Misplaced Pages talk:Vandalism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 11:20, 2 November 2023 edit2a09:80c0:192:0:7841:1e51:2cf6:e039 (talk) →Semantics: Vandalism vs Harrassment distinction: new sectionTag: New topic ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:02, 10 December 2024 edit undoMasterhatch (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers47,231 edits Undid revision 1262259392 by 2409:40E3:19:FD9F:8000:0:0:0 (talk) not sure how that helpsTags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
(86 intermediate revisions by 52 users not shown)
Line 39:		Line 39:
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Vandalism/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Vandalism/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
	== ~~WP:VAN~~ ==		== Vandalism? Promotion? ==
			IP-addresses including
			*
			*
			*
			*
			*
			*
			*likely many more in the same range
			posted in late February many television series releases (like ) on pages like ] like they are notable events. It don’t seems notable?. But is it also vandalism or promotion? Or should it all be moved to pages like ] ] (]) 13:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

			== should be protected ==
	Should we add ] as a shortcut? ] (]) 09:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
	:Just to clarify, I believe what is being asked is should the shortcut be added to list of shortcuts at the top of the project page, included in ].
	:(i.e. change <code><nowiki>{{Policy\|WP:VD\|WP:VAND\|WP:VANDAL\|WP:VANDALIZE\|WP:VNDL}}
	</nowiki></code> to <code><nowiki>{{Policy\|WP:VD\|WP:VAN\|WP:VAND\|WP:VANDAL\|WP:VANDALIZE\|WP:VNDL}}
	</nowiki></code>)
	:To produce this:
	{{Policy\|WP:VD\|WP:VAN\|WP:VAND\|WP:VANDAL\|WP:VANDALIZE\|WP:VNDL}}
	:Is that right ]? ] states {{tq\|To include up to five shortcuts, pass parameters...}} so it would need to replace one already on the list?
	:And I just now realized in my example it kicked off ]:) --]<sup>]</sup> 17:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
	::Not yet. Well, you need to increase the limit for the number of shortcuts, e.g. increasing the limit to include up to seven shortcuts, pass parameters, etc. ] (]) 02:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
	:::Do we really need to list that many shortcuts in the first place? The others are just as memorable, so adding "VAN" seems superfluous, especially since we have "VAND" already. ] (]) 02:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
	::::No, too similar shortcut. "VAND" is far more useful. ] (]) 01:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

			the page should be protected ] (]) 23:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	== Can someone help report 49.183.30.114? ==

			== I do not think that all humorous writing is vandalism, and this page could acknowledge that. ==
	Hi,

			Considering that vandalism is done in bad faith, and does not need to be humorous. Vandals can attempt to destroy Misplaced Pages out of hate.
	can someone help me report 49.183.30.114, for the following vandalism?

			Examples of humorous writing that is in good faith, but still disruptive, is when adding constructive material in an excessively humorous style, or inserting jokes that are meant to improve the fun of reading the article (and therefore helping it), but the jokes are out of place. Misplaced Pages is a serious wiki, after all. Sites like ] are examples of sites with a lot of humorous writing in good faith, to the point where humor is featured in encyclopedic material.
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Snorlax&oldid=1089124024

			There are templates to warn people who are adding inappropriate humor into pages, and where such writing is not proven to be vandalism (therefore not making those templates be redundant to those for warning about vandalism), and they are ], ], ], ] and ].
	Its, in my opinion, probo a lv.3-4

			How can this be acknowledged? Perhaps by mentioning something like this under "What is not vandalism" so that good-faith editors with too much humor can be seperated from those who want to damage this wiki, even if it can be hard to tell those two apart since humor happens to be common in vandalism. ] (]) 13:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

			:Yes ] (]) 10:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
	thanks,

			== images of vandalism for examples? ==
	] (]) 19:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

			I propose adding images as examples of vandalism, such as this
	:That was last May, so no. ] (]) 19:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
			] ] (]) 06:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

			:I have to look at too much of this already. I'll quit if any of you make me start looking at it in my free time. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>]</span> 06:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
	== Another type of vandalism: duplicating the article text? ==
			:No, we don't draw attention to trolls here, see ]. Please find something constructive to do. ] (]) 07:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

			== Feedback requested about homoglyph vandalism ==
	In the few days of total time that I did recent changes patrolling for, another common way I see people vandalise articles now, is they copy-and-paste the article text, within the article, duplicating/repeating the information. At a first glance it looks constructive and good-faith, as the addition makes sense and sounds encyclopedic. You never realise it's unconstructive until you read through the entire article and find that the same paragraphs, sentences etc have been repeated twice or more.

			Hello. A discussion is taking place regarding this tricky form of vandalism. Your feedback would be appreciated at ]. Thanks, ] (]) 20:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
	is a good recent example of this. The vandal even copied the article text in the edit summaries to make it look less like vandalism.

