→define a vandal: the nice thing is that faith doesn't come into it. Also, users who help the wiki are, by definition, not affected.
Mendel17257@legacy41699584 (talk | contribs) (→define a vandal: the nice thing is that faith doesn't come into it. Also, users who help the wiki are, by definition, not affected.) |
|||
::::::My point (or rather, the point of my definition) is that well-intentioned "vandals" can be as much of a problem as intentional ones. Definining the behaviour itself as problematic could give those editors of good intentions a means to recognize that they're doing something wrong, and a way for others to tell them that they're doing it. --[[User:Mendel|◄mendel►]] 21:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Your suggestion would be an attack on many users and not assuming good faith, which I feel it would clash with. Also, the point would well be missed and you would have people lashing out, wiki-lawyering, etc. Thing is, leave things alone. They're fine as they are. My concern with you is that you're intending on causing drama here. People, especially Tef, Jink, Gilgathrash, Felix, Ish, and others handle these "well-intentioned vandals" (no such thing really, either it's an intentional vandal or not) as contributors that are not vandals, but users who help. At least we should be thankful that any user helps, even a little bit, but as I have said there are other ways of handling things, but you either take it too far to one extreme or go this way and that seems like contradiction. Please, respect. That's what we need to do to users who have good intentions as it shows us using good faith on them and knowing they do use good faith, but helping. This suggestion to me goes against that and I feel against the spirit of what a friendly wiki should be. I know personally that part of this feels like an attack on me for some things I do and an attack on some other users as well as Ips. I don't know if you don't mean this or if you do, but I wish that you would reconsider your suggestion and proposal. I think the Rask deal was handled well, as he was a problem that only caused issues with his edits, like using an ip to mess up one of ish's personal pages. We do have check user and I think that works well for those that have it and use it against any intentional vandal. [[User:Ariyen|Ariyen]] 22:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::::''Your suggestion would be [..] not assuming good faith'' -- the nice thing is that faith doesn't come into it. Also, users who help the wiki are, by definition, not affected. --[[User:Mendel|◄mendel►]] 22:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
:I think, mendel, you should be more subtle when labeling Ariyen as a vandal. I'm going to count this one as a 'clever violation of NPA' in my mind, anyone else who alike or otherwise is entitled to their opinion. That being said, users who just kick up indirect drama about other users do not improve the wiki, and should be banned. It is also ironic that one of the least quiet ways to talk about this is being done on a page titled "quietly." [[User:Scythe|∵Scythe∵]] 20:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
::Are you saying Ariyen acts like this? I'd say you're the one being personal, then. --[[User:Mendel|◄mendel►]] 21:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
|