Forum:Vandalism and Unhelpful Content Policy
I've recently created a Tardis:Vandalism and Unhelpful Content Policy for this wiki, it's a bit rough and ready, so any input / changes that people think would be good. Just thought considering we often get his with vandalism it would be good to have something to refer to. Some of its based (very vaguely) off the wikipedia article, some off the top of my head/from experience dealing with vandals/useless page contributions etc. So any additions, discussions or whatever would be useful. Thanks --Tangerineduel 17:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Let`s see...
- I don`t think removing all content should have quite that much of a punishment. I believe I accidentally did it once. Perhaps the banning times should be switched with actual vandalism.
- The terms for a unhelpful page seem a bit harsh. I mean, it`s not like you can put a whole lot for every topic.
- We might want to point out that the more vandalism done at one time, the longer the blocking.
- Other than that, I can`t see anything wrong. -<-Azes13 13:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- The unhelpful content one is the one that I couldn't work out how to phrase correctly. What I'm talking about are the pages that people create that have no information in and of themselves such as; X: X passed the Doctor and companion on the way to a place, X bought a hotdog...etc. It's a bit of a vague area... --Tangerineduel 14:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, tough call... -<Azes13 16:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, can a just share a few thoughts with you, I’ve recently seen examples of deliberate vandalism on the site and I agree with the need for some sort of policy. But I worry sometimes for sanctions that have no redress in cases of non-deliberate or unintentional acts. I would be happier in policy if ‘should’ , for example be replaced by ‘could’, this gives an opportunity to accept an apology/explanation within say 24 hours, and allow some flexibility depending on the nature of the incident, especially when the incident appears `out of character`. For repeated acts it would be clear, of the intention and so the maximum agreed blocking time could be implemented.
- I wasn’t sure why a registered user should be dealt with more harshly than an unregistered user, as visitors to the wiki are encouraged to get involved and sign up, I would have thought they are more likely they have some commitment to constructive input. (As it says under `why should you?` I don’t know why either, it just does!)
- I too have accidentally deleted a page, so some form of first time warning that it has occurred and been noted would be good with maybe a suggestion to be careful of pressing ‘save’ when re-editing and maybe an brief tip on how to recover a lost page. As a newbie it nearly put me off. Any repeated or further removals could then be assumed deliberate.
- I agree `Unhelpful content` - tricky one this! I for example, have red linked a number of topics in my contributions that I hope will warrant the justification of an entry at some future point. (Not always immediately obvious I hasten to add). I could have set up each of these pages with a one liner, but have decided not too until I am sure I have something to contribute, although I am aware (and often being reminded!) that the wiki is there for others to contribute to. Occasionally though, others will create red links/pages in the hope that someone will contribute something. In this case I agree with some sort of warning but perhaps, again, a first time notice along the lines of This is a warning. Articles (or pages) have been created that are unhelpful or unconstructive. This may be because they are of minimal content, or are seen as lacking any further development. If you continue with this action you may be blocked from the TARDIS Index File for… (possibly 1 month for time to reconsider or whatever)
- Regarding the alteration of user pages, perhaps a tagline at the top along the lines of `if this is not your User page please do not edit and instead post any comments on the User’s `my talk` page’. I know it sounds basic, but I got confused first time.
- Sorry I don’t understand the 2 hour bit before blocking. Inappropriate conduct with regards a user page is just that. Period. Content on the talk page is different, up for `discussion` and surely up to the user if it is deemed problematic.
Anyway just a few thoughts, hope they help, sorry they're not too concise. The Librarian
