| Revision as of 17:08, 23 September 2005 editDESiegel (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users50,971 editsm →Hoaxes: sign and fix typos← 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 | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{talk header|noarchive=yes}} | |||
| A vandal is a person who deliberately damages property, information etc. Vandalism is the act of damaging the property, information etc. | |||
| {{tmbox | |||
| | type = content | |||
| | image = ] | |||
| | style = padding: 6px; | |||
| | textstyle = text-align: left; | |||
| | text = <div style="font-size: 14pt; text-align: center; line-height: 2em">'''This is <u>NOT</u> the page for reporting vandalism'''.</div> | |||
| This page is for discussion of the ''']''' page and its associated official policy. | |||
| * Report obvious vandals at ''']'''. | |||
| * Report any other incidents at the ''']'''. | |||
| * For common cases of vandalism, just ''']''' them. | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Policy talk}} | |||
| {{American English}} | |||
| {{Central|Category talk:Misplaced Pages vandalism}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{Counter-Vandalism Unit}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Help |class=Project |importance=top}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Press | |||
| | author = Chris Matyszczyk | |||
| | date = 2013-05-02 | |||
| | url = http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57582647-71/windows-8-wikipedia-page-vandalized/ | |||
| | title = Windows 8 Misplaced Pages page vandalized | |||
| | org = ] | |||
| | archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/6GKWDVO4U | |||
| | archivedate = 2013-05-02 | |||
| | accessdate = 2013-05-02 | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archives|auto=yes|search=yes|bot=lowercase sigmabot II|age=180|index=/Archive index| | |||
| <br /><center>See also: ]</center> | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| |counter = 9 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |algo = old(180d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Vandalism/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| == 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 == | ||
| the page should be protected ] (]) 23:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ], including on the ], was recently editted to include a Christmas message/advert for a project. While the person that did it could claim the ] rule I think that the lack of discussion and repeated reversion could be seen as a kind of vandalism. Yes, it was quite appropriate but, at least in it's rather ugly form, it should not have been done. I can see both sides of the argument - anyone got any views? ] ] 14:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| == I do not think that all humorous writing is vandalism, and this page could acknowledge that. == | |||
| :It's not vandalism IMO, but it is against the 3RR ] | ] 01:11, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC) | |||
| 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 think the gesture was very nice, but I also think that they need to be told (gently) that breaking the 3RR is definitely frowned upon, and that we try to keep the templates to a minimum because there is not much real estate on the front page. I don't think it was vandalism. - ] 02:55, 28 Dec 2004 (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. | |||
| : No, I don't think it was vandalism. There probably is a grey area for vandalism (e.g. link-spam), but I don't think this falls into it. This is just a Misplaced Pages editor doing something that they ''thought'' was fine, but which others disagreed with. ] ] 11:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| I find that dates of birth and death are particularly vulnerable to sneaky vandalism. | |||
| :Definitely not vandalism. Just a disagreement, probably made more difficult by a language barrier (i.e. English not being GerardM's first language.) "Vandalism" should only refer to deliberate defacement. GerardM clearly thought he was being reasonable, although from his comments I couldn't quite understand his rationale. ] 07:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == ''Anyone'', Can Edit. Threats and Possibilities. == | |||
| == images of vandalism for examples? == | |||
| :There are many vague vandalism ]s of the endless possibilities of ] vandalism. One of such fears could be "What if suddenly Misplaced Pages is discovered by people who don't realize it is created for them also? What if for example, a random ] kid decides that it is funny to post an ] on a seemingly scholarly website? What is interesting about this sort of fear and possibility is that, for example, ''that'' ] would have the most to benefit from this site. Because what people underestimate is that EVERYONE has interests. Some people just don't realize they have the access to information to utilize them. In addition to the fact that person could realize they can have a voice and play an active role in editing biased statements about their ]. | |||
| I propose adding images as examples of vandalism, such as this | |||
| ---- | |||
| ] ] (]) 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) | |||
| I think that it should be considered vandalism when someone eviscerates an article by deleting large quantities of factual, relevant reference material.] 19:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :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 == | |||
| :Anyone looking at your edit history can see you're a controversial editor with an agenda, which is shown in articles such as ] and ]. ] 22:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Shortcut to this article == | |||
| I created another shortcut: ] | |||
| ==POV vandalism== | |||
| I disagree with the apparent blanket statement that POV edits are not vandalism. There are some cases - particularly where a user continues to restore POV rants that have repeatedly been deleted and go against clearly established consensus - where introduction of POV is indeed vandalism. --] ] 15:11, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC) | |||
| :It's disruption, yes, but it isn't vandalism. I don't think we need to try and umbrella all parts of the blocking policy under the one term ''vandalism'' where they don't fit. ] 16:48, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC) | |||
| ==Policy== | |||
| Is this page official policy? Should it have the <nowiki>{{policy}}</nowiki> template on it? ] ] 09:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Hoaxes == | |||
| I see Hoaxes being described as vanadalism, and "Hoax from known vandal" as a reason for a speedy delete. But "Hoax" is not included in the list of types of vandalism. Should it be? ] 18:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Is Deleting Sections of Talk Pages Vandalism? == | |||
| There is an RfC currently in progress against a user who has, among other violations of Wikiquette, deleted other Wikipedians' comments from talk pages. The allegations against the user include vandalism because of the deletion of comments from talk pages. My question is: Is this considered vandalism? | |||
| In reading the definitions of vandalism, that appears to me to be a gray area of definition. I see that the blanking of pages, whether talk pages or articles, is vandalism. The blanking of sections from an article is not necessarily vandalism. It may be a bold (or reckless) edit. | |||
| It is clear enough that the deletion of posts by other users on talk pages is a serious breach of Wikiquette. It interferes with the function of the talk page to be a cumulative archive of comments. It has been my understanding that the only edits one could perform on material already in talk pages would be minor edits to one's own posts, e.g., to correct typos. | |||
