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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)