Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Best Vandalism Lists


 * 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 keep. The MFD is basically polarized between those that argue WP:DENY and those that argue WP:EM. In addition, much comparison has been drawn linking the lists and BJAODN. However, it is the differences between the two that I believe lead the consensus towards a keep. BJAODN was so well-known that vandals started to do all sorts of things to get on this list. It is doubtful that vandals would aspire to reach a user's list of odd edits. In addition, one of the problems that plagued BJAODN is that there was no attribution, which raised copyright problems. The lists of vandalism have all properly diff'd the edits. Granted, the BLP concerns that Nick originally mentioned may be something to watch for in the future, but this threat should not be great, since the lists and diffs do not show up very prominently in Google, with the exception of Floaterfluss' list, which strangely has not been listed.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Best Vandalism Lists
This MfD is to include the following pages* :-


 * Steve Crossin's list of vandalism.
 * Kafziel's list of vandalism.
 * J.delanoy's list of vandalism.
 * Thingg's list of vandalism.
 * TheProf07's list of vandalism.
 * 21655's list of vandalism (restored from DRV).


 * Where the vandalism list is part of a user or talk page, there will need to be discussion on how to proceed, I would presume that lists would be removed rather than the entire page being deleted, and that would be my preference if consensus is for deletion.

I'm concerned about the impact these pages have on Wikipedia, vandals are clever, suggesting they are not is doing them a great dis-service. They'll find out about pages such as these and there is a strong possibility that through various internet messageboards, will conspire to vandalise in an effort to have their edits added to such a list. We have a difficult job as it is keeping track of and dealing with vandalism. The next issue is far more serious, I've not gone through each diff on every one of these pages, but I'm concerned that diffs of vandalism to the pages of biographies of living persons will be added to these pages, if such diffs don't already exist on these pages, compounding what can be an already difficult situation with regards to BLPs, especially if the situation has come to the attention of the subject, or indeed, a search engine. What we don't want is these pages appearing in Google and linking to grossly unsuitable material about a living person, regardless of whether we have an article on them or not, actually. This brings us onto the final point I'd like to make, even if the contention that these pages provide amusement for the community here, by the time we write a few rules and start policing these pages, they represent a significant distraction for administrators and editors who can spend their time better doing other tasks. I know I would personally like to write a little more content instead of having to police more pages for BLP violations and vandalism that's months old. Nick (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep all - These pages add to the fun of Wikipedia. Also, they show that we don't get offended by their vandalism. If they think we're offended by their vandalism, they will do it more and more! Showing them we just revert it and have a laugh actually discourages them from vandalising again. TheProf - T / C 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you propose dealing with the issue of linking to BLP violations and other such issues with these pages ? Nick (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you propose dealing with the fact that i like having user space? If you want to have nothing in your userspace thats fine by me. But when you bring me and my userspace into question, i will defend it and myself! Thanks TheProf - T / C 22:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And for the record. I have no BLP vioations in my user space! Goodnight TheProf - T / C 23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahem.  21 6 55  ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 15:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Let me clarify something here: the lists are for STUPID VANDALS ONLY. Libellous material doesn't apply. I don't know about Steve, Kafziel, J.delanoy, and the rest, but my list is libel-free and it'll stay that way. As for the "oh, can I get into that" question, hey--it's just one more step to WP:AIV, since it'll get reverted anyway.  21 6 55  ωhαt do yoυ wαnt? 22:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The precedent established in the BJAODN pages (by me, at that) would mitigate against these. On the other hand, my rationale for closing that AfD the way I did was based heavily on the fact that BJAODN was in the Wikipedia namespace and was well-known. I am much more skeptical that vandals desire to make it onto Steve's list or that this is seen as a major goal, and I am loathe to step into regulating userspace in the same way we do the Wikipedia namespace. Thus while I find these lists essentially worthless to the point where I, were I the WMF, would be disinclined to waste the bytes necessary to store them, I am hard pressed to, as a community member, justify mandating their removal. Furthermore, as many of these are not pages but sections of a userpage, I am wholly unconvinced that MfD is the place to take them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm open to the idea of moving the section onto my main user page. It does seem a bit of a waste of space giving it its own page. I will consider that tonight and make a decision tomorrow. Cheers for the idea! TheProf - T / C 23:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! TheProf - T / C 13:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it IS a waste of space giving my AFV list its own subpage. But then again, if you check out the code in my userpage, it's there simply for transclusion purposes. Hell, even ClueBot does it!  21 6 55  ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 12:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:DENY anyone? "Showing them we just revert it and have a laugh actually discourages them from vandalising again." - Huh, wha? Or they think "Hey, I'm on a trophy wall, I'll try harder" or "They revert it and record it somewhere? Maybe it is just like a game." Mr.  Z- man  22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: And then if they do it enough they get AIV'ed. And I'm sure this has been discussed before. Now if only I could find that damn link!...  21 6 55  ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 12:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * User:EVula/opining/About_my_userpage
