Misplaced Pages talk:Vandalism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:50, 6 May 2013 editMiszaBot II (talk \| contribs)259,776 editsm Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 180d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Vandalism/Archive 8.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:19, 3 January 2025 edit undoZzuuzz (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators136,880 editsm Reverted edits by 106.222.156.174 (talk) to last version by MasterhatchTag: Rollback
(847 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~talkheader~~\|noarchive=yes}}		{{talk header\|noarchive=yes}}
	{{tmbox		{{tmbox
	\| type = content		\| type = content
Line 11:		Line 11:
	* For common cases of vandalism, just ''']''' them.		* For common cases of vandalism, just ''']''' them.
	}}		}}
	{{Policy-talk}}		{{Policy talk}}
			{{American English}}
	{{AmE}}
			{{Central\|Category talk:Misplaced Pages vandalism}}
	{{CVU}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|
	{{Help Project}}
			{{Counter-Vandalism Unit}}
⚫	{{archives\|auto=yes\|search=yes\|bot=~~MiszaBot~~ II\|age=180\|index=/Archive index\|
			{{WikiProject Help \|class=Project \|importance=top}}
⚫	</br><center>See also: ]</center>
	}}		}}
⚫	{{User:MiszaBot/config
⚫	\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
⚫	\|maxarchivesize = 200K
⚫	\|counter = 8
⚫	\|minthreadsleft = 4
⚫	\|algo = old(180d)
⚫	\|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Vandalism/Archive %(counter)d
⚫	}}

	{{Press		{{Press
	\| author = Chris Matyszczyk		\| author = Chris Matyszczyk
Line 37:		Line 28:
	\| accessdate = 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)

	== ~~Time~~ ~~taken~~ ~~to revert vandalism~~ ==		== should be protected ==

	Is there less people doing anti-vandal patrol now or something as I feel like there is no one else doing it. For example vandalism edits are taking hours until reversion. Maybe an issue which could be addressed, we should encourage people to anti-vandal patrol. ] (]) 17:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
	:Keep up your efforts. There are indeed others helping, but I am not apprised of the statistics that might indicate a lull in anti-vandalism work. Unfortunately, there will always be vandalistic edits that go unnoticed. Try dropping a note by the vandalism wikiproject (]). The editors there may have some more information about the issue. <small><font face="Tahoma">] · ]</font></small> 03:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
	:Idea: a robot counting the word "vandalism" in revision history Edit summaries (and maybe measuring time before reverts) could show the weight of vandalism and flash a warning on Talk page or Project page for editors to deal with. It seems to supplement the CVU tools. Just a suggestion if anyone wants to take it further and relieve editor attention. This should make it easier to manage vandalism, direct attention to suffering articles, and shift efforts from tedious recurring edits to unopposed vandalism. ClueBot already helps us with the simplest vandalism.
	:Parameters:
	*amount of word "vandalism" on 50-revision page and/or past month
	*percentage of word "vandalism" out of all edits on 50-revision page and/or past month
	*adjustable trigger level for the above and for revert time before notifications:
	*notification on Talk page
	*report to overall statistics pages (viewable only for auto-confirmed accounts? to prevent highscore efforts)
	I will repost to ] as well. ] (]) 19:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

	== ] Origin SVG created. ==

	Hi,I was created by the SVG of ] Images,so please add for article one.Article EXSAMPLE.

	<nowiki>
	== Restoring a clause to the copyright section ==

	In removing "or fails to heed warnings", made policy self-contradictory, as repeated uploading of copyrighted material after warning is and long has been explicitly included as an example of vandalism. I have resolved this by restoring the removed clause. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

	== AGF revert? ==

	I'm wondering what you would do with . I found it using Stiki. I performed an AGF revert then ] with a warning template. <span style="color:orange">]<sup>]</sup></span> 17:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
	:You reverted which added "its a quite cute animal" to ]. Your mild welcome/warning is good. Edits like that from an IP/user with no history of similar junk should not be treated as standard vandalism because a bored kid mucking around today might be a great editor in a few years. I think I would just revert the user with a neutral edit summary like "not needed" or "unhelpful" and not issue any warning, but anything which doesn't sound pompous or unduly ] the user is fine. We should never encourage mucking around, and edit summaries should be unadorned, but I once indulged myself with , and put a message ]. ] (]) 22:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
	::Thanks for the feedback. I know the rules, but I think learning what to do in the gray areas only really comes with experience. <span style="color:orange">]<sup>]</sup></span> 00:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

