UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Explicit vandalism listing

Discuss.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:29, 13 October 2009 (BST)

The danger here is that "According to the policy me calling grim a little fiffan zinja isnt vandalism, because its not on your list". --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:53, 13 October 2009 (BST)

See Giles' comment. It outlines perfectly what I was thinking of as final text.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:42, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Unfortunately for you, making policy discussions in the weeks or days leading up to your bid for promotion only works a treat if the policy is well thought out and worthwhile.--CyberRead240 16:56, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Oh shi-! I forgot about that. Ah well, I might not apply for now, I still need to do more stuff before I'm applicable.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:42, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Sarcasm gets you nowhere really, your policy sucks and it isn't well thought out. If you want to be a sysop you have to be more assured about what you want and how you are going to change it and why you think it benefits the common user, not "if dis iz shitz, tellz me an ill can it LUL". It just shows you have no real nous when it comes to the crunch parts of the wiki, if you are so easily influenced by what others think of what you do. Have some confidence in yourself.--CyberRead240 06:57, 14 October 2009 (BST)

I think it should be an open policy, one that can change and be added to. If those type of policies exist. Otherwise you'll get people trying to worm around the policy, as per Ross' comment. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}17:01, 13 October 2009 (BST)

I was debating whether such an idea existed too. If such an idea did, it would be best. Or to update it as precedents became apparent.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:42, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Eh, the system sucks because sops just choose whats vandalism and whats not. A better idea imho than this would be a list of all useful precedent. IE DDR can say 'jeds edit is vandalism coz lookie, the same thing happened back in 07'. Obviously not everything has precedent but a handy list of useful a/vb cases would be nice. Your idea is well intentioned but just too impractical. Also waht was the end result of the jed talkpage drama? Charlie gave up coz boxy removed the category? --xoxo 17:20, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Are you kidding? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 19:09, 13 October 2009 (BST)

In fact, fuck it, I'm unloading. If you think for one fucking second that all I wanted in this was to keep a stupid little pissy fight going with you, then you can just go back to sucking Nicks dick in whatever asian country you're at just now, don't bother fucking coming back here to the wiki. All I wanted was for the page to be categorised, Boxy did that (ie. doing me the favour, not you) which was what I suggested in the first place so you just shut the fuck up and maybe think for a second that you are the one that basically "backed down" from making as much drama as possible for the sake of shitting me off. You were the one under the obligation to revert Boxy's edit, not me. And we are the ones on a vendetta/bearing a grudge here, aren't we? Sheesh. I'm actually appalled but not surprised that both you and Iscariot actually believe that's what you thought my intentions were in all this. Honestly. Appalled. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 19:17, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Jed, would you be agreeable to the variety of list that Giles mentions below. (Not that it really matters, considering how I'm probably going to get rid of this policy after the negative feedback.)--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:42, 13 October 2009 (BST)

edit conficted: So phrase it to avoid worming/wiki-lawyering: "This is a reference list of specific types of edits that have been determined to be vandalism by the wiki community. However, this list does not include every possible act of vandalism, since bad-faith edits are determined on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, a particular type of edit can still be vandalism without appearing on this list."

Also, if you put this list together each item on the list should have an link to an example showing where it was ruled vandalism. Finally, there should be room for the community to have input on any controversial items before the list is "officially" declared, and the list should be alterable by community input. If you ask me it's a great idea and it's about time this wiki had something resembling a code of laws.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 17:42, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I realised this problem after I went off to play on the wii, and thought of that sort of solution. I was definitely intending for the open discussion and development to happen, but the policy doesn't seem to be a good idea, considering the opinions that have been posted here.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:42, 13 October 2009 (BST)

I'm very against this policy. I think it's high time we perma'd everyone and let the wiki slide into that sweet oblivion.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:13, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Codifying it like this will just make users like Iscariot get off on his 'policies and precedences' more. It's the opposite to a solution. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 19:09, 13 October 2009 (BST)

"Less wiki-lawyering, not more," and I agree. Case-by-case resolutions are far better, especially because in the opposite case we could have conflicting/schizophrenic/irrelevant precedents being applied or ignored resulting in more "misconduct" for improperly using or not adhering to them. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:18, 13 October 2009 (BST)

And as cited the whole reason for this was because I threatened a user with a 'vandalism report' (which isn't even such a big goddamn deal) and instead of working to fix the problem, some came to the table and unnecessarily fought to make the problem bigger, which happened to be exactly what the user wanted and the opposite of what I wanted. The point is, what happened on J3D's talk page isn't exactly the best example of why we would need a rule like this, it's more of an example to see where peoples loyalties on the wiki's well-being lies. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 19:25, 13 October 2009 (BST)

That was an example, not a reason for making this. True, it's what led me to realise that there were problems in the current system, but it wasn't the direct cause.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:42, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Sorry but this is rubbish. The current system has plenty of flaws but it does mostly works, a bit, kind of. However this is going to end up being a huge monolithic nightmare that will clog the system and allow certain trolls and rules lawyers to stir up no end of drama. What is really needed is truly neutral treatment of all cases on merit, the only way to achieve that is to eradicate the biggest flaw in the system.... sysop judgement and bias. Now before someone jumps down my throat for that statement I should stress that its an impossible task to achieve because sysops are still human (except Bob who is a cyborg sent from the future to destroy mankind) Basically what is needed is a wider pool of people; voted specifically to deal with vandalism; to insure a good range of views will be judging the dodgy borderline cases. --Honestmistake 20:06, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Mistake, any ideas on who these people are specifically? because we also seem to need a few more active sops.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:11, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Not really been too active recently so I wouldn't want to put any names forward, it would probably only poison their chances anyway ;) --Honestmistake 20:24, 13 October 2009 (BST)

That's the problem though, Ross. There's no-one active in the community worthy of being a sysop who isn't already (other than you).--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:01, 13 October 2009 (BST)

And the solution to the problem is to introduce this piece of shit? Really? Cyberbob  Talk  21:13, 13 October 2009 (BST)

No, it is frankly a terrible policy. people can and will put all kinds of stuff up on vandal banning. I think the main strength of the current system is that each case is considered seperately. Theres no way you can make a definitive list of vandalism. "Bad faith edit" fits the bill for me. Yonnua, I hope you can see here where more rules and regulations actually makes it harder to do stuff. And if anyone does want to be more wiki active, then yep, of course I'll help. There are literally hundreds of things users can do to make the wiki better. I've never written a policy in my life, and I probably never will. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:27, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I can see that, and I knew that there were vague errors in the idea of the policy before, but lots of the points here have convinced me that the problems are too severe to be even remotely accepteable. I'll be removing the policy post haste.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:50, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Umm, no? Did you read what led in to that? This policy has nothing to do with sysops. end of.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:50, 13 October 2009 (BST)

This is pretty dumb and smells rather strongly of someone looking to "make their mark" on the wiki - but not being able to come up with an actually good idea for a policy, they are going ahead with the least bad one they could come up with and are hoping for the best. Cyberbob  Talk  21:12, 13 October 2009 (BST)

While it's clear that there isn't any support for this policy, there is still the potential to do some good by creating a list of vandalism edits (not every single edit, just examples of edits that will get you vandal escalated). And you don't need a new policy to put a list together, you can just do it. You might start by putting it in your userspace and welcoming input from the community. And if some day it grows into a useful list it might have a place in the mainspace. This would still accomplish the heart of your proposal without having to codify it and provide fodder for the lawyers.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 21:44, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Why are you talking to me? This is Yonnua's policy. Cyberbob  Talk  21:47, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Actually, bob, this is one of the only things I've done recently which isn't about trying to become a sysop. Before recieving the feedback, I was actually considering whether or not this was a good idea.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:48, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Well now you know. Next time (god forbid) I would suggest running whatever idea you have past a few people on their talk pages first. Cyberbob  Talk  21:55, 13 October 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I thought about that, but I thought that kind of defeated the purpose of A/PD, because lots of the active community watch Recent Changes anyway. Plus, it's a useful skill to know how to do PD anyway. Ah well, I definitely will next time, if I indeed ever do suggest a policy again.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:59, 13 October 2009 (BST)