Wikiversity talk:Vandalism

documenting vandalism
Is there any evidence that documenting vandalism encourages it, or is this just speculation? Tisane 20:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that is a question that doesn't have a simple answer. I think there is no evidence that documenting vandalism will in itself encourage vandalism. People are encouraged and motived by various things. If is person's motivation in vandalism is driven by a desire for attention not giving it to them might discourage them from vandalizing further, or because there desire for attention was not satisfied they might attempt to do something more drastic to satisfy their need for attention. In some situations a person may do something because you asked them not to, even if it is contrary to how they would normally act, which is where WP:BEANS and avoiding telling people what not to do comes into play. I think psychology might provide some ideas as to how people may react/respond to various situations in order to satisfy needs, wants, or desires. I think psychology might also provide some solutions that sometimes work, like focus on what to do (instead of what not to do), and find an alternative outlet that allows a person's needs, wants, and desires to be satisfied in a way that is acceptable by the community. Like instead of blocking people that vandalize, the community could compliment the person on there creative energy, give them a hug, thank them for there work, encourage them, and provide some focus and direction in life by taking the person under its wing as a pupil. For my lack of not being able to find some specific learning resources to point to, what Big Brothers Big Sisters does might come close to what I'm thinking of in terms of alternatives to shunning a person for there actions that psychology has usually found to work better. The proverb "It takes a village to raise a child" also comes to mind. -- dark lama  21:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * If documenting vandalism serves a useful purpose, certainly it can be done, but if it, instead, leads to conflict and disruption, it's probably a bad idea. Vandals vandalize for various reasons, and with some of them, the vandal will outgrow it, and with others, not; sometimes vandalism takes place because a person has been abused and is retaliating. There is no benefit in becoming upset over vandalism, we should simply deal with it in the most effective way. For obvious vandalism, no vandal is going to be surprised and, for that matter, offended, by being blocked, it's expected, so the WP practice of warning before blocking may be overkill. However, the use of the term "vandalism" for what may be a good-faith effort to improve, or good-faith efforts to discuss, should be avoided, just as the term "spam" should never be used for good-faith efforts to add links that may be believed to be useful by the editor, unless the level of addition becomes massive. People who fight vandalism and spam become, as it were, warriors, and often think of themselves that way, see the battleship image on w:WP:WikiProject Spam, which page actually argues, without caution, against w:WP:AGF policy. Warriors can go berserk and can destroy much beyond the natural protective function of defense. I've seen seriously tragic cases on Wikipedia.


 * Vandalism should be dealt with firmly and gently. A short block is actually quite gentle if not accompanied by abuse. --Abd 20:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism definition
It has been suggested that this become a policy. I would support any work to further that. I'm not sure we are yet in a position to consider making this policy and I think it would be better to discuss this here rather than elsewhere.

One of the key motivations behind the recent suggestion seems to be disagreements with how vandalism and other similar behaviour is actually defined. As this proposed policy stands, I'm not clear how making policy would deal with that issue. It doesn't seem to actually try to define vandalism beyond the statement that "Vandalism is an inherently disruptive or destructive behavior". That would seem to leave it potentially very broad. Regardless of the current definition though, my position is that any edits by an individual that is blocked should be dealt with as vandalism since I consider is disruptive. If the community wished for an individual to edit despite other concerns they could deal with it by topic bans or similar measures rather than blocks. Therefore any edit which evades the block shows a lack of respect of the communities wish that an individual shouldn't participate and should be dealt with firmly in my view. Adambro 12:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The proposed vandalism policy should be made official as soon as possible. It would resolve the conflict that is under community review by compelling Custodians to comply with this: "Wikiversity works when people are bold and assume others are acting in good faith. If you believe a page has been vandalized, take a moment to consider whether the material may have been added in good faith. If you believe material was not added in good faith, you can undo the changes."Wikiversity also needs a Blocking policy. --JWSchmidt 13:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

JWS' comment ignores the fact that edits by a blocked editor are a form of vandalism, and it is entirely possible that "positive content" may be contributed "in bad faith," and I've seen it. The basic presumption is that blocked editors do not properly edit, period, and for a blocked editor to make an edit that is readily identifiable as having been made by that editor is a form of defiance, unless certain conditions are met which show cooperation instead of defiance; I've proposed self-reversion as a way for a blocked editor, editing as IP, or a topic banned editor, editing on the topic under ban, to make positive contributions without complicating ban or block enforcement.

Aside from something like that, the policy should state that edits that are in defiance of a block may be treated as vandalism, it is not necessary to call them vandalism in themselves. Adambro is correct. Disrespect for the rights of the community as shown by block-defying edits is a disruptive behavior, even if the edits themselves are "good faith contributions," not considering the block. The fact is that we must consider the block, and I was involved when this was demonstrated on Wikipedia by an editor who was literally trying to trap an administrator into enforcing an ArbComm topic ban for "harmless edits." The necessity of judging each edit to see if it was actually harmless or not vastly complicated ban enforcement, which should be simple, the whole point of blocking or banning is to simplify process of dealing with an editor considered disruptive. Otherwise, blocks would seem to be completely unnecessary! Just revert the contributions, if we've examined them and consider them disruptive! And leave them if not! And thus a skillful troll can waste vast amounts of user and custodian labor. --Abd 18:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Above, Abd wrote, "JWS' comment ignores the fact that edits by a blocked editor are a form of vandalism" <-- Abd, this is false. Good faith edits are not vandalism. Abd, your proposal to treat good faith edits as vandalism must be rejected as a misguided effort that seeks institutionalize alienation of valuable Wikiversity community members. Such barbaric practices have no place at Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 12:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that even certain clear distinctions seem lost on JWS. "A form of vandalism" is a comment that suggests that there are different forms of vandalism. JWS places "good faith edits" in a category that excludes vandalism. But, in fact, "vandalism" can be a broader category than he thinks. It can include "good faith" writing. For example, I might write on an empty billboard, "Republicans xxxx." Good faith comment, perhaps. But "vandalism" because of where and how it was written. Same message, if I paid for it, or got permission from the billboard owner, i.e., I was legally allowed to write that, not vandalism. All edits by blocked editors are, on the face, block evasion, and it can be claimed that, as a class, they damage the project, this is the point that Adambro was making. Specific edits might not cause damage if left alone, but I'll point out that if we had the resources to examine each edit by a blocked editor to determine if it is "good faith" or not, we would not need to block at all. We'd just review all edits and revert the bad ones. In theory, we block only when we have come to the conclusion that the review process for an editor has become more of a burden than a benefit. So block-evading edits are a kind of "vandalism," because they cause damage, and that is the basic definition of vandalism, damage.
 * JWS is following a kind of approach that seeks to define substance from semantic associations. I.e., "vandalism" is "bad," and therefore something good cannot be "vandalism." It's a semantic error. It's very simple to deal with the edits of a blocked editor. First of all, if nobody objects to them, there is nothing to do. Block policy doesn't require that the edits of a blocked editor must be reverted, nor does it -- nor should it -- call them "vandalism" except in one very narrow way, in practice: rollback may be used, which is normally reserved for "vandalism." Perhaps defined as "obvious damage." Rollback may be used because it is efficient and because it is not necessary to establish specific cause, in the edit content itself, to revert block-evading edits. In fact, it's a good thing that an admin, especially, doesn't do this, because then the admin gets wrapped up, perhaps, in using admin tools based on opinions about content other than clear vandalism.
 * So any editor -- this isn't an admin thing in itself -- may revert the edits of a blocked editor, regardless of content. And what happens next does indeed depend on the content, and on how that content is considered by non-blocked editors. JWS complains about the reverting, but I started reviewing all the edits of a certain blocked editor, one where JWS has for two years complained about the block and about the reverts. And so I started restoring the ones which were not objectionable, which had possibly some benefit to the community. I found that almost all the edits were good edits, in my judgment. But a few, a small number, were not. The problems were great enough that I wasn't ready to propose unblock, unless the user makes some agreements. He claims to not want to be unblocked, so, at this time, I don't see that happening. But the situation could change. Meanwhile, if JWS actually thinks that the edits are good, why doesn't he participate in reviewing and restoring them? Taking responsibility, as I did, for what he restores?
 * (I also started taking on original reversion. I.e., when I saw an edit by this editor, I'd immediately revert. I logged the edit on my Talk page, and immediately or later stated, usually, an intention to restore or whatever. Then, after normally allowing some time for objection, I restored most of them. I took on original reversion to relieve the admins of the task, and possibly to lower the use of range blocks, where edits were actually harmless. Range blocks cause harm. Even IP blocking of a blocked editor can sometimes do more harm than good. There is disagreement on this point, but I believe the community can and will come to consensus on it. We can develop a saner policy on how to deal with edits by blocked editors, one which encourages good contributions and discourages disruptive ones, and, elsewhere, I've seen this lead to healing of wounds within a wiki community, where editors who had been at loggerheads ended up cooperating.)
 * If these edits were anything other than "status vandalism," it would be offensive for me to restore them. I've been threatened with blocking for restoring them, occasionally, but without any specific basis, so I doubt it will happen. It's just the general idea that I'm "proxying for a blocked user," which is preposterous. (It's a gross misuse of the term "proxying," which would refer to actually making edits at the direction of another editor, as their "agent" or "proxy.") I'm functioning openly as an editor in good standing, reviewing reverted content to see if it should be restored. Any editor can do that, and if what I do is offensive, any editor may revert me. In something like two cases, my restorations were reverted. I do not revert war, period. I did, however, in one or two of these situations, place a note pointing to history. We do not censor, but we do take care what is visible in current pages. None of these have been removed. I no case, however, was the claim made that the edits themselves were disruptive in their content, as I recall. It was simply that they had been made originally by a blocked user, which, to me, showed a clear misunderstanding of block policy and its implications. (And sometimes I'd added notes pointing out that the comment was by a blocked user; these notes, contrary to certain traditions, were also removed in a simple revert.)
 * Making fuss over useless stuff, as JWS has done, avoids considering some of the real problems. For example, I've seen, here and elsewhere, block-evading edits that clearly were not "vandalism," but which were reverted using a manual edit summary that called them such; likewise blocks and range blocks issued as a response to edits by a blocked editor, harmless at worst, have referred to "multiple vandalism" as a cause. There was no need for that, it is offensive and inflammatory, and it simply serves to reinforce the impression that a blocked editor is being treated unfairly, which then perpetuates disputes.
 * We have a lot of work to do to write and negotiate consensus on policies that are effective, efficient, and fair. Maintaining constant complaint against certain users and sysops postpones the day that we can fix all this. Let's get to work! JWS, long ago I invited you to reapply for custodianship. That may not be practical, but are you interesting in helping make all this work? You might have to revise some of your ideas and habits! Are you ready for that? I hope so, but it's up to you.
 * Meanwhile, if you have specific complaints about specific issues, there are ways to pursue them. Ask me and I'll help. You don't just load a shotgun with all the junk you can find and pull the trigger. It just makes a mess. --Abd 01:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Edits by blocked editors
'Edits by blocked editors may be routinely treated as vandalism, without consideration of the value of the content, because addition of content when due process considers the edit illegitimate is disruptive. This, however, does not impeach the content itself, which may be reverted back in by any editor who takes responsibility for it, and such edits should not be called "vandalism," in themselves, because there may indeed be a good faith effort by the blocked editor to do something useful with the edit. Rollback may be used to revert such edits by any administrator, which is where "considering the edit as vandalism" becomes relevant. Otherwise such edits, if they are to be described at all, are simply "block evasion." Block evasion, however, would not justify a block of the editor or editor's IP for "vandalism." The block reason, if a custodian decides to block, would be "block evasion."' The above is proposed as a section of the policy under this title. --Abd 19:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not too comfortable with this self-reversion concept. One of the problems is exactly what User:Thekohser did with Field and tab where he evaded the block using one sockpuppet, added content, then, with another sockpuppet removed that content and claimed it was violating the copyright of Thekohser. If users are evading a block that will often involve use of a variety of IPs and perhaps an alternative account. That increases the difficulty by which edits can be associated with one individual making it more difficult to deal with copyright issues as in this example but I'm sure there are other issues this presents. Another major problem is that users aren't blocked for simply producing useful learning resources. There is always going to be some other issue with their behaviour. Therefore, I'm not convinced as to what value in assessing the appropriateness of unblocking someone may be gained from this self-reversion concept. If anyone chooses to comply with it, they are likely to be making more uncontroversial edits with a view to trying to get themselves unblocked as opposed to actually demonstrating by dealing with more sensitive issues that they have actually changed their behaviour. I'd also be concerned about the potential for the block to be undermined by other users deciding to reinstate content which the blocked user has added and then reverted. Like I've said, it is not a concept I'm really immediately comfortable with but I'll give it more thought. Perhaps if others favoured this we could consider limiting it to the main namespace or similar. I don't think blocked users should be getting involved in, for example, policy discussions by proxy. Adambro 20:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen self-reversion work, Adambro, to heal divisions on Wikipedia. It's obvious that someone could try to game it. However, please read the text I suggested more carefully. I did not describe self-reversion, the policy text as I proposed did not at all mention or legitimate self-reversion. That's a separate question, please don't confuse the two issues. Self-reversion would be described under block policy, it really has nothing to do with "vandalism." I'll note, however, that "self-reverted vandalism" routinely isn't considered vandalism, even if blatant, if the edit is quickly reverted. Someone who tried to game this would quickly be blocked anyway. I did not review the edits described above of Thekohser, I'm not sure if I'd understand that sequence, but if it is important, it could be described and reviewed. It didn't involve self-reversion, which would ordinarily be a reversion of the edit by the same account or IP within the same session. Self-reversion as I've described it involves an edit that is, from the beginning, intended to be self-reverted, that declares the self-reversion intention and gives the reason for it in the edit summary, "I.e., in the case of Thekohser, it would say "will self-revert per block of Thekohser," thus admitting that the IP -- or even possibly a sock -- is Thekohser, and it's up to the blocked editor to ensure that self-reversion is prompt, for frequently failure to self-revert would, indeed, complicate block enforcement and thus the "exemption" would be lost. Self-reversion creates practically no block enforcement labor, if self-reverted edits aren't considered ban violations as such -- but only if they are truly disruptive, and disruptive editors don't self-revert, indeed, from what I've seen, they rather violently reject the idea of self-reversion as some kind of kowtowing to the sysops. Please consider, Adambro, how much easier it would have been to deal with Moulton if he'd been making those IP edits recently, signing them, and self-reverting, with means for him to suggest and allow other editors to "second his motions," if they want to take responsibility for them. If nobody ever does that, he'd not continue this. But some of what Moulton writes is probably useful. Problem is filtering that. It's too much work for custodians to do, so when a user is blocked, we just revert automatically. And that is the thrust of the language proposed here, to make it clear that this is legitimate, and that it is not an accusation that the edits are "vandalism" except in the most technical sense. --Abd 20:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The important issue here is: what supports the Wikiversity mission? Wikiversity welcomes all good faith edits. It damages Wikiversity when constructive edits are treated like vandalism. Each edit must be evaluated on its own merits. "when due process considers the edit illegitimate is disruptive" <-- In the case under community review, Moulton was subjected to an out-of-process block that was performed against Wikiversity community consensus. Moulton never got due process since he was subjected to a bad block. I'm not convinsed that there has been a single legitimate block imposed on Wikiversity community members, and this problem is under community review. The problem with the blocks is that they have been made in violation of Wikiversity policy. It is a serious violation of policy to call for unjustified blocks. The Wikiversity community standard is that blocks are used as a vandalism-fighting tool. Any other use of the block tool must be made by community consensus and only after following due process to show justification for the block. Wikiversity is a community of collaborating scholars not an abusive MMORPG where sysops with toy banhammers invent unjustified excuses to eliminate scholarly Wikiversity community members. The abusive practice of imposing unjustified blocks was imposed on Wikiversity by misguided Wikipedians acting against Wikiversity community consensus. Even if someday there is a legitimate reason for a block of a Wikiversity community member, care must be taken not to alienate the community member. Unwisely treating good faith contributions to the project as if they were vandalism alienates a blocked community member and is viewed as an outrageous disruption of the Wikiversity mission by other community members. The proposed policy change is a barbaric and misguided effort and the fact that two sysops are pushing this idea does great discredit to the Wikiversity project. This proposal is as destructive as having prison inmates perform a useful task like manufacturing license plates and then shipping them all to the dump. Absurd. Can Wikiversity sink any lower? Abd and Adambro, I ask you to think about what you are doing here in this collaborative learning community and please stop this appalling effort to alter policy so as to facilitate horrific practices. Wikiversity cannot afford an effort to pervert this scholarly learning community with a misguided attempt to treat good faith edits like vandalism. What a shameful effort. Is there a single remaining Wikiversity sysop who can be trusted to decide what constitutes vandalism? If functionaries in any authentic educational institution proposed a way to alienate the resident scholars, those functionaries would be quickly terminated from their positions of trust. Why does Wikiversity tolerate such disruption of our community? Shameful. Sickening. --JWSchmidt 00:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note. This is a truly sickening proposal that would disrupt the Wikiversity mission. This is a matter under community review. All Custodians who have been falsifying logs or violated policy by using the rollback tool to revert edits that are not obvious vandalism should recuse themselves from efforts to change the policy by inventing and applying an absurd definition of vandalism. Good faith edits by Wikiversity community members are not vandalism. 
 * Sad it is, JWS, that you are utterly unable to understand the proposal, because it specifically does not call "good faith edits" "vandalism." Please read what the proposal actually says and respond to that, not to your imagination. From your misunderstanding, you then descend into a pit of assumptions of bad faith and imprecations and denunciations, which is more or less what you have been doing for two years. By the way, how many users have I banned with my "banhammer"? Funny, I've looked in the toolbox and it isn't there. --Abd 02:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Abd, are you insinuating that I said "The proposed policy calls good faith edits vandalism"? I wrote, "Wikiversity cannot afford an effort to pervert this scholarly learning community with a misguided attempt to treat good faith edits like vandalism." Is that not your intention? How else am I to interpret the proposed wording, "Edits by blocked editors may be routinely treated as vandalism, without consideration of the value of the content"? "assumptions of bad faith" <-- Abd, list the assumptions I made. "imprecations"? <-- I admit that this disruptive proposal makes me physically ill. "denunciations" <-- Above, I've explained the harm that would be done by the proposed misguided treatment of good faith edits as if they were vandalism. The proposal needs to be denounced. It is shameful that anyone would try to impose a system for alienating community members and reverting good faith edits on a scholarly learning community. --JWSchmidt 04:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Youse guise are gonna tie yourselves in knots trying to develop a coherent set of policies and practices in which binding, gagging, and locking a fellow scholar in the janitorial hall closet is your primary tool of bondage and discipline. It's ridiculous on the face of it. —Barsoom Tork 04:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We are? Why, Barsoom, would you want this, why would you think that a "coherent set of policies" would necessarily have such as a "primary tool"? You like being tied in knots? And is it only scholars that we get to bind, gag, and lock into the janitorial hall closet, and, by the way, do you know where the keys are to that closet? I thought, as a custodian, I could only conduct some disruptive participant, scholar or not, to the door, or alternatively open the door to admit him or her, I could not confine anyone to any space at all, except for the great negative space, i.e., Outside. Outside what? The sole location of wisdom, enlightenment, learning, education, bliss, and lockable closets? Barsoom, your comment reeks of total disconnect with the present reality, it seems to me you are lost in some kind of time warp, where, perhaps, you imagined this kind of bondage and "discipline."
 * It's about time that we have this discussion. And it is relevant here. Are the contributions of Barsoom "vandalism," such that they can be reverted on sight, whether or not they have value? If Barsoom/Moulton is blocked, my position is that, while they may or may not be literal and texturally vandalism, they may be treated as such, because the meaning of a message includes the context. But he's not blocked, at least not last I looked. Would this contribution justify a block for "vandalism'? It's contentious, but it's not specifically uncivil, it is only generally disrespectful, say, of the custodial corps here. If he were "attacking" an ordinary user, with similar intensity, I'd warn/block him in a flash. But he's not. If any custodian thinks his contributions are sufficiently disruptive, the due process would be to warn/block him, which is then an action that another admin can reverse. Given the history, warning would not be necessary, but still might be a great idea, and even though he'd likely make lots of noise about coercion, and I'm suggesting that, when conflict with a user reaches the levels we've seen, with plenty of collateral damage, it should take two admins to block, really, one to warn and one to actually block, having seen a disregard of the warning and concurring that the behavior is blockable.
 * Bottom line, the edit above is not vandalism. It's a negative view of the body of custodians, and we must allow that view to exist; for if we censor it or exclude it, we become the image of what we are attempting to deny, thus justifying an intensification of the "attack." This is why I'm taking such pains to approach this matter step-by-step, even at the cost of some level of continuing disruption. --Abd 20:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "why would you think that a "coherent set of policies" would necessarily have such as a "primary tool"?" <-- Imagine any objective observer like Barsoom Tork who looked at blocks made against community consensus, unjustified calls for blocks and bans and the sickening proposal for alienating Wikiversity community members made on this page. The disruptive policy proposal on this page certainly looks like an attempt to start creating "policies and practices in which binding, gagging, and locking a fellow scholar in the janitorial hall closet" is a preferred method. Is there any Custodian who can feel shame? --JWSchmidt 21:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Community Review
