UESPWiki:Archive/CP Vandalism Policy

Vandalism Policy

Moved from . Policy discussions go here (or on appropriate policy, etc. page). --Wrye 20:24, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

There has been a great deal of Vandals lately I just think that we are giving them too much slack and that a 0-tolerance policy is needed for deleting a page and replacing it with profanities is no mistake and its not like they are going to be scared to not be able to make an account we can literally cut the vandalism at least in half by enacting a 0-tolerance policy. These are just some thoughts and I would like to hear what you have to say because honestly I don't really like looking for information and finding nothing but vulgar.--Most Honored Listener 13:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Wow, run-on sentences.  Yikes.
:Anyway, I entirely disagree that a zero-tolerance policy is needed here.  Most vandalism is caught so fast that it doesn't even make an impact on users of the site.  While it is true that a lot of vandals need to be blocked, I've also seen cases where people supposedly just didn't know any better and stop doing it.  I haven't been here long enough to know if there have actually been cases where a one-time vandal starts making helpful edis, but I think we should maintain our current policy on the off chance that such cases might occur. --Eshe 14:11, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I don't personally think that the current policies need to be changed to something as draconian as a zero-tolerance policy.  However, if you think that changes are needed, my user talk page is not the place to propose or discuss policy changes.  Any such changes would require the input of the entire community, and therefore  or  would be the appropriate place to start such a discussion. --Nephele  14:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:: I wasn't aware that it was possible to not think that vulgar would be though to be OK for a wiki. I also did not know that there was a page dedicated to talking about the issues of vandalism, . Also seeing as how the vast majority of users haven't actually run into vandalism it gives the patrols something to do.--Most Honored Listener 15:21, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm a little confused by your last statement, but just to be clear: vulgarity/obscenities/nonsense is not tolerated here, which is why we make every effort to clean it up.  Language on user pages, the IRC, and the forums (as far as I know) is a slightly different story.  Should you encounter any vandalism, feel free to fix it. --Eshe 15:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: It was said that there are some people who vandalize but them go on to do good edits after they have been warned right because if this is not the case what is the point of just a warning when all they will do is just vandalize again?--Most Honored Listener 15:39, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: Personally, I haven't seen anyone who was clearly a vandal go on to become a productive editor afterwards, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen, I suppose.  But anyhow, if they continue to vandalize after a warning, then we DO block them.  One warning is usually enough, but it's simple enough to block on the second offense if necessary.  Also, there are some cases where a block is not necessarily proceeded by a warning.  Spammers, for instance, and other bots are not tolerated at all, and are generally blocked on the first instance.  Also, even human vandals who do excessive amounts of damage in a short time are usually blocked without a warning.  But blocking on the first offense for minor vandalism is not usually done.  Many of these types of edits come from public IPs such as schools and libraries, and blocking them outright has the potential to block other editors who might end up using the same computer later on.  (This is also the reason that vandalism blocks are typically temporary rather than permanent, except in extreme cases.)  At any rate, as Nephele said, this is not the place for this discussion.  We should probably move this to one of the other pages she suggested. --TheRealLurlock   15:49, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: OK, I'm having a hard time keeping up with the discussion here.  So this is somewhat of a response to about the last four or five contributions, and also repeats several other editor's comments.
::::::First, we definitely do not tolerate vandalism to articles and such edits all get reverted as soon as anyone sees them.  The reason for the current policy isn't just to "give patrollers something to do"... believe me, there is already way too much for patrollers to keep up with, even without any vandalism.  As Eshe said, if you'd like to help out, you're welcome to do so.
::::::Second, have you actually taken the time to read the policy at  and ?  Because a warning is only the first step of the process.  The warning ensures that the editor realizes that their edits have been monitored, that we know exactly who made the edits, and that there are consequences for the edits.  If someone continues to vandalize after being warned, then the account is blocked.  
::::::As for changing the policy, one key question is whether the policy change would actually do anything to reduce the amount of vandalism.  And, frankly, I don't think that a zero-tolerance policy would make a significant difference, since 95% of vandals only ever make a single wiki edit, and generally that's even without a warning telling them to stop.  On the other hand, a zero-tolerance policy would also inevitably block some new editors who simply have made a mistake.  There have been a half-dozen cases of edits that I thought were definite vandalism, but in fact turned out to just be mistakes.  I'd rather not intimidate new editors, or needlessly block IP addresses that may be shared by thousands of people, when there's no evidence that it would make a noticeable overall difference in the amount of vandalism.
::::::Again, that's just my opinion, and since you're asking the question on my talk page instead of in a more general forum, you should not assume that any statements made here represent a community consensus.  If you really want to pursue this question, a community-wide discussion would be better. --Nephele  15:58, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::Reviewing various comments above and my own experience, I don't see sufficient reason to change policy. And yes, I have occasionally seen new editors make an edit that would be considered as vandalism (e.g., something like "Hooowwaaahhh! Naked girls.") -- only to quickly fix it with a following valid edit with useful content. Shrug, that's part of new editors figuring out that "freedom to edit everything" doesn't necessary mean you should edit everything. Normal part of wiki learning curve. --Wrye 20:37, 25 July 2007 (EDT)