Wikidata:Requests for comment/Wikidata:Vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is that Wikidata:Vandalism should be labeled as a guideline/information page, and there is no consensus whether it should be an official "policy" page. Legoktm (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

---

An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Wikidata:Vandalism" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue. If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you!

THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.

Should we adopt Wikidata:Vandalism as an official policy? ...Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 23:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded the page, hoping to make it more "policy-like". I've taken some cues from English Wikipedia's vandalism policy (though I didn't copy anything wholesale). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Support

1.  Support as information pagepolicy - as Rschen says, this probably doesn't need to be written down as a policy, but would be a good page to link to in, for example, block summaries.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

   The new updates are satisfying enough for this to be a full policy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

2.  Support as information page – Nice informative page, but no policy content -- Byrial (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
3.  Support as policy page following the rewrite it's a lot better. --Rschen7754 09:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
4.  Support, obviously; because I did the expansion on it, I obviously support what I just wrote. :P —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
5.  Support as a guideline only Vogone talk 19:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
6.  Support as a guideline, not a policy. –TCN7JM 12:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Oppose, something needs to be changed

I'm not really sure this needs to be voted on, it's just statements of fact. --Rschen7754 00:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Striking my oppose. --Rschen7754 05:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Oppose That 's not a policy. Snipre (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose I prefer the nature of a guideline, rather than a policy. And since the local wiki-culture hasn't been truly formed yet, is it far to early. -- Lavallen (block) 14:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • What? The policy is pretty standard... --Rschen7754 18:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
    • We do not know the nature of the vandalism yet. (I am more worried about pov. "Blanking of pages" do no not worry me at all, it is almost always done by mistake. I did it myself several times before I learned to know the interface.) We do not know the nature of our tools yet. Maybe we can protect parts of a page in the future. (Protect statements but not sitelinks as an example.) The standard-policy is no policy. There are > 700 wmf-projects, most of them have no vandalism-policy. Where I am sysop, we have none, only a poor guideline. I, for an example, never give a warning before blocking, when it obviously is vandalism. We are only two active sysops, and both of us wants to add usefull texts, not have a kindergarten for vandals, like I see on svwp. A guideline, instead of a policy, would make it easier to change the text in the future, it would give our sysops flexibility in how to act, since this is a multi-culture-project. -- Lavallen (block) 04:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where the policy part of that page is, though it is certainly a good info page. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It does define what is and is not vandalism. --Rschen7754 18:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose I dislike the idea of listing what vandalism is. I'd keep the section on what isn't vandalism though, paradoxical as that might seem. Sven Manguard Wha?
  • I should point out that English Wikipedia's vandalism policy does the same thing. And while we're not trying to replicate enwp policy, procedure, and culture here, dealing with vandalism is probably one of enwp's stronger points, so it makes sense to look to their policy for guidance. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Well yes, but English Wikiedia has a masturbatory obsession with bureaucracy, and that's not something I want to bring over here. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Agree, more commons sense, and less policies and bureaucracy. I find these RFC-procedures strange in themself, but it's a heritage from meta, I guess. -- Lavallen (block) 18:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Byrial. Good as an informative page, but don't need to have policy about vandalism. --Stryn (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose as a policy Vogone talk 19:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • What do you think needs to be changed? Or do you think a vandalism policy is an inherently bad idea? ...Jakob ^{Megaphone, Telescope} 20:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Presumably the latter, as he supported it as a guideline above. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.