[WikiEN-l] Actually trying to get a vandal to become a useful contributer -- an example

[Chris Howie]

K P wrote:
> Oh, I misread it probably.  Still, it seemed like an opportunity to invite
> someone to contribute early on--which is espoused as the reason for treating
> established editors like shit, the potential for vandals to contribute
> positively, thereby making established editors worthless, but is seldom
> acted upon (ie, actually inviting the vandals to come in an replace the
> worthless crap).
> 
> KP

My $0.02 on this.

Most of my time on Wikipedia is RC patrol.  I'm quite familiar with a lot of
types of vandalism, and I can generally tell at first glance whether an edit is
a confused/experimenting user or a bad faith vandal.  If it's the latter I
won't hesitate to block without any warning.

IMO, this "step through all four warning templates" stuff is generally on the
right track, but is sometimes thrown in the face of an admin who has blocked
what anyone with more than a few brain cells would immediately identify as a
bad faith vandal.  This has not personally happened to me, but I've seen it happen.

Then we have all of these cases where experienced editors must take grief to
give an obvious vandal one more chance.  The ideal is great, but what usually
happens in practice is that we lose the good editor and the vandal doesn't stop.

I have not seen any case where giving a bad faith vandal some extra room has
resulted in them becoming a regular good faith contributor.  I have seen cases
where a good faith editor leaves because they are continually harassed by a bad
faith editor or troll who is being given another chance.

The way I see it, we have to make a choice between someone we know is a good
contributor, and someone who might be one someday, but probably won't.

Bringing in new blood only works if the new blood actually helps the project.
There is a greater risk we'll lose someone good than bring someone good in.  We
can attract good editors without relying on this "conversion of vandals" idea.

I'm not advocating that we block immediately, but apply some common sense.  If
you think you're dealing with a troll, and an editor is upset by him, weigh the
consequences.  I'd rather risk offending someone who is well-intentioned but
causing disruption than someone who's established as a good editor.

-- 
Chris Howie
http://www.chrishowie.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/IT d-(--) s:- a-->? C++(+++)$> UL++++ P++++$ L+++>++++ E---
W++ N o++ K? w--$ O M- V- PS--(---) PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+ 5? X-
R(+)>- tv-(--) b- DI+> D++ G>+++ e>++ h(--)>--- !r>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070531/0fde1c6a/attachment.pgp