4 replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link

When a post is self vandalised, the post should be rolled back to the previous version. This http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/209436/self-vandalism-what-is-correct-actionSelf-Vandalism, what is correct action question addresses the correct protocol.

enter image description here

Ok so when a user has a temporary lapse in behaviour and self vandalises a post, it temporarily leaves a messy post on the site.

enter image description here

This is something that can be changed quickly, as was done for that post.

This question received 3 quick downvotes (one was quickly reversed due to discussion in a chat room, so only two downvotes are showing), I assume due to the vandalism.

enter image description here

I did leave a comment under the question:

hey! Self vandalism doesn't warrant downvotes!

It is human nature to want to downvote a post an OP is vandalising, however it doesn't benefit the site to downvote on transient user behaviour, it's preferable to vote on the merits of the post.

Admittedly some posts that are self-vandalised are done so due to the post receiving negative attention, not having good quality, in which case self vandalism will frquently attract more down votes.

The point of this post is to ask and educate the community about what it thinks of downvoting self vandalised posts, should they be downvoted for being vandalised?

When a post is self vandalised, the post should be rolled back to the previous version. This http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/209436/self-vandalism-what-is-correct-action question addresses the correct protocol.

enter image description here

Ok so when a user has a temporary lapse in behaviour and self vandalises a post, it temporarily leaves a messy post on the site.

enter image description here

This is something that can be changed quickly, as was done for that post.

This question received 3 quick downvotes (one was quickly reversed due to discussion in a chat room, so only two downvotes are showing), I assume due to the vandalism.

enter image description here

I did leave a comment under the question:

hey! Self vandalism doesn't warrant downvotes!

It is human nature to want to downvote a post an OP is vandalising, however it doesn't benefit the site to downvote on transient user behaviour, it's preferable to vote on the merits of the post.

Admittedly some posts that are self-vandalised are done so due to the post receiving negative attention, not having good quality, in which case self vandalism will frquently attract more down votes.

The point of this post is to ask and educate the community about what it thinks of downvoting self vandalised posts, should they be downvoted for being vandalised?

When a post is self vandalised, the post should be rolled back to the previous version. This Self-Vandalism, what is correct action question addresses the correct protocol.

enter image description here

Ok so when a user has a temporary lapse in behaviour and self vandalises a post, it temporarily leaves a messy post on the site.

enter image description here

This is something that can be changed quickly, as was done for that post.

This question received 3 quick downvotes (one was quickly reversed due to discussion in a chat room, so only two downvotes are showing), I assume due to the vandalism.

enter image description here

I did leave a comment under the question:

hey! Self vandalism doesn't warrant downvotes!

It is human nature to want to downvote a post an OP is vandalising, however it doesn't benefit the site to downvote on transient user behaviour, it's preferable to vote on the merits of the post.

Admittedly some posts that are self-vandalised are done so due to the post receiving negative attention, not having good quality, in which case self vandalism will frquently attract more down votes.

The point of this post is to ask and educate the community about what it thinks of downvoting self vandalised posts, should they be downvoted for being vandalised?

3 There is no need to link to the example here, your question does fine without this link. No link, no Meta effect. I've blurred out the name too.
source | link

When a post is self vandalised, the post should be rolled back to the previous version. This http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/209436/self-vandalism-what-is-correct-action question addresses the correct protocol.

enter image description here

I'm using this question as a example http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29068866/binary-searching-in-python (hoping it doesn't receive the meta effect).enter image description here

Ok so when a user has a temporary lapse in behaviour and self vandalises a post, it temporarily leaves a messy post on the site.

enter image description here

This is something that can be changed quickly, as the edit history of this example question showswas done for that post.

This question received 3 quick downvotes (one was quickly reversed due to discussion in a chat room, so only two downvotes are showing), I assume due to the vandalism.

enter image description here

I did leave a comment under the question:

hey! Self vandalism doesn't warrant downvotes! hey! Self vandalism doesn't warrant downvotes!

It is human nature to want to downvote a post an OP is vandalising, however it doesn't benefit the site to downvote on transient user behaviour, it's preferable to vote on the merits of the post.

Admittedly some posts that are self-vandalised are done so due to the post receiving negative attention, not having good quality, in which case self vandalism will frquently attract more down votes.

The point of this post is to ask and educate the community about what it thinks of downvoting self vandalised posts, should they be downvoted for being vandalised?

When a post is self vandalised, the post should be rolled back to the previous version. This http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/209436/self-vandalism-what-is-correct-action question addresses the correct protocol.

enter image description here

I'm using this question as a example http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29068866/binary-searching-in-python (hoping it doesn't receive the meta effect).

Ok so when a user has a temporary lapse in behaviour and self vandalises a post, it temporarily leaves a messy post on the site.

enter image description here

This is something that can be changed quickly, as the edit history of this example question shows.

