SmashWiki talk:Vandalism

So what is considered vandalisim excactly? For instance if someone put info down that is incorrect on there user page, such as pro or a crew they are in and someone changes it back, the person changes it back, etc etc whould the person who fixed the incorrect information be warned/banned for vandalism? ToXn 21:51, May 3, 2007 (GMT)

Smashboards bit

I think the paragraph about Smashboards-banned people coming here for retribution is out of date, since we aren't tightly affiliated with them anymore. We should get rid of it. Toomai Glittershine The Undirigible 10:39, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

Obviously.--PSIWolf (T • C • E) 10:42, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

no title

WHY THE CRAP DID YOU SAY I WAS THE SUCKIEST CHARACTER--Mr Gay & Watch (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2014 (EDT)

Amendment to include typical bad faith behaviours

This discussion is in regards to a proposed change on SmashWiki. The discussion must first meet with a consensus before it is implemented.

So a major blindspot in our policies is that we don't really make it clear that not all bad faith edits are vandalism, and that just because an edit is non-vandalising does not mean it is good faith. I think we need to expand this policy to also include information about other forms of bad faith, namely:

• Refusal to comply with warnings about one's behaviour and editing patterns on the site that may not violate specific policy. E.g continuing to make certain edits that have been deemed unconstructive, even after clear warning has been given.
• Unwillingness to co-operate with the requests of administrators who point out problematic behaviours of editors on the site. E.g repeated failure to correctly use the "show preview" feature, even after having the system of limiting rapid fire edits clearly explained.
• Repeatedly and knowingly ignoring article-specific editing notices and restrictions E.g repeatedly adding unsubstantiated origin claims on "alternate costumes" pages.

I understand that in many cases these behaviours are punished, however counter-intuitively there is actually no real mention of these behaviours on our policy pages, and I believe that all of the above qualify as "bad faith", and as such there should be official recognition in this policy that they are unacceptable. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 16:02, 22 October 2018 (EDT)

I know this was only a specific example, but I still maintain that we should never block for lack of show preview button. If a user is literally editing letter by letter or word by word, that's different obviously, but in most cases the offense isn't intrusive enough to warrant a block. I'll give my thoughts on this overall at a later time. Serpent  King 16:07, 22 October 2018 (EDT)

I don't know if this policy is the place for it unless there's a major restructuring, but I think it's a good idea to delineate bad-faith behavior further. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 11:54, 24 October 2018 (EDT)

Regarding that, I struggled to find a good place to put it, and it doesn't seem like something that needs its own entire policy page. Perhaps the vandalism policy can be changed to bad faith, with vandalism being the top example, while also including broader examples of bad faith as a whole? Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 11:59, 24 October 2018 (EDT)

Good solution. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 12:02, 24 October 2018 (EDT)