Wikiversity talk:No shrines for vandals

i don't understand this page. what does a "shrine" mean? i'm confused. Fokion 03:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "No trophies for vandals" means about the same. You could imagen a shrine housing trophies. -- Matteo 06:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A shrine is a place devoted to worshiping a god or some other spiritual being. They tend to be fairly ornate. By saying that vandals don't get shrines on Wikiversity, we're trying to say that we don't create places for them like shrines for gods. It's a metaphor that I found particularly fitting when writing the page. -- sebmol ? 15:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No monuments either :-)? (Good policy... ignoring the ignorant is definitely the way to go.) --SB_Johnny | talk 17:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I wholeheartedly support this proposal.-- digital  _  me   18:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I also support this. 205.189.97.202 20:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure the reasoning behind this is sound; I think most vandals are more interested in what they did to the article/content page than what action is taken against them. Jade Knight 09:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For one-time vandals, that may be right, however, they will find that what they did won't stay for too long and would move on. For repeated vandals, that can't really be it since they know what they do will be undone. So the satisfaction repeated vandals get out of it lies elsewhere. -- sebmol ? 11:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced. I really believe that the majority of Wikipedia vandalizations occur for what's on the page, not for the warning that appears on a Vandal's profile.  I'm perfectly fine with having blocks significantly lengthened, however; 24 hours just hardly seems like enough.  The Jade Knight 00:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea behind only 24 hours is i think to give the person multiple second chances to become a constructive contributor.Eadthem 00:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Is secrecy really beneficial?
This paragraph seems a bit troubling to me. "No publicly accessible pages will be created to document long term abuse by vandals. If there is need to document such things for the purpose of training custodians, a page can be created and subsequently deleted. Custodians will be able to view the page by using Special:Undelete/Pagename." Unless the vast majority of participants are able to easily become custodians it seems to make quality check reviews of custodian actions impossible for the typical user to confirm for themselves. Mirwin 23:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All page deletions are recorded in the logs. We could set up a page such as Deletion review where users can request a review of the content of deleted pages. See w:Wikipedia:Deletion review. --JWSchmidt 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is a question about custodian action, the page could be undeleted for a short period of time before deleting it again. The point is to prevent creating a page that permanently and publicly provides a record of egomaniac vandals' "marvelous actions" which they can refer to from elsewhere. It's not as much a question of keeping it secret as it is to prevent linking from outside. sebmol ? 09:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes as per community review re: project about breaching experiments of Wikipedia
Please take a look at the changes I've made to this page, as per the discussion Wikiversity:Community Review/Wikimedia Ethics:Ethical Breaching Experiments. --AFriedman (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge to Vandalism
I would propose merging this page to Vandalism and working to make that a policy for dealing with vandalism. Denying vandals the recognition they often desire is just one part of dealing with vandalism, I don't think we need another separate policy to cover it, we can instead focus vandalism policies on the single page. Adambro 11:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I think. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --AFriedman (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the title "No shrines for vandals" better, so I suggest merging things the other way around. -- dark lama  16:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the title too, but Vandalism is the supercategory and this is the subcategory. Perhaps "No shrines for vandals" could be a section of the Vandalism page? --AFriedman (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding Darklama comments, I feel though that the No shrines for vandals title refers to only one element of dealing with vandalism, whereas "Vandalism" is more general and would allow scope for covering the practice of denying vandals recognition and the other policies relating to dealing with vandalism. "No shrines for vandals" is perhaps an appropriate name of a section of a broader Vandalism policy as AFriedman has suggested. Adambro 16:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

When considering just page names: WV:Vandalism could "be" anything, but "WV:No shrines for vandals" immediately tells what the page content will be about - probably. Has anyone looked already at: Managing vandalism? Erkan Yilmaz uses the Chat (try) 16:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm working on the assumption that establishing a policy for dealing with vandalism would be welcomed by the community. In that situation, such a policy would cover many of the practices for dealing with vandalism, not just denying recognition, and so it would make sense in my opinion to have a more general name and merge the content from here to that page to create a single page describing how vandalism should be dealt with on Wikiversity. I don't think we need a separate page for this practice. Adambro 17:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd support moving this to a subsection of the above page. By the way, I'd rename it "sanctuary" instead of "shrine". Ottava Rima (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Erkan. With "No shrines for vandals" what the page is about is immediately clear. Even as a policy name what the policy is about is immediately clear. I think we do not really need the exact/specific ways in which to deal with vandalism to be policy in order for people to deal with vandalism. People have been dealing with vandalism despite there being no policy. Policy should address a specific community problem. What problem is the community in need of addressing? -- dark lama  17:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem that I am trying to address here, by looking to develop a policy on vandalism, is the lack of policies on basic issues such as this. The policy I'm envisaging wouldn't simply be about "No shrines for vandals", it would cover the broader issues related to vandalism, hence why a more general name would be appropriate. However, we don't necessarily have to have a policy on vandalism but I'd still consider it useful to merge this with the vandalism page so that information about vandalism on Wikiversity can be located in one place. That would make I think it easier for new contributors to become familiar with practices on Wikiversity, rather than having a number of pages on the same subject to navigate through. Adambro 18:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Adam, What do you mean by vandalism? Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 18:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question. Vandalism is a concept that very few contributors to WM projects will be unfamiliar with and I assume you're not one of them so what exactly do you mean? Adambro 18:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * we need to know what we talk about before we can start a discussion or else we would be comparing apple to pear. there is large intersection in what we define as "vandalism" and but these two sets need not be identical.  the reason you don't understand is that you are looking it in the opposite direction.  Hillgentleman | //\\ |Talk 18:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be helpful to try to agree on a definition of "vandalism" for the purposes of this particular discussion about the proposed merge of this page with Vandalism? Adambro 19:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)