Essay:Definition of vandalism
During the moderator election, I made the following comment:
- One problem I noticed a while ago is that we need a clear definition of "vandalism", and as FuzzyCatPotato's essay points out, [o]ften, RatWiks ban people whose "vandalism" is that of altering the ideological tone of an article.
This is the current description of "unfunny vandalism" according to RationalWiki's blocking policy: "[a]dding stupid, boring, angry shite to a page". I think this is quite vague. Suggestions in the talk page are encouraged.
Unfunny vandalism[edit]
Users should receive a short block or vandal binning for repeated instances of unfunny vandalism. A single case of vandalism should simply be reverted.[note 1]
Unfunny vandalism is an edit that cannot be reasonably considered to be done in good faith. Edits are vandalism if they are in no way helpful. This includes:
- Edits to an article that are inane/stupid, especially if they are unrelated to the article's subject (examples: [1] [2], [3], [4], links to irrelevant websites, song lyrics).
- Adding nonsense or incoherent rants (Nonsense: [5], [6], [7]. Rants: [8]).
- Edits spamming the same word, phrase, link, image or letter repeatedly (examples: [9], [10], [11]).
- Replacing an entire page with an unrelated article (example).
Humorous vandalism[edit]
Blocks should not apply to edits designed to be humorous, usually with the anticipation that they will be reverted.
Not vandalism[edit]
These are edits that may be considered vandalism by others, but I do not think should be considered vandalism:
- Frustrated editors removing criticism or whitewashing an article (examples: [12], [13]). Such edits are usually made in good faith.[note 2]
- Altering the ideological tone of an article. This is almost always done in good faith, even if the editor can't resist insulting RationalWiki in the process (examples: [14], [15]).
Up to your discretion[edit]
- Maliciously editing talk page comments of others users (example). Unless the edit is especially egregious, users should generally be warned before being blocked for this.
- Blanking a page and writing a talk page comment to replace it (example).[note 3]
Notes[edit]
- ↑ Blocks should also be avoided for one-off instances of vandalism since users can accidentally vandalise pages.
- ↑ Besides, the editor is usually only concerned about one page in particular so page protection would deal with the issue.
- ↑ Ideally, we should tell them to take it to the talk page but warn them not to blank pages. Repeat offenders who have been warned can be deemed vandals.