Forum:CT Archive/Excessive useless edits

Forums &gt; Consensus track &gt; 


 * This was discussed on the admin's noticeboard under Forum:Regulating user contributions? about users who only seem concerned with userpage and/or talk page edits. Obviously, this is becoming a growing nuisance to those of us who work on the articles like we're supposed to.

Below are options for a proposed policy for users who:

Definition of "Pointless"
Support
 * Pointless means A) User page edits
 * 1) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 20:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) User talk can be good. Grand Moff Rhell 20:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) We can always modify the definition later if the WookieeSocialites intensify their bandwith-wastage via Talk pages. But it seems to me userpages are really the main issue. Gonk 20:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) SFH 21:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) User talk could have a point. - Fnlayson 22:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 05:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Must edit articles of some sort. --  Riffsyphon  1024 05:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Imp 20:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * Pointless means B) User page + user talk edits
 * 1) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) * SFH 20:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Havac 20:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Ozzel 20:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  Redemption [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|20px]] Talk 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) .  .  .  .  22:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Kuralyov 05:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8)  Sarendipity  ( Talk to me ) 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 12:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) jSarek 23:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments Your definitions are currently too vague. They could be misinterpreted as ALL user page and talk page edits are pointless. Surely you mean something like "exclusive user page editing" or "exclusive user page and talk page editing is pointless" - well, those definitions are also too vague, but at least more precises than the ones being voted on now. Any suggestions for even better definitions of "pointless". KEJ 12:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A pointless usertalk edit would be an edit that does not contribute anything to Wookieepedia (discussing ways to improve articles, consensus tracks, reasons for a change, etc.). Meaning fanfic discussions, other discussions, "who's your favorite", "sign my guestbook", "LOOK AT THIS!", and others that do not relate to the Wiki.-- Redemption [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|20px]] Talk 15:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For the admins, we're not going to sift through all someone's edits. That would be a terrible pain. And the definition of pointless is mainly relevant to the options below. Any user would have to have a certain number of total edits before admins took action. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 16:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * With the bars set as high as they are below, I'm comfortable calling all user page and talk page edits "pointless" for the purposes of this rule. Yes, that would mean I have 60+259=319 "pointless" edits . . . out of over 6,000. jSarek 23:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 1 "Three (to 1) strikes, you're out"

 * These users have a greater than 3 to 1 ratio of pointless edits to article edits, with a minimum benchmark of 1000 total edits.

Support
 * 1) Heck, I could go lower. Two-to-one would be fantastic. Havac 20:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2)  Redemption [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|20px]] Talk 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) See note below. - Ozzel 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) .  .  .  .  22:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I'm surprised you guys would go this high... I'd say no more than half.  Sarendipity  ( Talk to me ) 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 12:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 2 "Batting .200 is bad"

 * These users have over 500 pointless edits to less than 100 article edits. (In other words 5 to 1 pointless to useful ratio, with 600 total edits as a minimum for action).

Support
 * 1) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 20:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Grand Moff Rhell 20:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) The absolute numbers and the ratio are both important, of course. Otherwise we'd take sanctions against anyone whose first edit was to their user page, which is not what we're aiming at. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Gonk 20:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Silly Dan. Wildyoda 22:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Seems like a reasonable threshold, not too strict. Fnlayson 22:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 3 "Add as necessary"

 * Place great idea below.

Comments
 * If we do this, we should allow some kind of minimum time period before we take action, because often one of the first things people do when they come here is start their user page. What might be good? 2 weeks? A month? -- Ozzel 20:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Option 2 places 600 as a minimum number of edits before action. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 21:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 1 "Let the children be"

 * We do nothing and practically ignore these pointless contributions like we have largely done.

Support

Option 2 "Slay them all"

 * Sysops ban them after a warning. And quite possibly call them rude names while we do it (Okay, kidding about the second sentence. Jeez.)

Support
 * 1) BAN. Havac 20:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Ozzel 20:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) .  .  .  .  22:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Darth Culator  (Talk)(Kills) 12:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Option 3 "Into exile, they must go"

 * Sysops protect their pages after a warning and only unprotect after they start working on articles.

Support
 * 1) Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 20:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) SFH 20:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Gonk 20:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Can we call them rude names anyway? Besides, chances are that person will whine (resulting in a ban), have their edits reverted, therefore never getting their page back and thus leave (or whine - resulting in a ban)  Redemption [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|20px]] Talk 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, unless you want a personal attack block. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 20:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Joking...(forgot the *smirk*)-- Redemption [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|20px]] Talk 20:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Yes, sort of funny. Atarumaster88  [[Image:Jedi_Order.jpg|20px]] ( Audience Chamber ) 05:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Actually, I think this is a really creative solution. Much more satisfying than a ban, and probably more motivational. Wildyoda 22:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Send 'em to Dagobah. -Fnlayson 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Jaina Solo ( Goddess Stuff ) [[Image:Jainasolosig.gif |25px]] 05:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Imp 20:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  Sarendipity  ( Talk to me ) 20:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments
 * There would no doubt be situations where such users would have to be blocked after this, if they responded by serious incivility, harassment of other users or something like that. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, anyone who can get to 600 or 1000 edits with such a huge portion of it being useless is extremely unlikely to change their ways. A ban would be a much stronger statement against it. Furthermore, anyone who is banned and honestly wants to start actually contributing can always petition for an unban. The third option also has grave issues with enforceability. When do they count as "working on articles"? One edit? Twenty edits? One hundred edits? Once they're out of the naughty ratio? What if all the edits they make to articles are pointless little tweaks done just so they can get back to socializing? Havac 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it really worth all that effort when they can just hit the forums on TFN or the Official Site? Or the Fanon site? Gonk 20:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When the user feels that they "deserve" their page back, they can ask to have it back. And an admin will review the edits and determine if they deserve it. I believe our admins are pretty reasonable to determine that. -- Redemption [[Image:Redemptionusersymbol.png|20px]] Talk 21:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)