Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:08, 7 August 2005

A vandal is a person who deliberately damages property, information etc. Vandalism is the act of damaging the property, information etc.

Was this vandalism?

Template:WikipediaSister, including on the Main Page, was recently editted to include a Christmas message/advert for a project. While the person that did it could claim the be bold 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? violet/riga (t) 14:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not vandalism IMO, but it is against the 3RR Dori | Talk 01:11, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

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. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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. Noel (talk) 11:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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. Isomorphic 07:24, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anyone, Can Edit. Threats and Possibilities.

There are many vague vandalism fears of the endless possibilities of Wikipedian 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 High School kid decides that it is funny to post an obscenity on a seemingly scholarly website? What is interesting about this sort of fear and possibility is that, for example, that teenager 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 demographic.

I think that it should be considered vandalism when someone eviscerates an article by deleting large quantities of factual, relevant reference material.NCdave 19:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anyone looking at your edit history can see you're a controversial editor with an agenda, which is shown in articles such as Terri Schiavo and partial-birth abortion. Mike H 22:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Shortcut to this article

I created another shortcut: wp:vand

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. -- BDAbramson 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. Jarvik 16:48, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Policy

Is this page official policy? Should it have the {{policy}} template on it? the wub "?/!" 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? DES 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. Robert McClenon 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 WP:RPA when it involves changing the comments of others. that view does not have a clear consensus, however. DES 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. Robert McClenon 01:39, 23 July 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 Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:53, 29 July 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. Robert McClenon 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. --SuperDude 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. Robert McClenon 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 {{notenglish}} and sent to WP:PNT. 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. <drini ☎> 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. Robert McClenon 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. Bayerischermann 18:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Most of the recent reverts I've seen have been to revert - gee gosh - vandalism. 23skidoo 23:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)