| Revision as of 19:18, 3 January 2024 editDanbloch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,361 edits →description of image vandalism: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:45, 4 January 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,742 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Vandalism/Archive 9) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Vandalism/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Vandalism/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == WP:VAN == | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Can someone help report 49.183.30.114? == | |||
| Hi, | |||
| can someone help me report 49.183.30.114, for the following vandalism? | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Snorlax&oldid=1089124024 | |||
| Its, in my opinion, probo a lv.3-4 | |||
| thanks, | |||
| ] (]) 19:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :That was last May, so no. ] (]) 19:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Another type of vandalism: duplicating the article text? == | == Another type of vandalism: duplicating the article text? == | ||
Revision as of 13:45, 4 January 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. |
Another type of vandalism: duplicating the article text?
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.
Here 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. AP 499D25 (talk) 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. Kk.urban (talk) 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. Gnomingstuff (talk) 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. Kk.urban (talk) 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 WP:NOTEVERYTHING, "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, Thinker78 (talk) 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 2A09:80C0:192:0:7841:1E51:2CF6:E039 (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
description of image vandalism
Should Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#Image_vandalism 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.
Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Done. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)