	== Some errors in "Edit summary" section ==

			the page should be protected ] (]) 23:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
	I removed "not" from "However, not leaving edit summaries is not considered vandalism" because it's really misleading. How "not leaving edit summaries" cannot be helpful. It's written in the same (Edit summary) section that the use of edit summaries is considered as proper Misplaced Pages "etiquette". As per the understanding from this policy, "Not vandalism" are edits that are disruptive but made in good faith. Some editors reverting my edits as and . Please give proper reasoning here. Thank you. ] 14:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
	:It's a classic and correct use of an intentional ]. Putting an edit summary is clearly not vandalism, but the converse is not true, that is, not putting an edit summary does ''not'' mean that the edit ''is'' vandalism and ''no edit should be reverted simply because of the lack of an edit summary''. That is exactly what the guideline already says. Just because you didn't understand it doesn't mean the guideline should be changed, especially when the change completely reverses the meaning. ] (]) 21:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

			== I do not think that all humorous writing is vandalism, and this page could acknowledge that. ==
	== Place to list IP's? ==

			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.
	What to do about (assuming good faith) clueless contributors, who add wrong information using anonymous access? Is there a place where one can put IP addresses in order to have them more closely followed by admins? (I just ran accross {{ip\|84.169.114.174}} and {{ip\|84.157.28.241}}) — ]:] 08:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
	:In general, feel free to issue appropriate warnings on their talk page—if you think it will help. See ] for a rationale to ignore them without warnings. If they are willfully injecting errors or unwanted content, report to ]. If they are merely conducting an editing test or two, revert and ] them. —] (]) 08:49, 8 February 2013 (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.
	== How does it affect Misplaced Pages? Stats needed ==

			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 ].
	This article should state how quickly vandalism is reverted, an estimate of how many articles it affects, and so on. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</sub> 16:15, 10 February 2013 (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)
	== Edit request on 11 February 2013 ==

			:Yes ] (]) 10:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
	{{edit semi-protected\|answered=yes}}
	<!-- Begin request -->
	Remove line...unfortunately he has split with his wife and now lives in state college, Pennsylvania.
	<!-- End request -->
	] (]) 12:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
	:Which page are you talking about? It's not this one. '''''<font color="#FF0000">]</font>''''' 12:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
	::Violindirector's only other edit, , was at the page ], which is ''not'' semi-ed. Why the user has chosen this forum of all places to request a change that they ultimately made themselves anyway, is as much a mystery to me as is why this page is on my watchlist. :-) --] <small>'']''</small>'']'' 23:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

	== ~~Vandalism~~ ~~from~~ ~~school~~ ~~class~~ ~~C blocks~~ ==		== images of vandalism for examples? ==

			I propose adding images as examples of vandalism, such as this
	There was repeated vandalism on the afternoon of 1 May 2013 to the featured article, ]. The vandalism came from IP addresses that belonged to the ] in Florida. Vandalism from schools has happened in the past. Should the policy be clarified to give more instructions on what to do with school vandalism? Here are my suggestions. First, administrators should use soft blocks rather than hard blocks. There is no need to prevent teachers or administrators from doing constructive edits from the IP block. Should something be said here, or should something be said in the {{WP:Block\|blocking policy]]?
			] ] (]) 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 would also suggest that any Wikipedian who wants to go an extra mile and knows how to look up IP addresses can report the vandalism, preferably with timestamps, to the contact person for the address block. This should certainly not be required, but I'm an old and hardened ]-fighter and I did just that.
			: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 ==
	== Soft Blocks ==

			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)
	Should this policy be clarified to state that soft blocks rather than hard blocks are the proper response to vandalism from IP address ranges? There should be some guidance to administrators that IP addresses, and especially IP address ranges, should not be hard-blocked due to vandalism if there can be multiple people from an address. Hard-blocking an IP address is an extreme remedy unless it is a static IP address, and most IP addresses are not static IP addresses. ] (]) 02:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:19, 3 January 2025

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: