Forum:GEMW Vandalism

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > GEMW Vandalism
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 16 June 2010 by Calebchiam.

After just finishing reverting quite a few cases of GEMW vandalism I am sick of the minor warning that users get for changing these pages when they are fully aware of what they are doing . I Think that the wiki needs to take a tougher stance on this kind of vandalism since on every exchange page there is a clear template warning the editor that adding fake values/nonsense etc is considered vandalism. Why should we assume the editors ignorance when they are clearly defacing a page and just to warn them when it is clear that the vandal set out to wrongly edit that page. I'm not talking about people who have say forgotten to add a zero or messed up the order of a couple of numbers or any other things in good faith but people like these
Vandal 1
Vandal 2
who are knowingly vandalising those pages. Also why should we just assume that by some miracle the vandals are going to revert from their vandalish ways and provide the wiki with good quality edits with our slap on the wrist method of warning that is currently in place.
Proposal: Block those who edit the exchange articles without warning should their actions be without a doubt in bad faith.


Discussion

Support - As nominator User:Timwac 16:05, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - No. Everyone deserves a second chance. Btw, I wouldn't really consider those examples vandalism, as they could both be test edits. bad_fetustalk 16:08, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Most vandals come once then never come again, and if they do they get a few days worth of a block and THEN never come again. Its very rare that a vandal comes again and again, so there's no reason for such a harsh punishment. Also the "minor warning" is because of a hugely important policy we have about artfully growing flowers. What if someone was just testing? Or if they didn't know what they were doing? Its unlikely, but possible. kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 16:14, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comment So your saying if i were to go out onto the street right now and gun down the nearest person they shouldn't prosecute me because i MAY have been aiming at a bird and my unfortunate victim just HAPPENED to be in the way? User:Timwac 16:24, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
The point is, there is a difference between shooting something and accidentally knocking someone down. bad_fetustalk 16:31, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yes there is a differance to the driver not to the authorities do u think if you accidentally knocked someone down that you wouldn't get the blame? My point is that the action has been done in full knowledge that what they are doing is wrong (the editor has been warned by the template)so there is no reason to assume ignorance as the edit could not have been in good faith User:Timwac 16:47, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
I thought we were talking about making things accidentally, how is the editor supposed to have full knowledge when they make it as an accident? Also, I'm shocked by "do u think if you accidentally knocked someone down that you wouldn't get the blame?". We are supposed to be fair, just because things may be unfair in the real world doesn't mean that we have to be unfair too. bad_fetustalk 17:04, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Please, assume good faith. It is entirely possible for someone to buy an item off of the GE, see how much it cost them and then update the price accordingly, in an attempt to help. Unfortunately, not all items sell or buy for the middle price ;) Ajraddatz Talk 18:17, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Blocking vandals without warning and/or for first offences is a big no-no in my book (with the exception of vandals who are completely out of line - things that would be eligible for the revision to be hidden). If they did something wrong, give them a warning and assume that they will heed it. If they don't, then blocking becomes an option. Not before. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 20:11, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - RS:SNOW? ⁓ Hello71 21:16, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

No, give any supporters a chance. The forum has been open for what, one day? Let it run for a week. Ajraddatz Talk 21:17, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Thank you, Ajr. Leftiness 01:10, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
Any supporters? There are none. ⁓ Hello71 01:15, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
...And if we close it now, then there never will be. Give it a chance. Ajraddatz Talk 01:56, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral- Tim, I understand where you're coming from. I can see that those edits were obviously vandalism. I don't really believe in "test edits," especially when the editor is changing 15,000,000 to 1; those editors were obviously editing with the intent of, for lack of a better phrase, messing it up. However, as a wiki, a place where anyone may edit and we, in fact, need new editors to continue our existence, we have to "turn the other cheek," so to speak, even in the face of obvious vandalism such as the two cases listed above. Of course we can revert the edits with RS:UCS... Leftiness 01:10, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are wrong. There are tonnes of people out there that will make an nonconstructive edit to a wiki just to see if it works or not. That is called a test edit, and it also accounts for a large number of "vandal" edits. This is actually a proven fact, per survey of Wikipedia. Ajraddatz Talk 01:43, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Unless we rewrite RS:AGF, this violates policy. --Aburnett(Talk) 01:11, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - There is absolutely no way such a harsh punishment for a possibly good-intentioned editor could not violate RS:AGF. ʞooɔ 01:53, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It doesn't take much to undo a vandal's edit. And per Abernett. -- xScoobsx Talk Contribs 01:59, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Extremely Strong Oppose - The first time that I edited a Wikipedia page, I accidentally submitted something while trying to preview it. What I submitted was complete nonsense, and rather similar to the examples you had given. If I had been blocked for that, I would not have found Wikipedia to be a nice place, and would likely have never edited it again. Instead, I was notified of my mistake, and continued happily editing. I think that users should be given the same opportunity on the RuneScape Wiki. Both of the edits above look very much like test edits to me. If there was swearing in it, then I would consider it vandalism on the first edit. Per my argument, all opposers, and RS:AGF. I'm a regular user and I approve this message.  TLUL Talk - Contribs 02:49, May 27, 2010 (UTC) 

Closed - The proposal does not pass. C.ChiamTalk 03:40, June 16, 2010 (UTC)