One Piece Wiki talk:Guidebook/Treatment of Vandalism

Rewrite into levels
Okay I'm gonna rewrite the Users and IP address vandal stuff into levels. For one its easier to understand. Secondly, its difficult to write templates for it.

Anyone who feels the need to speak out against this or has another opinion or idea, please don't remain quiet. One-Winged Hawk 08:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was going to do templates today, but due to the massive rewrite here I'm gonna sit on the issue for a day to let everyone else have chance to voice an opinion. One-Winged Hawk 08:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * For Vandals: For the first few templates that serve as warnings, polite "magic words" such as "Welcome", "Thank you", and "Please" must be a must on them and they shouldn't sound like threats. The first warning may mention banning but shouldn't suggest that the very next mistake a user makes will be the cause of them being banned. If the user continues to vandalize regardless of the warnings, the next templates should at least sound stricter but the fundamentals such as the use of the "magic words".


 * Anonymous users should be taken with more care. It is quite possible that the IP address is used by more than one person so banning the anonymous user for infinity might be a bad idea unless the a vast majority of edits coming from it are vandalism.Mugiwara Franky 11:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * IP users are harder to deal with... While we can't let a clearly unsupervised IP address continue editing, we have to be slightly looser on them generally. I haven/t started with levels for them yet, largely due to thinking on it. One-Winged Hawk 13:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Level 1
Demo text:

Hello and welcome to the One Piece Encyclopedia. We thank you for taking the time to edit articles.

While we encourage the editing of articles we have noted some of your recent edits may be mistaken as vandalism. If you are unaware of what may be considered as vandalism, please read our Treatment of Vandalism. This is a Level 1 vandalism warning. Please note this is part of our anti-vandalism procedures you will not be punished for the edits you have made upon issue of this warning.

If you have any questions please ask here. If you wish for a little practice or some fun check out the Community Café.

Okay a example of a level 1 issue for a registered editor. For a IP user it would be similar but we would have a note about signing up to avoid being blamed for others actions. Its not set in stone and is basically a quick up. It sounds a little too much businessman type... I wanted to note this is a level 1 warning but make sure a reader is a aware this is just procedure fluff. I don't think my quick up is very good though. :/ One-Winged Hawk 08:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It kinda sounds okay though. It's polite and direct to the point. Best of all, it doesn't sound or look like a threat at all.Mugiwara Franky 11:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Level 2
Demo text:

Hello and welcome to the One Piece Encyclopedia. We thank you for taking the time to edit articles.

As you have been warned once before that your actions might be mistaken as vandalism, You have received a Level 2 vandalism warning. Please note this is part of our anti-vandalism procedures. If you are unaware of what may be considered as vandalism, please read our Treatment of Vandalism. Futher failure to keep within the edit guidelines will result in further more serve punishments.

As part of your warning, the administration may decide you are liable for a one day ban.

Okay... This is a demo text of a level 2 warning.One-Winged Hawk 13:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging
One Piece Encyclopedia:Vandalism probably should be merged with this page. Ruxax 20:23, April 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * That page was set up after this one, but yet we don't need two pages. Though this one is primary the pne we use (didn't even know that other one existed). One-Winged Hawk 20:39, April 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh its one of Joekido's "Cut+ paste off another wikia" pages. I'm not suprised it exists... He knew we had this page... Or should have done.  ^_^'  One-Winged Hawk 21:22, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Banning
Sometimes when there is no admins around someone like User:Fronky 2 comes along and we cant do anything can a solution be proposed so Non Admins if they get enough votes can ban someone! Tuckyd 23:29, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

Just let an admin know and they will take care of it.  PX15 | What's up?

That isn't possible. The most a non-admin can get are rollback. SeaTerror 02:24, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Removing content from your own user talk page
While we have a "rule" about not removing messages/warnings from your own user talk page, this page does not mention that rule at all. Also, the details of this rule have always been a little sketchy in terms of what can and cannot be removed, and how things may be removed/hidden. We need to figure these rules out in a more defined manner, and be able to convey the policy to users who break it.

One thing I would like to change is that someone once told User:Genocyber that he could hide messages on his talk by using the code. I think that goes against the point of the rule because as far as looking at the page, you cannot see the message, and have no way of knowing what the message was about since he just left the == code for every message. Personally, I think if the post relates to editing in any way, it should not be allowed to be removed or hidden (Moving to an archive should be allowed though). 14:20, August 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a stupid rule,lets remove it..tonnes of users just remove messages instead of archiving em--

It's a real problem. If someone gets the Image Guidelines warning, then removes it, in the future if they break the policy, they'll just get warned again instead of getting the ban they should be getting. 14:28, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

Why are you even discussing this. 14:30, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

Because of people lik e  http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Firebreather628 who continually deleted warnings off his talk even after a ban. 14:32, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

Just add the rule in the page Sherlocks 14:35, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with roronoa, there is no point in forbidding an user to remove old messages. If you want to see the old messages, you look at the page history. A similar discussion was made about someone that asked an admin to delete his talk page, but that's different: in that case you are not able to contact the user nor look at the page history.

@JSD: if you have the time to check an archive you should have the time to check the history, beside by looking in the history you will immediately know when an user deleted some messages, so by checking what he deleted you will know if was warned and if he hide the message.

