| Revision as of 21:28, 3 May 2013 editYintan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers68,284 editsm Reverted edits by Mw3iscool (talk) to last revision by SarahStierch (HG)← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:50, 6 May 2013 edit undoMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 180d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Vandalism/Archive 8.Next edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| | accessdate = 2013-05-02 | | accessdate = 2013-05-02 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Time taken to revert vandalism == | == Time taken to revert vandalism == | ||
| Line 57: | Line 56: | ||
| <nowiki> | <nowiki> | ||
| == Origin == | |||
| ]]] | |||
| The bear character originates from the popular bulletin board system (BBS) website '']''in ]<ref name="kuma---!!">{{cite web|title=くまくま━━━━━━ヽ（ ・(ｪ)・ ）ノ━━━━━━ !!! |author=blue3|accessdate=2012/10/11|url=http://aa.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/kao/1046353580/}}</ref>, where it was introduced as '']'' (''Kumā''), an interjection of the word 熊 (''Kuma'') meaning ''bear'' in Japanese. Unlike Pedobear, ''Kumā'' has no sexual connotations, pedophilic or otherwise.<BR> | |||
| </nowiki> | |||
| Thank you! --] (]) 22:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Self-reverted vandalism? == | |||
| I recently saw a case where someone blatantly vandalized a page, but then reverted the changes themselves a few minutes later, instead removing words like "is" which were not central to the article, but should not have been deleted. Normally, I would assume good faith for the later change, but in this case, I am unsure what to do. I do believe they are most likely intentionally vandalizing. ] (]) 18:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tl|Uw-selfrevert}} is what you wanted. ] (]) 03:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you! ] (]) 00:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Restoring a clause to the copyright section == | == Restoring a clause to the copyright section == | ||
Revision as of 06:50, 6 May 2013
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vandalism page. |
|
 | This is NOT the page for reporting vandalism.
This page is for discussion of the Misplaced Pages:Vandalism page and its associated official policy.
|
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
 | This page is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | Counter-Vandalism Unit | |||
| ||||
 | Misplaced Pages Help Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 Archives |
| Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
 | This page has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Time taken to revert vandalism
Is there less people doing anti-vandal patrol now or something as I feel like there is no one else doing it. For example vandalism edits are taking hours until reversion. Maybe an issue which could be addressed, we should encourage people to anti-vandal patrol. TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Keep up your efforts. There are indeed others helping, but I am not apprised of the statistics that might indicate a lull in anti-vandalism work. Unfortunately, there will always be vandalistic edits that go unnoticed. Try dropping a note by the vandalism wikiproject (CVU). The editors there may have some more information about the issue. NTox · talk 03:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- Idea: a robot counting the word "vandalism" in revision history Edit summaries (and maybe measuring time before reverts) could show the weight of vandalism and flash a warning on Talk page or Project page for editors to deal with. It seems to supplement the CVU tools. Just a suggestion if anyone wants to take it further and relieve editor attention. This should make it easier to manage vandalism, direct attention to suffering articles, and shift efforts from tedious recurring edits to unopposed vandalism. ClueBot already helps us with the simplest vandalism.
- Parameters:
- amount of word "vandalism" on 50-revision page and/or past month
- percentage of word "vandalism" out of all edits on 50-revision page and/or past month
- adjustable trigger level for the above and for revert time before notifications:
- notification on Talk page
- report to overall statistics pages (viewable only for auto-confirmed accounts? to prevent highscore efforts)
I will repost to CVU:Talk as well. TGCP (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Pedobear Origin SVG created.
Hi,I was created by the SVG of Pedobear Images,so please add for article one.Article EXSAMPLE.
<nowiki>
Restoring a clause to the copyright section
In removing "or fails to heed warnings", this edit made policy self-contradictory, as repeated uploading of copyrighted material after warning is and long has been explicitly included as an example of vandalism. I have resolved this by restoring the removed clause. --Moonriddengirl 15:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
AGF revert?
