Share Your Thoughts!

Shape the future of Battlestar Wiki with this short survey!

There may be algae cookies and hydronic mushies. Mmm... Trick or Treat!

Battlestar Wiki talk:Vandalism

From Battlestar Wiki, the free, open content Battlestar Galactica encyclopedia and episode guide

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? --Ricimer 21:55, 16 October 2005 (EDT)

Genius loci. -- Joe Beaudoin 22:58, 16 October 2005 (EDT)


Wikipedia operates a loose "four strikes and you're out" programme with vandals. I assume the BSwiki policy is more stringent (One strike? Two?). This should probably be clarified here, else people may assume we keep the wikipedia system. OTW 18:09, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, we're much more stringent. (Actually, if it's obvious vandalism we ban on sight. Otherwise, if it's just a case of someone not understanding how we do things, we tend to be more lenient and help them out. -- Joe Beaudoin So say we all - Donate - Sanctuary Wiki — New 18:17, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
Often we get folks who'll post fanfic before reading the rules. Not a cause to nuke them off, of course; one user recently did that and we did as best we could to explain without terrifying them. The link spammers and page blankers are Dead Meat on sight, yep. --Spencerian 18:20, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
I guess the base rule should be that users who obviously have malicious intent (link spammers, the Joe-is-a-moron people, etc.) are banned on sight, and that those who just haven't read the rules (fanfic, contradicting analysis points, that sort of thing) should be told to read them. The latter category acts mostly in good faith and will be willing to adapt to our rules, whereas the former is set on abusing or destroying the wiki, and won't benefit from a gentle please-read-the-rules message. --Catrope(Talk to me or e-mail me) 06:29, 16 August 2007 (CDT)
Exactly. "Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." --Spencerian 10:41, 16 August 2007 (CDT)