 * User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_25  21 6 55  ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 12:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, Jimbo said something about this a year ago? Good thing consensus can't change and Jimbo is always right, I guess we can just close this discussion and go home. Mr.  Z- man  17:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mr.Z-man, that was unnecessary. 21655 has every right to post past discussion about this topic here. Whether or not Jimbo's insight is a hard-fast decision is not an issue. The point is, this has been discussed before and Jimbo himself gave his opinion on the matter (which effectively agrees with 21655's and my opinions). Your attack was unjustified. J.d ela noy gabs adds  20:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Z-man, the way in which you quoted my earlier comments and then effectively made fun of them is also not appreciated! TheProf - T / C 21:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That was an attack? WTF? Damned lack of vocal tone in the written word...  21 6 55  ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 21:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you meant you thought that I thought you were making an attack, 21665. If that is what you meant, I apologize, because that is not what I intended. Two points if you understood that the first time through :P. J.d ela noy gabs adds  21:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * {receives two points) I was referring to Mr. Z-man's comment, actually. A reply to yours would've been indented one step more.  21 6 55  ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: per Mr.Z-man. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DENY and the BJAODN deletion discussion. We don't keep lists of "nifty vandalism", because there is no such thing. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I was under the impression that users could basically put whatever they want in their userspace, as long as it does not violate copyright laws. J.d ela noy gabs adds  20:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep. I understand, and to an extent sympathise with, the nominator's concerns. The principle behind WP:DENY is generally a sound one. However, I would also like to disagree with the nominator on a crucial point. The vast majority of vandals, in my experience, are not clever. Vandalism is a transitory act and achieves nothing; most intelligent people figure this out after doing it once, realising that our procedures for dealing with vandalism are extremely effective, and therefore give up. Unsurprisingly, therefore, most repeat vandals are complete idiots. (Intelligent trouble-makers come up with more devious plans, such as pretending to be good-faith editors while building armies of sockpuppets.) Furthermore, vandalism is a remarkably minor threat to the integrity of the wiki. Vandal edits are easy to spot, and most are reverted very quickly; most of the problems we face are caused not by vandals, but by POV battles or by the community turning on itself. I therefore don't think these pages present a massive problem. That said, however, I do recognise that we ought to avoid building vandal "halls of fame", since it inevitably encourages the myriad adolescent males of the vandal community. Thus, I propose that the creators of these lists merge them into their main userpages where they are on a subpage; those which are simply part of a userpage should be kept. As Phil Sandifer notes above, it is unlikely that vandals will be inspired to greater efforts by the prospect of being immortalised on some random editor's userpage. Furthermore, I personally think that there are a few - just a few - pieces of vandalism which are comic gems, and which ought to be remembered somewhere. WaltonOne 17:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really appreciate your 'myriad adolescent males' of the vandal community comment. That's misandrist and uncalled for; no data is available on the gender of vandals; and there are plenty of females in halls of fame.  Celarnor Talk to me  22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, I am an adolescent male. I'm just being realistic. WaltonOne 13:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all ... I can't see any problem with any of these mildly amusing and wholly inoffensive lists/pages. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep on account of the benefit in learning how to fight vandalism--in aiding the detection of people who try to repeat earlier feats. DGG (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC).
 * Keep I highly doubt most vandals are even aware of these lists. We seem to be continually playing amateur psychologist, speculating as to what motivates these guys, so we can figure out ways to thwart them. Is there any evidence that WP:DENY actually works? Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep all. Nominator overestimates casual vandals, which make up the vast majority; most vandals are people who write "Paris hilton is sexy, I wanna do her" on her article, never to come back.  This doesn't make them want to do it more.  Those who do have better plans (such as massive sockpuppet armies).  Celarnor Talk to me  22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:DENY. Ignore 'em all. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per most vandals are dumb. Xdenizen (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:DENY. WP:BAD is no longer active basically because of WP:DENY, what's the difference between this private lists and WP:BAD?--Yamanbaiia (free hugs!) 08:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is that BJAODN, being a large and prominent collection, was much more likely to come to the notice of vandals. Very few vandals are going to be spurred on to greater efforts by the prospect of being immortalised on some editor's userpage. (I should further note that there was never a consensus to delete BJAODN; it was done against the will of the community. But it's really too late to bring that up.) WaltonOne 13:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If we allow grains of sand, we will eventually have to (re)allow the dessert.--Yamanbaiia (free hugs!) 20:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; ... and I'm having trouble understanding why people are trying to mass-delete harmless userspace pages from otherwise good users because they think an essay is somehow a policy or guideline that justifies it. WP:DENY is an essay, and while it might have relevance to stuff like BJAODN due to it being centralized and in the Wikipedia: namespace, we're talking about User: pages here.  Also, EVula puts it nicely in this discussion that's already been had: "Unless my userpage were to appear in Time or something (in which case I'd be extremely surprised), I don't think I'm 'spotlighting' trolls." -- slakr  \ talk / 17:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep- These types of pages aren't going to encourage or discourage vandals. All these pages are is of some of the most amusing vandals that have been found to date, and they are more for laughs than anything. There are many pages that are just for laughs, which I can't think of off the top of my head, but they exist. Why should these pages be any different? It's not like we have a page of every single vandalism, which is what the intent of WP:DENY was for.