Thoughts on Sciforums Encyclopedia Vandalism

Sciforums Encyclopedia


Members producing offensive material about a particular member is one thing. But I find strange is when the particular member revises it to remove offensive material off in order to put legitimate material on, they call him the vandal. Then, they claim that their version with offensive content is the legitimate version while the revised one with the offensive content removed is the vandalized version. They created an article about me full of offensive content. Then, they called me a vandal of the Sciforums Encyclopedia when I revised it to take the offensive material out. They firmly hold that the version with offensive material on it is not offensive, but the real legitimate version. Then they revert the article back to include the offensive content.

It is one thing to revert an article back to include the offensive material about a member. But to do so repeatedly over and over relentlessly after the particular member made it clear it is offensive to him? This makes no sense to me. I agree that nobody owns these articles, and all members have the right to make adjustments to them in good faith. As such, a member does not own an article about him per say. But being that an article is about a particular member, it is that particular member who holds the most stake in that article. When a member revises an article to remove any offensive material from an article about himself, I simply do not see any reason that this could be considered vandalizing. What is worse is other members relentlessly reverting it back to the version full of offensive content repeatedly as if they had any stake in it. If an article is not about them, why should they go through so much trouble reverting it back to include the offensive material? This simply boggles my mind. They claim that the particular member that keeps reverting it to remove the offensive content is the vandal. Then they seriously sit there, and discuss how they want this particular member to be banned for vandalizing the wiki.

I personally admit to going off and attacking every single one of these bastards. But it was only after I repeatedly revised anything containing offensive content about me while they repeatedly put it all back. I am a member of this forum in good faith. I have nothing against anybody here. I participate in the wiki in good faith. There is no reason for them to use the wiki to produce offensive material about me, and call me a vandal that should be banned simply because I remove it. The same goes for any member that wants offensive material about them removed.

In my opinion, when a member finds offensive material about him, and removes it, it is absurd to call him a vandal. If a member finds an entire article about him to be full of offensive material, and does a complete overhaul of the article to replace the offensive material with what he feels to be legitimate material about himself, I find it absurd to consider that vandalism as well. However, when another member reverts the content back to include material offensive to the member in question, I consider that to be vandalizing. And repeatedly inserting the offensive content every time the member in question removes it. That is outright trolling. And furthermore, using the wiki to stalk a particular member, and repeatedly proliferating offensive material about him throughout the wiki is plain obsessive harassment.

It is not random members that hold any stake in an article about a particular member. It is whichever particular member that the article is about that holds the all the stake in the article. In other words, nobody holds more stake in an article about a member than that particular member himself. A revert war that occurs because members refuse to allow a particular member to remove offensive content about himself is something I cannot for the life of me fathom. I simply cannot figure out why they would have the desire to prevent a member from revising any content about him that is offensive to him. Wouldn’t anybody looking for the best interest of the wiki want to make sure that members are happy and satisfied with the articles about them? And if a member is in anyway not satisfied, to respect that member’s desire to revise it? I do not find it unreasonable that we as members should be free from any other member that repeatedly likes to insert offensive content into articles about us. Especially when we went to the trouble of revising the article to remove their offensive content.

Good faith is usually assumed for all articles, and rightly so. I find it antithetical to this assumption to preemptively claim that somebody revising an article is doing so with intent to vandalize it. Usually somebody is called a vandal after revising an article, the article being reverted back to the previous form, then that person revising it again, and the repetition of it all leading to a revert war. A revert war between 2 people reverting an article in good faith cannot be considered vandalism. A revert war between 1 person and 100 people reverting an article in good faith cannot be called vandalism. Vandalism is about intent. If anybody revising an article is doing so with specific malicious intent against Sciforums, the wiki, or members, this is vandalism. Before calling somebody a vandal, simply ensure that their intent is not in good faith, but malicious. I have called people vandals and trolls for intentionally using the wiki to produce malicious content about me. They know it is malicious, play it off as a legitimate article, and move along their merry way without regard to the Sciforums member it affects. Then go into a mad fit when the member in question tries to revise the article to remove the offensive content. They begin calling that member a vandal. I do consider calling a member a vandal while knowing full well that the member has no malicious intent to be antithetical to civility within the wiki.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The encyclopedia is, at present, a joke. There is some major sporking to be done from wikipedia, then changing it from NPOV to Scientific Point Of View.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

according to this poll:
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64003
the results are really too close to call.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

sciforum soap: can remove any sign of sensibility with in seconds

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

he is just a crybaby. look at my page for an example of what these "vandals" have done.

have i complained? not at all.

maybe cool skill needs to stop taking himself so seriously.

 

That is because nobody cares about your crusty article.

I found another member that got vandalized, and then accused of vandalizing his own page by the vandals: http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Talk:Athelwulf

 

Since we don't have to register for the wiki with member names, there is no way to prevent vandalism besides banning the wiki-user name, and that's imperfect, so it can't really be moderated. Perhaps we shouldn't take it that seriously.

Edit: just read the thing about the encyclopedia team... I guess I am on it

 

They can write whatever the hell they like on the article about you. They cannot touch your user profile.

 

I agree with not taking it too seriously. I have no problem with all the random humor that is thrown into all the articles. But information about a particular member does not affect any other member more than the member the information is about. Therefore, I see no reason why we should not grant a member respect to have final say about any information that pertains to him.

The main members I have had problems with:
Avatar has a vendetta against me, and is clearly using the wiki to harass me.

Spuriousmonkey has gone completely mad, and seems to be the ringleader for a group of vandals called, the Unofficial Encyclopedia Team. He repeatedly reverts any attempt a member removing offensive content makes, and calls that member a vandal.

Nickelodeon fanatically and obsessively doing whatever it takes to prevent me from revising my article.


I never claimed that we should take the wiki so seriously. I simply find it absurd that vandals take so seriously when a member removes content about themselves that is clearly offesnive material. There is no reason for them to make a huge issue out of it as if it was so important that offesnive material remain on these articles. Perhaps it is the vandals that shouldn't take it so seriously.

 

`
Absolutely hilarious !

I mean - did anyone expect that scribbling mum-jum to the effect of " I yam so fantabulous " about themselves in a venue where anyone can alter it wasn't going to be like putting a giant target & sign saying " Fire Away !" up alongside it ?

I say get rid of all the member articles if you want to level the field, so to speak, and prevent so-called vendettas & vandalism - and bar them from being written.
I imagine they'd have to be deleted as created, but that's what we got a bloated bureaucracy of apparatchiks for.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Muslim_(SciForums_member)

??? is that all. I told you it was orange juice.

 

Why pour orange juice in a bottle of bacardi breezer?

 

It looked cool? just posing for the camera.

 

Who were you trying to impress? Your dad?

 

Kewl.

 

bullshit!
everytime someone referenced where you called them a troll you got your panties so far up the crack of your ass it cut the circulation off to your brain.

thats all this is about lix and you know it.
a whole page of references was given to back up every claim made against you and staying true to form you called them a , you guessed it, a troll.

 

I suggest that Lixluke stops his activities immediately. Posing as a moderator or administrator and pretending to have the power to ban other members is a serious offense.

http://www.sciforums.com/encyclopedia/Official_Encyclopedia_Team

Let's wait till the administrator comes online before acting rash.

 

In what way is this team "Official"?

 

as in not.

 

he is calling us trolls? apart from the mild jabs we threw in there, everything else was true. then he DELETES entire articles as an act of revenge