User:StonedChipmunk/Vandalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[edit] IntroductionVandalism is a pain in the rump. If you're a vandal and you're reading this, go screw yourself. Or, better yet, vandalize this page and I'll use up your only warning. Yep, I'll compile all 3 warnings into one. I'm serious. Try me. If I'm not here, I'll be sure to get you later. Someone will just come along and clean it up for me anyways, so what's the use? [edit] IP Editing ProposalThe thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it. Anyone, including vandals. I think that Wikipedia, although it would go against their standards, should not allow anon IPs to edit. Anyone can edit it - if they have an account. It's free. What's the problem with making an account? Furthermore, vandalism levels will drop fast if everyone has an account. A no tolerance rule for vandalism should be also put into effect: guilty unless proven innocent. If you vandalize, you have 48 hours to explain or you're permanently banned (account block, not IP). This would fix vandalism altogether. [edit] Vandalism Warning TemplatesThe Wikipedia warning templates serve very little purpose. First, most standard warning templates do not include an image. An image notifies the user has done something wrong and should read the message (color and visually pleasing images do catch readers' attention). However, if the message is very kind and says something like "Welcome to Wikipedia! Please read the manual of style and vandalism articles. We don't like the edits you made." and it does not even have an image at all it doesn't really notify the user of much. I try to use my FirstWarning template when I see a user who has done a mild to moderate first-time vandalism issue, but for blanking pages and severely editing articles (or creating new articles made for the sole purpose of attacking someone) I sometimes use the Warning template (which is simply more severe). As you can see (if you look), the FirstWarning template includes links to articles about vandalism and such and explains that the user did something wrong and that I highly suggest that they be careful editing and try not to vandalize. What even disgusts me more, though, is that some people will actually see someone completely ruining an article and place this on their talk page: "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia." What is with that?? The user did not conduct a test, they vandalized. Plain and simple. I really hate to be strict, but you can't be that nice to users or they'll believe that vandalism is not that big of a deal. If you clearly show that they are going in the completely wrong direction, they are almost sure to stop. (You can view my templates here.) |
WARNING! This page may not comply to a certain Wikipedia guideline. Heck, it may not apply to any of them. Nevertheless, do not mercilessly delete, remove, move, edit, spelchekc, burn, flush, explode, incinerate, throw away, eat, or otherwise destroy any articles, sections, paragraphs, images, templates, sentences, phrases, words, or letters on this page.