This policy is the subject of Community Review. --JWSchmidt 15:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert of change by Ottava Rima
Ottava Rima reverted the previously proposed change, with the summary, (No consensus). That is not an argument against a change to a proposed policy. It would hold if there was consensus against, which there was not. There was not, in fact, adequate discussion, a common problem. I have reverted it back, because I have presented arguments for the change as it is, that have not been controverted in any way that will find consensus. Please, if you are going to revert a change to the proposed policy, discuss it here and give specific reasons, in detail. What was wrong with it? "No consensus" isn't a statement of anything wrong. The page will not become policy until it has consensus, so Obviously, we don't have consensus on the page as it is, or on how it, as a policy, would be applied. Before we solicit community review of the policy, to "ratify" it, we should attempt to find broad consensus, and the normal wiki way to do this is through collaborative editing of the page. Pure blocking of the process of development could be seen as attempting to prevent us from having clear policy on this topic. --Abd 03:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * JWS stated above that Abd's proposed change was "a truly sickening proposal". There was no support and quite a lot of opposition from different sides. Abd's insistence of adding it to multiple pages and the rest is part of a wider history of disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What JWS proposed as being "sickening" was precisely what Ottava Rima and Adambro have been doing, that is, calling good faith edits from blocked editors "vandalism." What I did was to clarify that such edits are "like vandalism" in that the call for work handle them, and the community has -- or some process has -- decided that, at least for the moment, the editor is likely to be more disruptive than not. One of the implications of a block is as described here and in the proposals for Blocking policy, just made. Now, Ottava has claimed "no support and quite a lot of opposition from different sides." Here is my analysis:
 * Abd proposed.
 * Adambro expressed "discomfort" about "self-reversion." This proposed change was not about self-reversion, so Adambro was confused, thinking about a different proposal made at Blocking policy. He expressed no opposition to the content of this change.
 * JWSchmidt was "sickened." However, what sickens him is standard practice. The change made yesterday emphasized that what might be "good faith edits" should not be called "vandalism," which is really his position. But it also stated that it was acceptable to use rollback for such edits, precisely because the content is not considered. JWS's opposition was rooted in a view that is far from consensus, though I did consider his views in writing the policy, attempting to cover what I've seen is all too common: the casual use of "vandalism" to refer to good faith editing by a blocked user.
 * Moulton commented as Barsoom Tork. Shall we include him? He is opposed to the routine reversion of edits by blocked editors, I know from other communication with him -- he was quite angry with me for doing it, to support block enforcement -- but, again, his position is contrary to policy and consensus. He's still not -- usually -- a vandal.
 * I don't see that anyone else participated, but Ottava has claimed that "there was no support and quite a lot of opposition," yet I see, from editors in good standing, one support, one neutral comment really about something else, and one opposition obviously based on a difference with standing consensus.
 * The edit described actual practice. So, I'm fascinated. What, specifically, was wrong with it? How about fixing it instead of just removing it, or is it totally wrong? If it's totally wrong, I'm going to need to ask the community about this, because it also would imply that we have two custodians who have now posted to this page who are violating policy, by using rollback, if my description was wrong. I don't think it was wrong. I think Ottava was so confused that he didn't know what he was reverting. I think he seized on JWS's strong language above as an excuse to avoid dealing with the actual content, and instead giving himself a justification to block me, which he did, based on my one restoring revert. He reverted twice, with no apparent review of the content. 'Nuff said about that here, it will be covered elsewhere, per policy. --Abd 18:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well the above analysis leaves out myself. I also oppose the self-reversion idea, as commented elsewhere. Thenub314 02:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thenub, what does "self-reversion" have to do with the issue here? This is your first time commenting on this page and this issue. what are you talking about being "left out"? There has been nothing to include! There is no mention of self-reversion in the proposed addition to the proposed policy page. Would you please comment on the actual proposal, Edits by blocked editors, instead of something else not relevant here?