--Lan Di (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep because time is being wasted on an MfD for this. Jeez, let's go make some mainspace edits. Tan   |   39  20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all, I would guess that very few people knew about these lists until you brought them to everyone's attention. If you wanted to deny vandals any recognition, you did just the opposite. Correct me if I'm wrong, but MFD is not for deleting sections of pages. I see two user sub-pages up for deletion, and the rest are userpages. I don't think there is a BLP issue here. If material is truly defamatary, it can always be oversighted. --Pixelface (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all I do not see how this harms anything. If vandals even bother to read my page, (I doubt they do, as per above sentiments about vandal's intelijunce :P ) let them take my ideas. I'll just revert and get them blocked too. J.d ela noy gabs adds  20:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, as far as BLP goes, the only articles about people that are in my list are Aesop and Juan Ponce de León. I started typing various things around eight times after typing the "]]." at the end of the last sentence. I will shut up now before I say something I will regret. J.d ela noy gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  20:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously. If someone wants to lecture me about DENY, I invite them to check my record: for the number of difficult vandals I've blocked, I for one can afford to have a sense of humor about them. If anyone else wants to have a sense of humor about them, too, I'm willing to take up the slack for whatever theoretical "increased vandalism" it might cause. And, for the record, BLP doesn't apply because these aren't articles - they're previous edits. Linking to them is no more a violation than leaving the diffs in the page history. And since it's being used in a humorous way, it's clearly satire. I'm sick of BLP constantly being used like a scatter-gun in the hope it might somehow apply to whatever argument is going on. It's getting ridiculous. Let's get back to writing the encyclopedia, people. Kafziel Complaint Department 20:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all, Wikipedia is clinical enough without meddling with harmless lists of diffs in people's userspace. I assure you vandals will vandalize whether or not a few users keep a handful of examples on their userpages. xenocidic (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This may be a conflict of interest, but personally, I find these highly entertaining and a good way to blow off some steam after a long day of vandal fighting/editing/whatever. Also, since at least my list is not libelous in any way, it's not hurting anyone beyond possibly a few cramps from laughing too hard. Also, the nominator is totally incorrect in one of his key reasons for nominating this. Vandals, by and large, are not clever in the least. Approx. 4000 vandalism reversions have led me to the conclusion that most vandals will either simply delete a portion of the page, add a reference to one or more genital regions, scathe some political figure/entity, or say "so-and-so from my personal life sucks/is hot/etc. Also, the very fact that they are vandalizing at all is a good indication of their intelligence. Any person who sits down for even a few seconds and thinks about what is going on here on Wikipedia will inevitably come to this conclusion and consequently cease vandalising. In conclusion, since these lists are in the userspace, are not libelous in any way, provide constructive users with some good laughs User talk:Thingg/archive 1, and don't have any ill effects that I can see, I vote keep.  Thingg <sup style="color:#33ff00;">&#8853; <sup style="color:#ff0033;">&#8855;  21:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Basically, it is a bit of fun.  As much as it is trollfood, if vandals were to suddenly stop, there would be no more vandal hunting which is why many users are here.  Call me crazy, but that's my opinion.   weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the pages should be deleted, per slakr's argument, and other arguments therein. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is just fun. One page that is hard for vandals to even find is not going to make them vandalize any more than they would normally. Tiptoety  talk 23:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Whats with all the anti-fun deletions!   CWii ( Talk  01:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have started keeping track of especially amusing vandalism on my own userspace. Thanks for the idea, MfD!  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  01:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to your list from my list on my user page. Hope thats okay :-) TheProf - T / C 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too. xenocidic (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would too, BUT!...  21 6 55  ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 15:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also added a link to your list on my user page Xenocidic. Again, hope thats okay! TheProf - T / C 15:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no problem by having lists like this one. -- Cat chi? 14:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the effect that deleting these pages will have on vandalism levels - assuming such an effect even exists - will be tiny. On the other hand they contribute to a less formal community atmosphere. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 16:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Trivial policy changes like this won't stop vandalism, but it will drive off constructive users. xenocidic (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, these kind of things hurt editors and the community exponentially more than they hurt the vandals who add "sexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" to random articles. Attacking the editors like this isn't going to help Wikipedia.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, nice one, people!  21 6 55  ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 18:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, harmless. Deleting would not be constructive. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment 21 votes "keep", 1 vote "conditional keep" with a suggestion to move the vandalism list onto the main page rather than give it its own page, 6 votes delete if you count the nom. I'm too new at these things to close it out myself, but this discussion is stale and the consensus seems obvious. xenocidic (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to see this ended now. It seems to have gone as far as its going to go. TheProf - T / C 14:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This MFD is an absolute farce with an obvious consensus and overpowering arguments for our side. We don't have to worry about BLPs (as I said, libellous material doesn't qualify for my AFV list, neither does it for anyone else's), nor WP:PERFORMANCE.  21 6 55  ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 15:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.