Old messages can be either deleted or archived, that's fine. But users who delete warnings or edit other peoples' messages left on their talk are a different matter altogether. 14:37, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

In nearly all cases of Image Guideline issues, I never look at the archive/history. If I don't see the IGR, I put it there, if I do see it, I contact an admin to give the user a stronger warning, and if they break the rule a 3rd time, I contact an admin for a ban. That whole system goes to shit if the warnings are removed. Most people don't check the history, and that's why the rule should exist. And I'm not an active enough user to know every single editor that's broken the rules in the last 3 months (or ever).

And I would like to reiterate that I only think this rule should exist for posts relating to editing, such as warnings or disputes between users. Removing things that have nothing to do with editing or whatever should be fine. 14:43, August 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * (not the place to put this up ... still .......)Oh yea 'bout the warnings,it's really stupid when people just place the warning template,I once came across a user talk page with around 5 IMG guidelines templates,.. I mean why dont u just explain what wrong they're doin instead of placing the template a 100 times :/ --

this rule should exist for all messages, unless unsigned or vulgar. if people dont want them on their page then they can just hide them or archive them, but they should still be there-- 14:54, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

The rule shouldn't apply to anything deemed harassment or the like. I consider harassment to fall under vulgarity in this case. It's something intended hurt that no one wants to look at. 15:30, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

Should we say something like "No warnings or guidelines posted on your talk may be removed without administrator permission. Other messages may be archived or removed at your discretion, but it might be an idea to check with the person who left it there first. Harassment and insults may be removed without giving notice." ? 15:41, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with harassment being removed, as long as some action is taken against the one who posts the harassment (ban, admin warning, ban forum, etc). Though I remember something awhile ago where a user (I think it was ST) was posting something that he felt was legit, but the page owner thought it was harassment, and they edit warred over it for awhile. In cases like that, I think the content should be left on the until an admin can decide if it's harassment or not. 15:46, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

How about if we let perceived harassment be removed, but if a user feels their message has been unfairly removed they get the chance to repeal it? No, that's just going to devolve into edit wars that way. Hmmm. We need to come up with a good solution to this. 15:51, August 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither solution is great. But it's easier for the admin to see the post in the context of the discussion if it's left up. As long as an admin deals with it in a timely fashion and there's not an edit war, it shouldn't be too hurtful to leave it up. 15:54, August 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * Then we just let the offended user tell the admin if they think they're being harassed? That works, as long as they know to do it. 15:57, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

I still think there is no need to a specific rule, but at worse I think Supernova's idea works just fine: simply don't allow to remove warnings, that's all that matters. @JSD: "In nearly all cases of Image Guideline issues, I never look at the archive/history." - then you prove my point, if you don't look in archives, which are allowed, then I don't see where is the point to forbid removing messages: they would simply move them in an archive, like everyone do. But if you indeed start looking through the archives, then I don't see why you shouldn't do the same in the page history, where it's immediately visible when an user is deleting stuff. To solve the issue, I propose we should just make a page where we keep "the score". That way we will have in one place a record of everyone without checking each user. Think it as a "criminal record" of the wiki.


 * But Levi, if all that information can remain in one place (user talk page), why should we need to create more work for everyone? I simply don't have the time to check secondary pages like the history of the page (nearly all image guideline issues come from new users who do not even know how to archive talk pages, so that's not really an issue here). Leaving the posts on the user talk page is simple, and covers the bases, while requiring them to be moved to another page like an archive or wiki criminal record greatly increases the work for people to actually move them/make sure things are properly moved/tracked. Also, for the person who needs to retrieve the information, it adds many more pages that need to be loaded, which can be quite troublesome for those with sub-par internet connections like I sometimes have. Normally, I only need to load 2 pages for a warning, the image's page and the user talk page. But if messages can be removed, then I will also need to load the user talk's history page, find where the post was removed (which is at minimum one page, maybe more), doubling the the amount of pages and work I have to do before I can take action. And if the criminal record page is made, I would also have to post there to keep track of the warning I just made, adding more pages I need to edit.


 * With all the intricacies involved, I don't see why we can't just leave all warnings (including those from non-admin users relating to edit wars or something) on the user talk page. I don't see the benefit of letting them be removed. 16:46, August 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * But that's one of the problems. Users removing warnings from their own talk pages and pretending nothing happened. There has to be something in place to provide guidelines for banning these people. 16:51, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying that when you warn someone you also edit that log and add "a strike" and possibly the reason, that's what it means "having all the informations in one place" (and I never said you have to move anything), with just a glance you will know who did what. What about when other messages pile ups in the talk page? You still have to read the whole page, and as I said the user can still archive the page. That works out even to keep track with experienced users like SeaTerror or others.

Anyway, I prefer things as they are, but if you say that's a pain in the ass, then just don't allow to remove warnings, but also not removing general messages from the talk pages is an unnecessary rule in my opinion.

Nobody should be allowed to remove messages from his own talk page unless they are spam/vandalism. Of course everyone can archive his talk page, nothing wrong with that. 08:28, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

And if there are no kind of warnings, why should I have to archive and not simply remove all of them? Do you enjoy reading others' conversations? It's something commonly allowed in wikis, so I don't really see why it shouldn't be here.


 * "Nobody should be allowed to remove messages from his own talk page unless they are spam/vandalism" ??? dafaq was this rule made for is the question.--

What 10:10, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, should we just poll it? And if we do, how should we go about it to address the different strengths people want it to have? I'm thinking we might want to poll them separately, as in one poll for warnings/editing disputes, another for all non spam/vandalism posts. Does that sound ok? 13:08, September 3, 2013 (UTC)