| Revision as of 20:46, 26 February 2024 editShellwood (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers404,731 editsm Reverted edits by 24.239.176.14 (talk) to last version by Doug WellerTag: Rollback← 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 | ||
| (71 intermediate revisions by 41 users not shown) | |||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Vandalism/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Vandalism/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == Vandalism? Promotion? == | |||
| == Another type of vandalism: duplicating the article text? == | |||
| 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 == | |||
| 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. | |||
| the page should be protected ] (]) 23:44, 18 May 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. | |||
| == I do not think that all humorous writing is vandalism, and this page could acknowledge that. == | |||
| 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? | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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. | |||
| == The problem with this definition == | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :Yes ] (]) 10:41, 28 August 2024 (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) | |||
| == images of vandalism for examples? == | |||
| == Semantics: Vandalism vs Harrassment distinction == | |||
| I propose adding images as examples of vandalism, such as this | |||
| Hi, | |||
| ] ] (]) 06:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| == description of image vandalism == | |||
| :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 == | |||
| Should ] perhaps be reworded so that it cannot be interpreted as claiming that it is okay to upload explicit images of minors? I can't imagine anyone would seriously read it that way, but I can't be the only one to have done a double-take when reading the description. | |||
| 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) | |||
| Cheers, ] (]) 19:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed. Done. ] (]) 19:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:02, 10 December 2024
| 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. |
 | 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: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | This page has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 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. |
Vandalism? Promotion?
IP-addresses including
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)
images of vandalism for examples?
I propose adding images as examples of vandalism, such as this
.png)
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: