SmashWiki talk:Vandalism: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
(→Amendment to include typical bad faith behaviours: new section) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
<s>'''WHY THE CRAP DID YOU SAY I WAS THE SUCKIEST CHARACTER--[[User:Mr Gay & Watch|Mr Gay & Watch]] ([[User talk:Mr Gay & Watch|talk]]) 17:28, 8 September 2014 (EDT)'''</s> | <s>'''WHY THE CRAP DID YOU SAY I WAS THE SUCKIEST CHARACTER--[[User:Mr Gay & Watch|Mr Gay & Watch]] ([[User talk:Mr Gay & Watch|talk]]) 17:28, 8 September 2014 (EDT)'''</s> | ||
== Amendment to include typical bad faith behaviours == | |||
{{proposal}} | |||
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. ''[[User:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: blue;">'''Alex'''</span>]] the [[User talk:Trainer Alex|<span style="color: red;">'''Jigglypuff trainer'''</span>]]'' 16:02, 22 October 2018 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 15:02, October 22, 2018
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)
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)
