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)

Link moving
As it stands, it has come to light that users can move most pages without Admin help, as per T:MOVE LOCK, substantially speeding up the process of renames on the Wiki.

However, this page states that:

And through this minor rule, while users can change literally every single link on the Wiki pertaining to a renamed page... we can't on user pages. Changing Franklin to Franklin (Adam) is apparently vandalism. On the same level of... y'know... actual vandalism. This is plainly backwards and serves no purpose in 2022.

So by a strict application of policy, in order for me to get the link Franklin to be changed to Franklin (Adam) on User talk:ThomasRWade, I must... And in this time, the functionality of links on the Wiki begins to worsen, as now there is a page that is supposed to lead to Jack Harkness's dad that instead links to a page all about the different people in the DWU called Franklin.
 * 1) Type out a message on the very same talk page to the user who the page belongs to, which can take a good minute or so
 * 2) Wait for this user to respond, which could take days, that is if they respond, which they have no obligation to do so
 * 3) And even if they do see the talk page message, they have no obligation to actually do anything about it

So I have to go to an Admin...
 * 1) I have to type out another talk page message
 * 2) I have to wait for this Admin to respond, if they respond
 * 3) They may decide to not respond or act upon my message
 * 4) Then I must contact another Admin

All this could take days, if not weeks to move a single bloody link. Or it could be acceptable for non-admins to change links on user pages, making the process of getting a single link to be changed take less than ten seconds to do. Don't forget we're all volunteers here, we often don't have the time to wait around for days hoping a user will change a single link. As it stands, I currently have a lot of college work to do. I don't have the damn time to spend ages trying to get one link changed.

Furthermore, on what rational planet would changing a single link even remotely constitute as vandalism? Changing a link for the functionality of the Wiki is not, in any way, vandalism.

Therefore, I propose the current way the paragraph is worded to be changed slightly.

I feel changing "admin and bots" to "users" makes logical sense, and also, I don't feel that mentioning bots is necessary, considering there is literally only one bot working on this Wiki. (I've also capitalised Wiki, so that should be carried over.) 📯 📂 16:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, how this page defines vandalism is objectionable. Of course this Wiki has it's own distinctions, but when the definition of vandalism is:


 * How does a non-admin moving a link even remotely enter the scope of vandalism even by the loosest definition?
 * And furthermore, when the exact same edit is performed by an Admin, then there cannot be vandalism involved. Vandalism is vandalism, no matter who performs it. So it either is or isn't vandalism. It cannot be both. 📯 📂 17:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

See, you're making the same mistake that another user did regarding spoilers. The wiki's definition (and policy based on) of vandalism (and spoilers) is necessarily different from the dictionary definition. And they are spelled out in the policy pages. In the case of vandalism, admins are permitted to make certain actions that other users are not - that is incorporated into our definition of vandalism, because someone has to do the dirty work.

While your point is certainly valid, the problem is that there are different kinds of users. There are well-established and trusted users like yourself and so many others, and then there are the new users who misguidedly fall afoul of policy, and of course the users who are just plain trolls or vandals. The policy has to cover all kinds of users, and unfortunately because of the actions of the last group, we have to make the policy strict. Shambala108 ☎  20:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * While I do agree that the Wiki's definition of vandalism is different from the dictionary, as I have stated already, there comes are point where it is so different it no longer resembles the actual term we're using. This is one of those instances. There is genuinely no way a standard using changing a link for maintenance purposes could in any way be construed as a bad thing. And what I am saying isn't that we should strip back the entire policy, just reword a single point so that normal editors can enact necessary link changes during renames. This wouldn't mean that a standard editor could edit another user's page as they please; just link changes. 📯 📂 20:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the compliment however, I do appreciate it. :) 📯 📂 20:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)