| If it isn't vandalism, there should be another policy forbidding it. If it is vandalism, I would suggest that this official policy be modified slightly to include improper alteration of talk pages as a form of vandalism. ] 00:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I suppsoe obvious typo cleanup and correction of forrmating errors (to avoid brakign a numberd or bulleted list, for example) to others words might be ok. but changing the sense or context of others postings, much less deleteing them entirely, is IMO beyond the pale whether we call it vandalism or not. BTW I am even agaisnt ] when it involves changing the comments of others. that view does not have a clear consensus, however. ] 00:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that previous personal attacks should not be deleted. If dispute resolution does not work, then the person posting the personal attacks can be a subject of an RfC, RfM, or even RfA. Deleting the attack interferes with the dispute resolution process. | |||
| I will not correct typos in the comment of others, by the way. That is not up to me. ] 01:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Twice now I've had people delete my comments from discussion sections of a page and after I point out that is vandalism they point to wiki policy and state its vandalism and they can remove other peoples comments all they like. As far as I am concerned deletion of peoples posts in discussion (and I am talking selective discussion, not removal of old information) is vandalism and I will always call people on it. ] 22:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Page moves == | |||
| I've added this to the page: "However, Misplaced Pages now only allows users with 25 edits or above to make page moves". I wonder if it's exactly 25 edits, or is it 20 edits? Those who have fewer than 20/25 edits should post at ]. — ] (]) 00:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : I'm quite a new user and my ninth and tenth edits was a page move. The page move in question did not work when I tried it before my sixth edit. -- ] 21:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Official policy vandalism== | |||
| I have added "Official policy vandalism" to the list of types of vandalism. It consists of deleting or altering portions of an official policy with which the vandal disagrees. A recent example is Dot-Six. ] 15:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| If somebody thinks that something is included to the official policy (i.e. agreeing to the policy), that should be considered as non-vandalism. Not to mention, new forms of vandalism on Misplaced Pages may be discovered. --] 20:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| What I was referring to was deleting paragraphs from official policies. Attempting to improve the wording of a policy is not vandalism. It should be done cautiously, but is not vandalism. Deleting paragraphs from a policy, or changing the meaning of the policy, should be considered a form of vandalism. | |||
| The statement that new forms of vandalism may be discovered and will have to be dealt with is true. ] 22:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Foreign language== | |||
| I don't think adding articles in foreign language should count as vandalism. It's more likely to be a newbie not realizing the different wikipedias, or realizing that there are other langs but thinking en: is THE only wikipedia. These usually are tagged <nowiki>{{notenglish}}</nowiki> and sent to ]. Usually a gentle warning and a point to the right place works better. On the other hand, 100% copy texts from other wikis, even after being asking not to would classify, but I htink that could be included into some other vand type. <] ]> 19:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == NPOV tag ? == | |||
| Why was an NPOV tag put on the vandalism article page? I will remove it if a statement is not added on this talk page as to what the neutrality dispute is. ] 23:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Apparently SuperDude115 put up the disputed POV tag because (as he/she wrote in the edit summary): | |||
| :"According to some edit wars I have noticed in the history, this will be tagged as 'disputed'." | |||
| :I have no clue what he/she is refering to. ] 18:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Most of the recent reverts I've seen have been to revert - gee gosh - vandalism. ] 23:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I removed the NPOV tag. If anyone thinks that an NPOV tag is applicable, they should say why on this talk page. Perhaps someone was confused by the discussion of what is not vandalism. POV pushing is not vandalism, and should be dealt with via an NPOV tag and seeking consensus. However, this article makes it clear what vandalism is and is not. ] 23:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Addition == | |||
| Subtantially changing other people's comments (and in particular, their votes on anything) is, to my knowledge, strongly frowned upon by the community as a whole, and can easily get the offender blocked. As such I thought it was best to add it here. ]]] 18:17, August 14, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == A compromise == | |||
| I enjoy wikipedia vandalism very much and have absolutely no intention of stopping whatsoever. However, I don't see why it should be only me taking pleasure from it, and thus I propose that you guys recommend articles that you would like me to vandalise, perhaps by sending me a message on my talk page. Perhaps there's a user you don't like? Don't worry, I'll sort them out... | |||
| Alternatively, I will have to continue random blanking, long, stupid articles, predjudiced statements, or (my personal favourite) page move vandalism. --] 21:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I have tried to reason with this potential vandal on his talk page, and hopefully he'll stop. ] ] ] 21:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hoaxes== | |||
| If I understand this, hoaxes, although they may be removed through Afd, are not considered to be vandalism. I would recommend rethinking that. -] 01:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :The manin reason is the danger of false positives. In a number of cases people have nominated articels for deletion as hoaxes in good faith, only to learn that they are accurate articles about unusual, improbable, or obscure topics. Had "Hoxes" been considered vandalism (and thus speedy deletable) many of these might well have been deleted before the info could be confirmed (and proper references added). Note that IMO '''admitted''' or '''confirmed''' hoaxes are vandalism, but one must be very careful in assesing the confirmation. Somtimes an article '''about''' a known hoax, clearly stating it to be a hoax, may be worth while. ] ] 17:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == How to deal with vandalism from a shared PC eg in a school == | |||
| Is there a process for dealing with an IP which is clearly being used by a range of people possibly sharing a PC resource somewhere. eg ] . The range of different types of attack show this is not a single person so warning messages are pointless. ] 13:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks as if it might be an open proxy of some sort. I understand that it is policy that an admin can block the address in that situation. A more helpful message to post might advise that anyone attempting to make good-faith edits from the address should create an account. ] 16:33, 23 September 2005 (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: