Tardis talk:Vandalism policy

Suggestion
I'm not sure if we do it here, but before blocking users after they do something, do we warn them first? If not, I think it is something we should do. For example, say I was editing a page, but accidentally wiped a page and didn't notice. Would I be immediately blocked for six months without a chance to explain or try to put right what I'd done wrong? Mc hammark 14:45, May 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally blatant vandalism (such as removing content, inserting offensive material etc) needs to be dealt with straight away.
 * As only admins can actually block they usually have enough discretion and knowledge to determine whether or not a user has accidentally removed content or done so deliberately.
 * However I'll add something to this effect stating that a warning should left in case of accidental deletion (or something along these lines). Thanks. --Tangerineduel 14:50, May 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, on a wiki, I blocked someone as they removed content from that page. The user then signed in, creating an account, on his PSP and told me that I had made a mistake and that the content he had removed was incorrect and that is why he did it. Since then, I have used a warning on all wikis I become admin on. If you want a template, I can supply you with a decent one. ☆ The  Solar  Dragon  ( Talk ) ☆ 16:23, May 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to add it, it might come in useful (Category:Templates is where all the templates reside). As we've experienced lately some users need to be blocked quite swiftly, but a degree of discretion is often useful, as is, on occasion a friendly word of explanation. --Tangerineduel 16:35, May 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Template:Vandalism. Explains how to use it as well. I think that this is the fifth wiki I have carried it over since discovering it. ☆ The  Solar  Dragon  ( Talk ) ☆ 20:44, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Final section seems out of place
When I encountered it, this policy page ended with the following section:
 * ==Leaked images and unsourced information==
 * Leaked images and unsourced information should not be posted, any information posted on the Doctor Who Wiki - TARDIS Index File should have a Doctor Who media source (ie TV, novel, comic strip, audio drama, etc) or a factual based information source. Blog sites and fan sites are not considered credible sources of information.

This seems to have nothing to do with vandalism, although it is a policy we might well want to have. Should it perhaps go into another policy page, or into a policy page of its own?

Isn't it just showing that this counts as vandalism.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 18:54, February 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it's supposed to show that it is vandalism to do that. It should also be on the spoiler policy page, if it's not there already. I think it should be kept here, but changed to being about general images. That way it can also include information about uploading unrelated images/out of universe images and for the few vandals that do, pornographic images. --The Thirteenth Doctor 19:00, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought that pornographic would fit under unrelated.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 19:04, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's unrelated... but I think someone uploading, for example, their personal drawings of the Doctor and changing his article image to that would be much less serious that someone uploading pornographic material and changing the article image, don't you? --The Thirteenth Doctor 19:21, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to specify cases as you then get bogged down in specifics.--Skittles the hog-- Talk 22:36, February 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * It should not really be seen as vandalism, but still seen as a blockable offence. Mini-mitch\talk 15:34, February 20, 2011 (UTC)