This question received 3 quick downvotes (one was quickly reversed due to discussion in a chat room, so only two downvotes are showing), I assume due to the vandalism.

enter image description here

I did leave a comment under the question:

hey! Self vandalism doesn't warrant downvotes!

It is human nature to want to downvote a post an OP is vandalising, however it doesn't benefit the site to downvote on transient user behaviour, it's preferable to vote on the merits of the post.

Admittedly some posts that are self-vandalised are done so due to the post receiving negative attention, not having good quality, in which case self vandalism will frquently attract more down votes.

The point of this post is to ask and educate the community about what it thinks of downvoting self vandalised posts, should they be downvoted for being vandalised?

When a post is self vandalised, the post should be rolled back to the previous version. This http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/209436/self-vandalism-what-is-correct-action question addresses the correct protocol.

enter image description here

Ok so when a user has a temporary lapse in behaviour and self vandalises a post, it temporarily leaves a messy post on the site.

enter image description here

This is something that can be changed quickly, as was done for that post.

This question received 3 quick downvotes (one was quickly reversed due to discussion in a chat room, so only two downvotes are showing), I assume due to the vandalism.

enter image description here

I did leave a comment under the question:

hey! Self vandalism doesn't warrant downvotes!

It is human nature to want to downvote a post an OP is vandalising, however it doesn't benefit the site to downvote on transient user behaviour, it's preferable to vote on the merits of the post.

Admittedly some posts that are self-vandalised are done so due to the post receiving negative attention, not having good quality, in which case self vandalism will frquently attract more down votes.

The point of this post is to ask and educate the community about what it thinks of downvoting self vandalised posts, should they be downvoted for being vandalised?

2 added 209 characters in body
source | link

When a post is self vandalised, the post should be rolled back to the previous version. This http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/209436/self-vandalism-what-is-correct-action question addresses the correct protocol.

enter image description here

I'm using this question as a example http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29068866/binary-searching-in-python (hoping it doesn't receive the meta effect).

Ok so when a user has a temporary lapse in behaviour and self vandalises a post, it temporarily leaves a messy post on the site.

enter image description here

This is something that can be changed quickly, as the edit history of this example question shows.

This question received 3 quick downvotes (one was quickly reversed due to discussion in a chat room, so only two downvotes are showing), I assume due to the vandalism.

enter image description here

I did leave a comment under the question:

hey! Self vandalism doesn't warrant downvotes!

It is human nature to want to downvote a post an OP is vandalising, however it doesn't benefit the site to downvote on transient user behaviour, it's preferable to vote on the merits of the post.

Admittedly some posts that are self-vandalised are done so due to the post receiving negative attention, not having good quality, in which case self vandalism will frquently attract more down votes.

The point of this post is to ask and educate the community about what it thinks of downvoting self vandalised posts, should they be downvoted for being vandalised?

When a post is self vandalised, the post should be rolled back to the previous version. This http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/209436/self-vandalism-what-is-correct-action question addresses the correct protocol.

enter image description here

I'm using this question as a example http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29068866/binary-searching-in-python (hoping it doesn't receive the meta effect).

Ok so when a user has a temporary lapse in behaviour and self vandalises a post, it temporarily leaves a messy post on the site.

enter image description here

This is something that can be changed quickly, as the edit history of this example question shows.

This question received 3 quick downvotes (one was quickly reversed due to discussion in a chat room, so only two downvotes are showing), I assume due to the vandalism.

enter image description here

It is human nature to want to downvote a post an OP is vandalising, however it doesn't benefit the site to downvote on transient user behaviour, it's preferable to vote on the merits of the post.

Admittedly some posts that are self-vandalised are done so due to the post receiving negative attention, not having good quality, in which case self vandalism will frquently attract more down votes.

The point of this post is to ask and educate the community about what it thinks of downvoting self vandalised posts, should they be downvoted for being vandalised?

When a post is self vandalised, the post should be rolled back to the previous version. This http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/209436/self-vandalism-what-is-correct-action question addresses the correct protocol.

enter image description here

I'm using this question as a example http://stackoverflow.com/questions/29068866/binary-searching-in-python (hoping it doesn't receive the meta effect).

Ok so when a user has a temporary lapse in behaviour and self vandalises a post, it temporarily leaves a messy post on the site.

enter image description here

This is something that can be changed quickly, as the edit history of this example question shows.

This question received 3 quick downvotes (one was quickly reversed due to discussion in a chat room, so only two downvotes are showing), I assume due to the vandalism.

enter image description here

I did leave a comment under the question:

hey! Self vandalism doesn't warrant downvotes!

It is human nature to want to downvote a post an OP is vandalising, however it doesn't benefit the site to downvote on transient user behaviour, it's preferable to vote on the merits of the post.

Admittedly some posts that are self-vandalised are done so due to the post receiving negative attention, not having good quality, in which case self vandalism will frquently attract more down votes.

The point of this post is to ask and educate the community about what it thinks of downvoting self vandalised posts, should they be downvoted for being vandalised?

1
source | link