll. The claimed information is pointless—guess what, it's another sockpuppeter who has a lack of respect of authority and who can be found in a search of AN/ANI (see the searchbox at the top of WP:AN). WP:DENY is best. Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Putting the information all in one centralized page is a worthwhile endeavor, especially for the purpose of letting others know the extent, for keeping this vandal forefront in institutional memory. If anything, the new LTA page should be expanded so that it is more useful. Binksternet (talk) 06:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What information? There has to be a balance between the benefits of keeping a potentially useful page (it's not useful now) and the own-goal of encouraging trolls by commemorating their achievements. Johnuniq (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Links to discussions are good information. More can be written to make this page even more useful. You don't vote delete just because a page that could be good isn't quite good enough yet. Binksternet (talk) 07:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Curating a list of ANI discussions is not useful—this search finds the listed reports and one more. Trolls thrive on attention and an LTA page like this damages the project. The concept that pages should be fixed and not be deleted applies to mainspace articles, not long-term abusers. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I thought I knew TAWT well, having dealt with him extensively on pro wrestling articles, but was still surprised to see he was behind the trolling at List of music considered the worst. As long as we detail long term abusers, the detailing of one of the most notorious trolls seems essential. Those who are looking to prevent further damage need to know what to look for.LM2000 (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As a rule of thumb, majority of LTA pages cause more harm than good, but because of how prolific this sockpuppeteer is, this LTA could be useful, especially since it seems not many editors seem to be aware of TAWT/care. I've been meaning to create a subpage on this troll myself for a while now. It can always be expanded and more information added later. Sro23 (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete who cares? I have no clue the behaviour of this LTA and never will. It doesn’t matter. He’s disruptive so we block him. I see no purpose to this since he’ll be blocked regardless. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for User:Electricburst1996 - Were you feeding the troll in May 2019 when you asked for a 21-person moderated dispute resolution to achieve consensus on Sgt. Pepper after the RFC had been closed as No Consensus? I'm wondering whether the author of this page is investing too much in killing the troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't really think this is necessary. If anyone really needs more information about AWT's M.O., Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll does a better job of describing it than the LTA page. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - This is a case of the author, User:Electricburst1996, feeding the troll. There was no need to request a 21-person DRN to resolve a No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:DENY. This page adds nothing to Wikipedia that isn't found elsewhere. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll above the first section. That way the troll is WP:DENYed but editors still have information about them in a more relevant and proper location. This method should be used on all LTA pages unless they're very long. 2.58.194.138 (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Blank.

WP:DENY is already broken by listing the page here. WP:DENY is not a reason for deletion. If no speed deletion criteria apply, not g3, g5, g10, nor any other, then there is no driving need to delete, and to create a long running, many participant MfD discussion is the exact opposite of DENY. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this page has any useful information (apart from what can be better achieved with this search)? Does keeping this page (which was created on 22 August 2019) help Wikipedia? Blanking the page tells the LTA that they have to try harder if they want full glory. Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is useless troll food. Blanking the page gives the troll far less giggles than the waste of time that has been this MfD discussion.

My long considered position, having considered these questions for a long time here at MfD, is that LTA subpages, like SPI subpages, should be speediable by SPI clerks, and should not be run through MfD.

This time I tried ignoring the MfD, and I don't think it is my fault that this discussion has achieved 15 editors and 380 pageviews. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SPI wasn't notified, I have taken care of that. In this case I suggest deletion: while LTA pages can be useful, this one in particular seems to be lacking in relevant information for abuse management. It ends up just being a monument to past disruption, and in that case it's better to not have the page in the first place. As a side note, if the content is merged to the SPI, a clerk will remove it, that is not how we do things and consensus here will not override our processes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:19, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One other note: SPI subpages are not speediable by clerks, unless some other CSD applies. G6 is common because we do a lot of page-moves, and we occasionally get G3s, but that's about it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPI and LTA subpages could be made speediable by SPI clerks. I think that would be a good idea, because MfD is not generally competent to make decisions on LTA or SPI matters. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2019 (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.