I'm wondering what you would do with this edit. I found it using Stiki. I performed an AGF revert then welcomed the user with a warning template. Andrew 17:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- You reverted this edit which added "its a quite cute animal" to Lion-tailed macaque. Your mild welcome/warning is good. Edits like that from an IP/user with no history of similar junk should not be treated as standard vandalism because a bored kid mucking around today might be a great editor in a few years. I think I would just revert the user with a neutral edit summary like "not needed" or "unhelpful" and not issue any warning, but anything which doesn't sound pompous or unduly WP:BITE the user is fine. We should never encourage mucking around, and edit summaries should be unadorned, but I once indulged myself with this revert, and put a message here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I know the rules, but I think learning what to do in the gray areas only really comes with experience. Andrew 00:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Some errors in "Edit summary" section
I removed "not" from "However, not leaving edit summaries is not considered vandalism" because it's really misleading. How "not leaving edit summaries" cannot be helpful. It's written in the same (Edit summary) section that the use of edit summaries is considered as proper Misplaced Pages "etiquette". As per the understanding from this policy, "Not vandalism" are edits that are disruptive but made in good faith. Some editors reverting my edits as "original obviously correct" and "awkward reasoning". Please give proper reasoning here. Thank you. Forgot to put name 14:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's a classic and correct use of an intentional double negative. Putting an edit summary is clearly not vandalism, but the converse is not true, that is, not putting an edit summary does not mean that the edit is vandalism and no edit should be reverted simply because of the lack of an edit summary. That is exactly what the guideline already says. Just because you didn't understand it doesn't mean the guideline should be changed, especially when the change completely reverses the meaning. oknazevad (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Place to list IP's?
What to do about (assuming good faith) clueless contributors, who add wrong information using anonymous access? Is there a place where one can put IP addresses in order to have them more closely followed by admins? (I just ran accross 84.169.114.174 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 84.157.28.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) — MFH:Talk 08:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- In general, feel free to issue appropriate warnings on their talk page—if you think it will help. See WP:RBI for a rationale to ignore them without warnings. If they are willfully injecting errors or unwanted content, report to WP:AIV. If they are merely conducting an editing test or two, revert and WP:WELCOME them. —EncMstr (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
How does it affect Misplaced Pages? Stats needed
This article should state how quickly vandalism is reverted, an estimate of how many articles it affects, and so on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 11 February 2013
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove line...unfortunately he has split with his wife and now lives in state college, Pennsylvania. Violindirector (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Which page are you talking about? It's not this one. Hut 8.5 12:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Violindirector's only other edit, this one, was at the page Jonathan Carney, which is not semi-ed. Why the user has chosen this forum of all places to request a change that they ultimately made themselves anyway, is as much a mystery to me as is why this page is on my watchlist. :-) --RacerX Talk to me 23:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism from school class C blocks
There was repeated vandalism on the afternoon of 1 May 2013 to the featured article, If Day. The vandalism came from IP addresses that belonged to the Volusia County Schools in Florida. Vandalism from schools has happened in the past. Should the policy be clarified to give more instructions on what to do with school vandalism? Here are my suggestions. First, administrators should use soft blocks rather than hard blocks. There is no need to prevent teachers or administrators from doing constructive edits from the IP block. Should something be said here, or should something be said in the {{WP:Block|blocking policy]]?
I would also suggest that any Wikipedian who wants to go an extra mile and knows how to look up IP addresses can report the vandalism, preferably with timestamps, to the contact person for the address block. This should certainly not be required, but I'm an old and hardened spam-fighter and I did just that.
Soft Blocks
Should this policy be clarified to state that soft blocks rather than hard blocks are the proper response to vandalism from IP address ranges? There should be some guidance to administrators that IP addresses, and especially IP address ranges, should not be hard-blocked due to vandalism if there can be multiple people from an address. Hard-blocking an IP address is an extreme remedy unless it is a static IP address, and most IP addresses are not static IP addresses. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Categories: