SmashWiki talk:Quietly deal with vandals

credits

Guildwiki's QDV policy. --Shadowcrest 00:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

discussion

I like this policy, and it addresses an important problem of giving trolls/vandals exactly the attention they want. Miles (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Things like User talk:128.255.62.70, User talk:Paragommbasucks, comments in User_talk:Clarinet_Hawk/Archive_6#Vandals and other such pages are all too common. --Shadowcrest 21:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that this policy/guideline/whatever you want to call it is a nice addition; vandals and trolls are trying to provoke a reaction, and when we respond by shouting insults at them, etc., we just exacerbate the situation by proving to the vandal/troll that they're having an effect (not to mention that a dedicated vandal isn't gonna quit because you were mean to them and hurt their feelings). – Defiant Elements +talk 21:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Tá, tá trolls brón siad. I'm Alex25, King of Randomness! Say Hi to me! Random stuff! 21:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, that should have been ort not siad. I'm Alex25, King of Randomness! Say Hi to me! Random stuff! 21:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

English please? --Shadowcrest 22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, trolls are sad. I'm Alex25, King of Randomness! Say Hi to me! Random stuff, Mah boi! 22:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. You see, I usually get ticked off at vandals, but I don't say anything until after they're banned for two reasons.
1. Some users uploaded Kimodo Dragon images and put them on several pages. When I told him something along the lines of "Are you kidding me?", he left images on his own talk pages.
2. The only way they can retaliate after their ban is on their talk page, which doesn't really cause a bother.
Again, my apologies. I shall refrain from further insults to vandals before, during, or after their block. MarioGalaxy ^{A Galaxy begins anew...} 22:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't really directed at you, you just happened to have the first examples I saw :P --Shadowcrest 22:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Still, I'm an example. Plus, it not only affects IPs, but it can cause other users (even friends) problems as well. For example, when I was still handicapped, I reverted some vandals' edits when everyone was at school/college. I called one of these vandals a "fruit loop". Fyre then said I should refrain from such, saying it could be taken differently. BNK retaliated on my behalf (even though I simply left an apology on Fyre's page), insulting Fyre. This resulted in one of his recent bans. MarioGalaxy ^{A Galaxy begins anew...} 22:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but it doesn't mention the warning template. Cheezperson {talk}stuff 23:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I especially like "Spend the minimal amount of time/effort as necessary to counter vandalism." I suggest we reorganize the policy, though; it's tough to follow ten undifferentiated points. We could recast the "Details" section in two parts, the first ("Process of dealing with vandals" or something) taking the editor through the steps of dealing with a vandal -- first assume good faith, next revert edits, then notify an admin if it gets bad -- and the second ("corollaries") including all the do nots -- don't engage in flame wars, etc. It would help editors understand how a vandal situation can unfold and the specific way to act as the vandalism escalates. – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 07:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)