Wikiversity talk:No shrines for vandals

From Wikiversity

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)

[edit] 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 Wikiversity: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)