 * I was commenting on this passage: "Edits by blocked editors may be routinely treated similarly to vandalism [aka reverted]... This, however, does not impeach the content itself, which may be reverted back in by any editor who takes responsibility for it..." Sorry to be unclear, I should not have said self reversion. But it strikes me as to be the same vein as the idea of self reversion. Thenub314 05:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is. Rather, it is part of a chain of logic that could lead to policy about self-revision. However, obviously, it's not about self-reversion, but about reversion itself.


 * I make an edit.
 * You revert, giving a reason.
 * I revert you, with or without a reason, restoring my own edit.


 * This is revert warring (strictly speaking, the third edit described is where the boundary into revert warring has been crossed. My restoration edit may or may not be legitimate. Wikipedia decided to set a "bright line" at three reverts per page per day, and, with few exceptions, you can be blocked on Wikipedia for making more than three reverts in one day, on the same page. It's still badly defined and gets wikilawyered to death, on both directions, and is preferentially applied to sides of disputes that are favored by admins, but at least it's clear, and I've seen many supposedly experienced editors get blocked, to their wonder, because they believed that they were enforcing policy. And they were! But they violated 3RR policy doing it!


 * same as above, but you didn't give a reason. Any difference?


 * No, except that my "revert warring" becomes more legitimate. I rarely blind revert without discussion. (A "blind revert" means a revert of an entire edit without any move toward compromise or consensus, and it especially refers to reverting, in toto, an edit that makes more than one change. If this is done without discussion, it is especially "blind." It makes no progress toward consensus. Properly, if someone is going to make a blind revert, or bald revert, it's sometimes called, they should really make it with a summary, "See Talk," and then open up discussion on it, or explain the revert in existing discussion.


 * Same situation, but the third step is different.
 * Another editor reverts you, not me.


 * This is almost never considered revert warring, unless this is part of a series of such edits. The action of a third editor is a judgment de novo of the edit. It is not a tug-of-war, it is expanding participation.


 * Now, to the point here. It's being said that edits by blocked editors may be "treated like" vandalism, not that they are vandalism. It is possible to define vandalism to include "status offenses." But that definition, in use, causes unnecessary disruption, because it uses a term widely accepted as seriously perjorative, and applies it to edits which may be positive changes.


 * Blocked editor reverts actual vandalism.
 * Block enforcement editor routinely reverts edit of blocked editor.


 * What happens? It depends on who is watching. But this much is very clear: any editor may reverse that revert, taking responsibility for the edit by the blocked editor being a good edit.


 * Okay, this was a clear case in one direction, one where the right to restore the edit is obvious.


 * Blocked editor makes a spelling correction. Any difference?


 * No.


 * Blocked editor !votes in a poll.
 * Routinely reverted as an edit by a blocked editor.
 * Third editor (or the second self-reverting!) restores vote, but indents, de-bolds, uses strikeout, adds a note, or even simply places note to history, that there was a !vote by a blocked editor.


 * Is this a violation of policy? No. It's routine, in fact.


 * Blocked editor makes a disruptive edit.
 * Routinely reverted as edit of a blocked editor.
 * I restore it.


 * I have now restored a disruptive edit, and I can be warned, and if I continue this behavior, can be blocked myself.


 * Blocked editor makes a disruptive edit.
 * Reverted with an edit summary that claims it is disruptive.
 * I restore it without discussion.


 * Whether I'm warned or blocked immediately would depend on the seriousness of the disruptiveness and my history.


 * In this last case, a content judgment was made. So I'm, in a way, revert warring with the first reverter, "tag-teaming" with the blocked editor.


 * Basic principle: reverts made without consideration of the content, but based on some other issue, are not content decisions, so reversion of them based on content starts content review process. That process did not start with the status revert. "Revert warring" refers to a symptom of content review pathology, where editors each insist on their position without negotiating consensus.


 * Is this becoming clear? The proposed policy language expresses what is routinely accepted. Absolutely, there are some who don't accept it, but they've never been able to obtain consensus, even on Wikipedia, which has strict content policies and thus far more need to require resorting to more formal dispute resolution process, more frequently. The principle is very clear, there: content is not censored according to origin. But it gets violated, and editors have been blocked and even banned based on "asserting a point of view that had been asserted by a banned editor." It's a pathology there, resulting from what happens when factions of administrators form. Whenever that argument reached ArbComm, as far as I've seen, it's been shot down. It is an obvious violation of fundamental neutrality policy.


 * Here on Wikiversity, the principles of academic freedom are very important. Academic freedom includes the ability to express, within behavioral guidelines, unpopular views. Hence we saw great disruption here when, in 2008 and in March of this year, editors were banned by fiat from Jimbo, it created a conflict between academic freedom and the exclusion of "disruptive editors." (I am not claiming that Jimbo was "wrong" to block, that is a separate issue.) This community has since reviewed both situations, maintaining (with trouble) one of the blocks, and overturning the other.


 * The principle I enunciated actually could be used on Wikipedia, WP policy language that I've pointed to there is similar (see the discussion at Wikiversity talk:Blocking policy. Reading that, you can see the tension in the community. It's been kept vague, because no clear consensus has formed. Vague policy, avoiding conflict in creating the policy, spreads the conflict out, as editors "experiment" with the edges. Wikipedia became too large and too dominated by factions within what Jimbo called the "administrative cabal," to be able to efficiently come to consensus about policy, where the cabal and/or the community are divided, thus WP easily becomes a battleground.


 * I see part of the function of Wikiversity as being able to address wiki structure from a cooler, more academic perspective, truly neutral, aiming toward understanding, possibly generating advice for other wikis as to how they can improve their own process. Academics at universities study the writings of people who are considered rejected or disruptive by society as a whole. They study social process and how it works and doesn't work. The difficulties here, in 2008 and this year, were rooted in the lack of structure here, to contain and channel this study, such that it became disruptive itself. That can be avoided.


 * Thus an important issue here is how to use material coming from a blocked editor. And that's what I've been experimenting with, within the bounds of policy. Because some object to this, I'm trying to make policy more clear. To leave it vague is to leave in place an unsatisfactory situation: two groups of editors who believe that their contradictory views are the "intent of policy."


 * There is a view that policy should be purely descriptive, i.e., should simply document actual practice. In actual practice, though, policy is written with normative values in mind. My resolution of this tension is that policy should be both normative and descriptive, and when practice deviates from policy as written, both should be reviewed in maintaining the policy pages. Sometimes actual practice violates established norms, and working on policy language and expression is an approach to finding community consensus to resolve this. Sometimes wider comment will be needed, because policy pages tend to be watched only by the most involved factions of editors, who may have biases that are different from those of the general community.


 * Now, Thenub, can you see why what should be some simple editing of policy pages -- as has been going on for years -- could become so contentious? We will resolve the disputes and contention, but it starts with paying attention to details, and meticulously considering each issue, and building consensus, one piece at a time. Thanks for showing up and participating.


 * May an editor, by taking personal responsibility for the content, restore a status-reverted edit from a blocked editor? This does not protect the editor from consequences for making that restoration, if it was truly disruptive. It simply means that the editor is protected from sanctions simply on the basis of a restoral itself, without consideration of whether or not the content is disruptive. --Abd 15:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Better Vandalism Warn Templates
I have noticed that the only actual "warn" templates seem to be for test edits, when a smiliar system works fairly well on wikipedia for vandalism.--ForgottenHistory 05:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)