Help talk:How to handle vandalism/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 1 December 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Thanks

Thanks for doing this Tmtoulouse, it's something I was thinking was needed earlier in the day. A few points:

• It says to put the vandalism page in the article namespace, eg Conservapedia:Delusions/vandalism, but the convention up until now seems to have been to put it in the talk namespace, eg Talk:Adolf_Hitler/vandalism. I'm not sure which is the better choice, and think it's worthy of discussion.

• On your proposal and on Conservapedia:Delusions/vandalism you have the vandalism listed by date but on the other vandalism pages it's listed by category of vandalism (funny, stupid, etc). Again, not sure, warrants discussion etc...

• If the first act of unfunny vandalism doesn't warrant a block then I think a sentence should be added just to make that explicit.

• Some guidelines on how long to let the vandalism remain, for lolz?

--Stevo 15:31, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the thoughts, the reasoning for putting it in the namespace and not the talk space for me is that the talk page could then be used for discussion of the vandalism. If the actual vandalism is put in the talk namespace there is not good place to discuss it. I am not sure about the category, hopefully others will speak up. I think as far as length, whenever it is discovered it can be reverted, the lolz can come from seeing the vandalism in the archive. Tmtoulouse 16:16, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

I'd be inclined to archive by date rather than category, just so we don't have to decide for sure which category to use. --jtl^talk 16:31, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Firstly, I'll second the vote for listing by date rather than category, because I prefer the look of the way you've done it, and also for the reason jtl gave. Regarding leaving the vandalism up for a certain amount of time, I was thinking more about to lolz of the vandal themselves and of them being able to show it to their friends.

About the namespace, initially I had the same thoughts as you but after seeing Talk:God/Vandalism I wonder if it would indeed be better for comments to go right next to the illustration rather than on a separate talk page. Though of course, if the vandalism record was in the article namespace, either option would be available. There is also a technical issue about the namespaces and the archivedvandalism template, a comment about which I've just posted on Sid's talk page [1], and I'd like that to be cleared up before a final decision is made.

--Stevo 17:24, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

That issue seems fixed now, hopefully we will get some more feedback here soon. Tmtoulouse 19:26, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

I've made a change to #4: I'm proposing the use of the {{talkpage}} template on article talkpages that need it; it provides automatic links to the archive and vandalism pages. I've put it on Conservapedia_talk:Delusions. Any thoughts on this? --Stevo 15:02, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

I really like the template, that makes things easy. I guess we can go ahead and sort by date, the only open question is should the sub-page be under talk or the article namespace? Tmtoulouse 15:04, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Hmm just to be awkward, I think I've changed my mind on sorting by date. After seeing this example, I think categorizing is sometimes going to be needed and people are going to want to do it, particularly is it's how most of the vandalism pages have been done up until now. There'll always be the 'default' category: not unfunny. Also I've thought of 2 possible reasons not to use the article namespace: They'd pollute the namespace, and would also show up as random pages. --Stevo 20:25, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, that's why we put the earliest ones under "talk". Also, technically, "main" allows editing, "talk" does not (except archiving, which this is). Makes some of it less intuitive, but there are reasons. human^{be in} 13:26, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

"instructions"

Number 3 is rather oblique. As in, I can't figure out what it means.

In general, these instructions should be very easy to follow, with simple cut'n'paste exanples to use, at the very least. Ideally, some of the process could be automated? human^{be in} 13:22, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

An illustration will certainly help - I think we were trying to agree on the format before creating one. Not sure how it could be automated. BTW, is there an official page to discuss technical & site matters? Talk:Main Page seems more for 'newsy' discussion and RationalWiki:Community Page hasn't been used in a while. --Stevo (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

I agree that a format and template "details" need to be in place before expecting people to be able to do it. So far, by default and decisions along the way, "vandalism" goes under "talk", uses the "archivedvandalism" template, and now is ref'd by the "talkpage" template. We still have no template for the bottom of the article page itself (we've just been doing manual "see also" links, to create the vandalism file link). Right now it's a chore, especially the first time - two files have to be edited, and one created with the info from the vandalism diff. After the first time, only the vd file must be edited, with the diff details.

Once all templates are in place and done "growing", we can look into any automation possible (an auto create button for the talk/vandalism page? an auto create button for the 'talkpage' template?). ideally, and editor looking at the diff could hit one buttom to open the vd file in a new tab or window, copy the diff link and vd contents, and hit save; then revert the vd'ed file. Ideally. human^{be in} 21:02, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

categories

As humorous as they may be, I don't think:

1. Funny
2. Not unfunny
3. Unfunny

Are really useful or clear categories. How about

1. trivial (single edit type thing, no serious violations involved)
2. tiresome (a series of malicious/trolling edits that take time to clean up)
3. "hard" violations such as editing a user page, abuse, libel, slander

Then it might be clearer to all where we stand on things, and how seriously to block people. Oh, and as far as archiving vandalism, we only archive "what we feel like" - no need to make useless work. human^{be in} 13:15, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

What needs to happen to let this "go live?

This is almost done yes? What changes do we need to make this "go live"? Tmtoulouse 16:09, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

I cant agree more.

"Remember: unfunny vandalism is often committed by those lacking elementary interpersonal skills, often with a mental age considerably less than their physical age, and such persons should be pitied rather than censured. They are unable to make any meaningful contribution to society and are reduced to attempting to destroy the works of their betters. Do not be harsh, rather invite them to make meaningful contributions"

I cant agree more Elassint Throw things at me 10:47, 28 October 2007 (EDT).

What about vandal lock?

An explanation on the use and need of this new feature should be included to this Help article. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 19:12, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Use at will and when somebody does something dumb, only then we'll make guidelines.

Hey, it has worked in the past, hasn't it? NightFlare^{Still doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article.} 19:16, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Maybe with you smart people. I'm so scared and unsure now that the lock has been introduced, that I wait for other Sysops to handle a vandal attack... (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 19:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Dun,   ^Contribs_Talk 19:22, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

So, "Lock, revert and don't block", right? (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 19:23, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Yup!   ^Contribs_Talk 19:33, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

won't we need to consider how to incorporate this with the Fibonacci blocking scheme? I'd say that we forget Fibonacci and just go with this.--Bob^{bing up} 11:11, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Info about use of Vandal Group

Can we get a usage guide for the new {{vcat}}/Vandal Group here. DogP 23:12, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I think "vcat" is silly, but yeah, why don't you write up the vandal group process? (five minute block to put it on their record, then add to group...) ħuman 22:05, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

PS, "then ignore them". DFTT... ħuman 22:05, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh, sorry, I thought it was the new bees knees in wandal-wrangling. I stand corrected? Or what is the current policy - same as always? Sorry, I've been mega busy on other stuff of late and haven't been much in touch with RW processes. DogP 04:30, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Puting a user in the "vandal group" limits them to one or two edits per hour. Pretty much kills them, for the most part. But also, we should block them for a short period, to put the block "on their record". Play with it (use me ;)) to see how they both work together. ħuman 04:47, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Archiving vandalism

Does anybody still do this? Do we need instructions & examples? To me, they look like pretty good examples of why nobody much bothers with this anymore - stuff that might've been funny at the time, but is barely worth saving for the ages. Surely if any vandalism is noteworthy, the best way of "preserving" it is just by mentioning it on the article's talk page with a difflink. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:03, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Have you seen 'Sir CUR's campaign against the order of the evil red link?' --"CUR^talk 16:09, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I saw it. I wasn't impressed. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I shall strike ye down, knave! The Great Weasel Baron will burn! --"CUR^talk 16:31, 12 February 2009 (EST)

I think we just don't get any particularly interesting vandalism, it only happened a few times. Your suggestion is a good one, however - much simpler than creating new subpages, etc. ħuman 16:27, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Rewrite

*sticks head above the rampart* Humorless fascist^sociopath 16:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)