Proposed changes Edit
- "Vandalism on the Cyber Nations Wiki is defined as deliberately deleting or altering contents of an article or page to something that does not help the page or article, by the digression of administrators and/or bureaucrats."
What this is saying is that if someone makes a change, and I think it was bad for the article, then they are a vandal.
In an attempt to be brief, I'll say that I believe vandalism should be defined as "deliberately deleting (blanking) or editing an article or page in order to purposefully ruin the article".
Some may say that this policy is even more open-ended then the previous one, and to that I would agree. To call an editor a vandal is a serious charge and I don't believe we should be throwing around the term so often. Under the previous policy, the blocking of User:Vain was completely appropriate. Because J Andres felt that his edit made the article worse (as a side note, I agree). But I personally don't believe he did it in order to ruin the article. He may not have completely understood how wikis work, how we are attempting to catalog all information, good and bad. He may not have understood that pages need to be unbiased. Therefore I think the proper course of action would be to change the rules, so that policy dictates that a fellow editor (we are all the same really) should inform the user of what parts of Cyber Nations Wiki there edit shows that they don't know yet. Then let them know that there edits could be construed as vandalism because *insert what general policy it breaks (NPOV, ect.)*. Of course, this policy does not let the obvious vandals off. As it is pretty clear someone meant to harm an article if they blank it and insert some insults or whatever. Another thing to note is that not everyone completely understands how to use a wiki, and could accidentally blank a page. I would say that giving "warnings" would be best. But I think that's too harsh, I think simply talking to someone and giving them a chance to explain or respond would be best.
In general, I feel like we have the policy and bureaucracy (the thing, not the people) of wikipedia, but not the understanding of wikipedians. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - ) 07:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- I want to start off this conversation by saying that I banned Vain for blanking a huge section of Socialists of Earth not for any of his other edits. Also the policy could be changed, but it in the vase of Vain, it is obvious that he was deliberate because he edited many articles and tried to brighten the public relations of everything related to Nordreich. J Andres 20:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, but the reason he blanked it wasn't to harm the wiki. It's because, like you said, he was trying to brighten public relations. The reason you banned him was because he was going against NPOV. But that is hardly vandalism. I didn't see that there was an actual attempt to get him to understand the NPOV policy here, and blocking him by calling him a vandal is hardly a good way to teach him something. It was obvious that it was deliberate that he was trying to brighten Nordreich public relations, which I don't think should be bannable. We should tell him that it is against our NPOV policy and if he refuses to stop removing/adding POV content, THEN we know that he is here to actively harm the wiki and then we can ban him for refusing to follow NPOV policy, and then perhaps call him a vandal. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - ) 22:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Although I wrote the policy, I agree it needs to be altered (I was actually hoping someone else would think this too and start a discussion like this). However, just defining vandalism as blanking is not going to be helpful, most vandalism is traditional vandalism, putting ridiculous lies or such things on a page. Also, I think that we should give warnings, I only intended the policy as I originally wrote it to be temporary, until we could get rid of the worst vandals, and until we had a chance to get around to this.
- However, the policy does say that it must be deliberate, so it is up to us to figure out if the potential vandal did it on purpose. I hate leaving it to just a decision like this, but I don't see a better way that would not (r tries not) to punish those who do not know what they are doing.Aido2002((talk)) 20:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's simple, change the wording. Make it so deliberate action that worsens an article isn't vandalism (as EVERY edit here is deliberate, is it not?), but action that deliberatly worsens an article or attacks the wiki is vandalism. Then people who simply don't understand the wiki aren't called vandals, and people who don't understand policy (NPOV, ect.) aren't vandals either. If we aren't sure if they are vandals who are purposefully out to harm the wiki (as opposed to getting changing an article to what they think is right), then we shouldn't ban them, only inform them. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - ) 22:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- "but people should know the policies fairly well by their 3rd or 4th edit". Interesting wish. But HIGHLY unlikely. A lot of people come here via direct link to an article, or see the main page and ONLY work on their nation/alliances article. For those people there is no reason to ever come across the policies unless they are described to them directly. Hence my idea of informing people before you label them vandals, and then warning them before you punish them. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - ) 00:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- First of all, let me clarify--I really meant 4th or 5th edit session, I accidentally removed the word session when I revised it a little, and removed a few words. However, they will probably come across the main page, which tells them to read the policies.
Also, let me say again, I'm not against the ideda of informing people first, as you seem to think: "Hence my idea of informing people before you label them vandals, and then warning them before you punish them." Aido2002((talk)) 21:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, then it appears irrelevant to guess when we think they would have read policies, as at the very latest, they will read it after they break one. Then it will be explained to them enough so they understand, and they'll be given a link to what policy they broke. I'll write up a new structure for this policy soon enough. -- Mason11987 (T - C - E - ) 21:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)