	So far I don't see anything on the "types of vandalism" section that goes over about this. Maybe it falls a little bit into subtle vandalism?

	I feel like this is worth mentioning in the info page (the types section) as it is probably something people are less likely to notice due to the reasons mentioned in first sentence above. ] (]) 08:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

	== The problem with this definition ==

	According to this page, vandalism is defined as "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.

	However, many/most editors on Misplaced Pages do not intent to present the sum of all human knowledge. If they did, there would be no need for notability guidelines and most deletion processes. Under the current definition, most editors who nominate an article for deletion are vandals, because they don't think Misplaced Pages should encompass "all human knowledge". But these editors are clearly not vandals, so the definition of vandalism should be restated. ] (]) 01:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

	:This seems like trying to indirectly raise a point that would be better off raised on the pages for the notability and/or deletion-related policies you disagree with. It's tangential at best to the definition of vandalism. ] (]) 11:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
	::No, I'm not suggesting that notability policies should be changed. I don't think that Misplaced Pages SHOULD present the sum of all human knowledge. I'm suggesting that the definition of vandalism should be changed to reflect how it is actually used. ] (]) 17:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
	:I agree with Kk.urban in that the language is too encompassing. I think it suffices to say, "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a 💕". Because this is the English Misplaced Pages and adding articles or content in other languages is mostly not how things work.
	:In addition, not all human knowledge is contained in Misplaced Pages nor it is sought, just part of it. I mean saying we want all human knowledge sounds ideal and very lofty but it is not current practice. Per ], "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Misplaced Pages article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." Regards, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">]</span> ] 03:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

	== Semantics: Vandalism vs Harrassment distinction ==

	Hi,
	why exactly does Misplaced Pages draw a line between vandalism and user harassment, considering both offences are treated the same (as far as I know)? Simple record-keeping? I‘m not an experienced user (as apparent by the IP address), but I‘m still curious. - Epsilon ] (]) 11:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:02, 10 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vandalism page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This is NOT the page for reporting vandalism.

This page is for discussion of the Misplaced Pages:Vandalism page and its associated official policy.

Report obvious vandals at Administrator intervention against vandalism.
Report any other incidents at the Administrators' incidents noticeboard.
For common cases of vandalism, just revert them.

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.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Category talk:Misplaced Pages vandalism redirects here.

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Counter-Vandalism Unit

This page is within the scope of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, a WikiProject dedicated to combating vandalism on Misplaced Pages. You can help the CVU by watching the recent changes and undoing unconstructive edits. For more information go to the CVU's home page or see cleaning up vandalism.Counter-Vandalism UnitWikipedia:Counter-Vandalism UnitTemplate:Counter-Vandalism UnitCounter-Vandalism Unit

Misplaced Pages Help Top‑importance

	This page is within the scope of the Misplaced Pages Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Misplaced Pages HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Misplaced Pages Help ProjectHelp
Top	This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page has been mentioned by a media organization:

Chris Matyszczyk (2013-05-02). "Windows 8 Misplaced Pages page vandalized". CNET. Archived from the original on 2013-05-02. Retrieved 2013-05-02.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Vandalism? Promotion?

IP-addresses including

likely many more in the same range

posted in late February many television series releases (like ) on pages like 2024 in the Netherlands like they are notable events. It don’t seems notable?. But is it also vandalism or promotion? Or should it all be moved to pages like 2024 in Dutch television 82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

should be protected

the page should be protected Truth protest (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not think that all humorous writing is vandalism, and this page could acknowledge that.

Considering that vandalism is done in bad faith, and does not need to be humorous. Vandals can attempt to destroy Misplaced Pages out of hate.

Examples of humorous writing that is in good faith, but still disruptive, is when adding constructive material in an excessively humorous style, or inserting jokes that are meant to improve the fun of reading the article (and therefore helping it), but the jokes are out of place. Misplaced Pages is a serious wiki, after all. Sites like TV Tropes are examples of sites with a lot of humorous writing in good faith, to the point where humor is featured in encyclopedic material.

There are templates to warn people who are adding inappropriate humor into pages, and where such writing is not proven to be vandalism (therefore not making those templates be redundant to those for warning about vandalism), and they are here, here, here, here and here.

How can this be acknowledged? Perhaps by mentioning something like this under "What is not vandalism" so that good-faith editors with too much humor can be seperated from those who want to damage this wiki, even if it can be hard to tell those two apart since humor happens to be common in vandalism. CarlFilip19 (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes 194.74.221.162 (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

images of vandalism for examples?

I propose adding images as examples of vandalism, such as this

InsertCoolNameHere78 (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to look at too much of this already. I'll quit if any of you make me start looking at it in my free time. Remsense ‥ 论 06:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't draw attention to trolls here, see WP:DENY. Please find something constructive to do. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requested about homoglyph vandalism

Hello. A discussion is taking place regarding this tricky form of vandalism. Your feedback would be appreciated at WT:AIV#Homoglyph vandalism. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: