A Question

JKL1234 May 18, 2011, 1:26am 1

Imagine there was a vandal who blanked articles, posted spam, cussed, blanked other people’s user pages and did all that stuff. He ignored all the warnings he got and got blocked 5 times then he got blocked for a year. When his block was over, he tried to help out wikiHow by patrolling recent changes, welcoming new users, categorized articles and became a NAB. He got Barnstars and became a Featured Author. Would he be able to be an administrator?

system May 18, 2011, 1:44am 2

There isn’t a policy against it, so it is likely he/she could be.

Rangers31 May 18, 2011, 3:34am 3

It can definitely happen. People change.

system May 18, 2011, 12:08pm 4

I’m sure it’s fine. People DO change, and that is a little odd, but if he wants to turn around and help out, I say let him.

system May 18, 2011, 12:33pm 5

Your example shows the problems with this site. That user’s previous actions should be counted against them; in real life, things do not work this way. I believe that we should have a permanent mark put on all former bad-faith editors’ userpages so the community will always know that they are not trustworthy.

Jordan May 18, 2011, 12:47pm 6

Seriously? I respectfully disagree with this. Anyone can change for the better, and if they make an effort to improve and right their wrongs, I see no reason not to at least consider the individual.

system May 18, 2011, 1:23pm 7

Wow. I’m with Progressive. I severely disagree with this. Even if a person was a menace in the past, took a break, and came back with a brighter & better attitude, then the focus should be on their current presentation. Just like real life situations, people change do eventually change for the better & the past should be moved on.

system May 18, 2011, 1:41pm 8

Advocating for a permanent ban on former vandals betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of how a wiki works. I respectfully recommend reading the following: http://www.wikihow.com/wikiHow:Assume-Good-Faith

system May 18, 2011, 2:24pm 9

Let us try an example. A student, bored with assignments and taking a break, finds a site called wikiHow through Google searches. S/he sees that it is open for anyone to edit, and thinks that wiping pages, adding profanity, and trolling other users is hilarious, but eventually stops after receiving a couple of warnings. This “student” grows older, and decides to go back to the same site, but this time, with the intention of improving the project due to how nice the community seemed. The student logs over a thousand contributions, proves to be very helpful, and is even a candidate for promotion. The problem with the above picture is that it had no consequences. The student received nothing more than warnings, and got to be both a vandal and a helpful contributor. In real life, crimes have punishment. Why should “Assume Good Faith” take the place of perfectly “good” logic?

Linus May 18, 2011, 2:49pm 10

The key is that the user continues to be a helpful contributor. A corollary to your scenario would be a user who has bad intentions purposely becomes helpful in the beginning, for the sole purpose of becoming an admin so that he could just start deleting articles left and right with no regard. And even assuming that wikiHow takes on a policy where a mark is put on an unhelpful user, what stops a user from creating a new user account and starting fresh? Wikihow policy isn’t there to make criminals. Vandalizing wH is annoying, not a crime. Anything a vandal does is reversible. Yes, it absolutely sucks that there is vandalism but the policy to allow anyone edit supersedes the suckiness of patrolling bad edits. Much like everything else in life, we have to deal with the good and the bad. People change: some for good and some for bad. All we can do as a community is come together and help make the site better one act at a time. Time has shown that ultimately, the good people win.

SilverSparkz May 18, 2011, 3:24pm 11

I think they can. I guess people change.Maybe the user turned over a new leaf. :3

system May 18, 2011, 3:32pm 12

TheMartian\>The problem with the above picture is that it had no consequences. The student received nothing more than warnings:

You’re absolutely right… it has no teeth whatsoever. We merely block them for an extended length of time and hope they do better when or if they return. The problem with getting tougher and instituting more and heavier consequences is that the vandals love it. It becomes a game for the vandalizers… seeing how much attention they can get and how angry they can make people. Waaay back in the “olden days” of wikiHow, we used to get really tough with vandals… nasty warning messages… permanent tags on their user pages… and they’d openly come back under another username, boasting about how they were able to circumvent our system. It was like wrestling with pigs… we both got dirty… and the pigs loved it! While a bigger hammer would satisfy your/our desire to squish the vandal’s pitiful method of getting their jollies, it would also completely cut off any hope of them ever maturing and coming back to be helpful later on. We’ve found over time that a very bland, kindly reaction does several good things for us… 1 - It takes the excitement away from the vandals and 2 - It lowers our collective blood pressure and 3 - It opens opportunities to coach folks who are accidentally vandalizing. It’s slower… but it’s more effective in the long run… and it requires a lot less effort on our part. (And since we’re all volunteers, that’s a significant factor!)

KatyBliss May 18, 2011, 5:23pm 13

Agree with @Jordan completely. I’ve got a soft spot for reformed vandals.I used to vandalize Wikipedia articles when I was, what, ten? I’ve changed my ways, clearly, and so can any vandal.

system May 18, 2011, 7:07pm 14

AndrewG1999 May 18, 2011, 7:13pm 15

People can change, but I do think that the actions they did earlier should be held against them. I also think that if they abuse their adminship, that someone should have the right to take it away from them.

Spyagent101 May 18, 2011, 8:38pm 16

Agree with @Jordan . I’ve seen people change here at wikiHow and it is good to see them back with helpful contributions.

system May 18, 2011, 8:57pm 17

I agree that if they abuse their admin status, something_should_ happen. On the other hand, people can and do change. Even though most of us on wikiHow haven’t ever vandalised, there are some great users who used to vandalize, and then changed and realized the greatness of making wikiHow a better place. Overall, I just agree with @Progressive and @Maluniu and @ Spyagent101 and anyone else I missed. =)

system May 18, 2011, 10:42pm 18

Yup, it’s definitely possible that we’d elect someone who had a bad history! As long as they turned their act around and regained our trust, why not? I don’t think we’ve ever had someone turn over a new leaf *that* dramatically but if we did, that would be awesome. Like a wiki fairy tale

system May 19, 2011, 12:29am 19

Loiswade42:

> You’re absolutely right… it has no teeth whatsoever. We merely block them for an extended length of time and hope they do better when or if they return. The problem with getting tougher and instituting more and heavier consequences is that the vandals love it. It becomes a game for the vandalizers… seeing how much attention they can get and how angry they can make people. Waaay back in the “olden days” of wikiHow, we used to get really tough with vandals… nasty warning messages… permanent tags on their user pages… and they’d openly come back under another username, boasting about how they were able to circumvent our system. It was like wrestling with pigs… we both got dirty… and the pigs loved it! While a bigger hammer would satisfy your/our desire to squish the vandal’s pitiful method of getting their jollies, it would also completely cut off any hope of them ever maturing and coming back to be helpful later on. We’ve found over time that a very bland, kindly reaction does several good things for us… 1 - It takes the excitement away from the vandals and 2 - It lowers our collective blood pressure and 3 - It opens opportunities to coach folks who are accidentally vandalizing. It’s slower… but it’s more effective in the long run… and it requires a lot less effort on our part. (And since we’re all volunteers, that’s a significant factor!)

If all of our vandals were a bunch of young kids coming to have immature fun at our expense, the issue wouldn’t be so great. But by vandal, I should extend my meaning. Behold, TheMartian’s Bestiary of Vandals, Bad Faith Editors, and Generally Unhelpful Contributors! (Some people claimed that I have no sense of humor, so I am trying to lighten things up a bit.) Spammer: Attempts to create wikiHow articles to promote his or her small business (which nobody cares about in the first place!) Article Vandal: Wipes entire articles and puts in explicit words or strong profanity. (Most likely to be the immature kid that you talked about above.) Troll: Goes onto discussion pages to bother other users with personal attacks and hurtful remarks. (Almost always about religion, politics, or social issues.) NFD Vandal: Haven’t seen one of these in a while, but just about 2 years ago, they existed in fair numbers! Most of these people would sign up for an account, and then nominate any article that they disagreed with for deletion, regardless of whether it contained useful information. (Sometimes, this archetype is a good deal like the troll. A user named Bucky Buckport made a name for himself by nominating LGBT articles for deletion and trolling those articles’ discussion pages. Some of his comments are still there…) Solicitor: Asks other editors for private information, random personal help, or for romantic partnership. (These people could merely be lonely, but we cannot take any chances with safety…) Chatterbox: Talks constantly with other users. Has probably only made 40 or so article edits, and has received over 5 warnings for chatting. (No action has been taken, of course.) COPPA Violator- Signed up for an account, but is under 13. This user heavily implies that they are under 13, and has possibly even stated their true age on some article discussion page, but this is ignored. It is generally thought to be “impolite” to ban these users, even when the evidence clearly shows that they should not be here. Even worse, their contributions all use substandard English, and they are commonly Solicitors or Chatterboxes. And finally, to add a bit more humor: TheMartian- Is moronic, not necessarily unhelpful. Has a strong obsession with starting annoying threads on the forums talking about using the Eternal Ban-Hammer of Justice (EBJ for short) to destroy wikiHow’s vandal culture (which according to many, will overwhelmingly become substantiative editors in a few years, provided that their warning templates are kindly-worded and have flowers pictured on them.) I believe that admins should not have to be imposed on by an “assume good faith” policy that makes them sit back and give out 3, 4, and even 5 warning templates before blocking users that are unhelpful. Sure, blocks are useless for anonymous contributors, but we occasionally have other people that violate policy who are registered users! The “assume good faith” policy needs to be reformed, because many people use it to justify unnecessary kindness to those who are obviously not acting in good faith!

Jenny112233 May 19, 2011, 12:33am 20

I agree. People change, probably because they learned a lesson. Everyone should get more than one chance.

Topic		Replies	Views
The vandalism....suggest to '''Stop''' Village Pump	20	100	August 3, 2023
We had a vandal earlier today... Village Pump	5	83	August 3, 2023
Can we have a "mark as vandalism" button in edit patrol? Village Pump	10	73	August 3, 2023
May I suggest one more button on Recent Changes Patrol? Village Pump	30	92	August 3, 2023
Newbies and annons shouldn’t be able to Village Pump	48	389	August 3, 2023

Explore Categories