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I think the paragraph about Smashboards-banned people coming here for retribution is out of date, since we aren't tightly affiliated with them anymore.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 is a closed discussion about a failed proposed change on SmashWiki. It remains for archival purposes. The closing administrator adds: "superseded by SmashWiki:Bad faith"

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)

I think this is a decent solution as well... but I think it will need to go through sufficient drafting and revision as to the actual language. I think a big problem with making it a policy is that it's very much up to administrators' discretion, and that can be hard to convey, and may result in people issuing warnings "on our behalf" without it actually being problematic or threatening enforcement when we don't intend to take any. IMO it would be better suited to being a guideline... and also part of it falls under just general "wikietiquette" (do we have a page on this already? I don't see one). – Emmett 13:54, 24 October 2018 (EDT)

I definitely agree with that. I agree that we probably should have a more expanded guide to what is considered bad faith, but such a guide should absolutely not be written by one person. Serpent  King 13:57, 24 October 2018 (EDT)

Vandalized pages

Okay! Tell me what pages are vandalized and I'll start hunting them donw!

Uh, that's not how it works. If a page is vandalized someone would've already reverted them. CookiesCreme 14:26, October 8, 2019 (EDT)

Oops! I didn't even think that! Y'know, I've been blocked from the Super Mario Wiki for vandalizing a trick animation of Donkey Kong from Mario Kart 8 for calling it a "dab". I think we should only add "dabs" from Smash games, if I think it's memetic enough, or else. 209.140.37.180 09:18, October 9, 2019 (EDT)

I already said SmashWiki is no place for that dab trash. We only mention memes that are well known and are actually relevent to the Smash fandom like the Knee of Justice. SupαToαd64, the Best 09:25, October 9, 2019 (EDT)

I'd like to point out that we actually do mention stuff like that, but it has to be a widespread meme. Alex the Jigglypuff trainer 09:28, October 9, 2019 (EDT)

In a frame of Little Mac's KO Uppercut, there's a frame for him that seems to have him doing the dab, but I don't it's this memetic. 63.143.195.55 09:36, October 9, 2019 (EDT) I said if I think it's memetic enough. 63.143.195.55 09:37, October 9, 2019 (EDT)

Here's a tip: if you spend a lot of time searching for a dab that's "memetic", it's most likely not noteworthy. CookiesCreme 09:41, October 9, 2019 (EDT)

You know what, I just feel like that Skippa Da Flippa WAS the REAL creator of the dab in 2014, but became even more popular in the world in 2015. Skippa Da Flippa created the dab before Super Smash Bros. 4 was released but maybe after Mario Kart 8 was released. 63.143.192.125 17:52, October 9, 2019 (EDT)