Back

ⓘ វីគីភីឌា:ការបំផ្លិចបំផ្លាញ. អ្នកប្រើប្រាស់:OshwahTemplatesVANDRightPlace ទំព័រគំរូ:Wikipedia vandalism On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: edit ..




                                               

វិគីភីឌា:ការបដិសេធ ទូទៅ

វិគីភីឌាជាប្រភេទសព្វវចនាធិប្បាយនៅលើបណ្តាញ​អ៊ីនធឺណិតដែលមានការចូលរួមដោយសហគមន៍អ្នកស្ម័គ្រចិត្តជាច្រើនរូប ដើម្បីចូលរួមចំនែកពង្រីក និងចែករំលែកចំនេះដឹងគ្នាទៅវិញតៅមកនៅតាមបណ្តាញអ៊ិនអឺណិត ដែលប្រភពក្នុងការអភិវឌ្ឍន៍ដ៏ចំបងសំរាប់អ្នកប្រើប្រាស់អ៊ីនធឺណិតទូទៅ។ រចនាសំព័ន្ធរបស់គំរោងនេះគឺអនុញ្ញាតអោយ​មនុស្សគ្រប់រូប​ដែលមានបណ្ដាញ​អ៊ីនធឺណិត​ធ្វើការកែប្រែខ្លឹមសារអត្ថបទនានា។ សូមកត់សំគាល់ថា អ្វីៗដែលសរសេរនៅទីនេះ​មិនប្រាកដថា​បានឆ្លងកាត់ការត្រួតពិនិត្យ​ពីអ្នកមានជំនាញត្រឹមត្រូវ ក្នុងការផ្ដល់អោយអ្នក​នូវព័ត៌មានពេញលេញ ត្រឹមត្រូវ និងអាចទុកចិត្តបាន១០០%ទេ។ នេះមិនមែនមានន័យថា​អ្នកមិនអាចរកបានព័ត៌មាន​មានតំលៃនិងត្រឹមត្រូវសោះនោះទេ ...

                                               

វិគីភីឌា:លំហឈ្មោះ

A Wikipedia namespace is a set of Wikipedia pages whose names begin with a particular prefix recognized by the MediaWiki software, or in the case of the main namespace have no such prefix. For example, the user namespace consists of all pages with names beginning User: ". Encyclopedia articles appear in the main namespace, with no prefix. Wikipedia has 22 current namespaces: ten basic namespaces, each with a corresponding talk namespace; and two virtual namespaces. These are all listed in the box to the right. Note that the prefixes "Wikipedia:" and "Wikipedia talk:" can be abbreviated to ...

                                               

វិគីភីឌា:ទម្រង់កាត់

A shortcut is a specialized type of redirect page that provides an abbreviated wikilink to a project page or one of its sections, usually from the Wikipedia namespace. They are commonly used on community pages and talk pages rather than in articles themselves. If there is a shortcut for a page or section, it is usually displayed in an information box labelled shortcuts, as can be seen at the top of this page.

                                     

ⓘ វីគីភីឌា:ការបំផ្លិចបំផ្លាញ

អ្នកប្រើប្រាស់:Oshwah/Templates/VANDRightPlace ទំព័រគំរូ:Wikipedia vandalism

On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing or other behavior deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the projects purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.

The wanton removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view which does not mean no point of view, verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. There, of course, exist more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism.

Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block although administrators usually only block when multiple warnings have been issued.

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful.

                                     

1. Handling

Upon discovering vandalism, revert such edits, using the undo function or an anti-vandalism tool. Once the vandalism is undone, you should warn the vandalizing editor. Notify administrators at the vandalism noticeboard of editors who continue to vandalize after multiple warnings, and administrators should intervene to preserve content and prevent further disruption by blocking such editors. Users whose main or sole purpose is clearly vandalism may be blocked indefinitely without warning.

                                     

2. How to spot vandalism

Useful ways to detect vandalism include:

  • The edit history of an article may be checked for any recent suspicious edits, and compared with the version after any previous revert or cluster of non-suspicious edits. This method can check many suspicious edits at the same time. The article size, as given in bytes, usually increases slightly with time, while a sudden large decrease may indicate a section blanking.
  • Recent changes patrolling, using the recent changes link to spot suspicious edits
  • Keeping an eye on your watchlist

In all the three methods above, examples of suspicious edits are those performed by IP addresses, red linked, or obviously improvised usernames. A good way to start is to click on every edit in watchlists, histories etc. with the least suspicion of being vandalism. Increased experience will probably give a sense of which edit descriptions are worth to check further and which may likely be ignored. IP editors should not be approached with the assumption that they are vandals. Although many vandals do vandalize without registering an account, there are many IP editors who are great contributors to Wikipedia. Always read the actual changes made and judge on that, rather than who made the changes or what was entered in the edit summary.

  • Plausible, subtle changes not supported by sources or by text elsewhere in the article, particularly without an edit summary, may suggest vandalism. Changing numbers, sometimes by 1, is a common stealth tactic.
  • See the what links here pages for Insert text, Link title, Headline text, Bold text and Example Image to detect test edits. See also
  • Watching for edits tagged by the abuse filter. However, many tagged edits are legitimate, so they should not be blindly reverted. That is, do not revert without at least reading the edit.
  • Viewing the abuse log
  • The auto-summary feature can also help users spot vandalism.
                                     

3. How to respond to vandalism

If you see vandalism in an article, the simplest thing to do is just to remove or undo it, but sometimes vandalism takes place on top of older, undetected vandalism. With undetected vandalism, editors may make edits without realizing the vandalism occurred. This can make it harder to detect and delete the vandalism, which is now hidden among other edits. Sometimes bots try to fix collateral damage and accidentally make things worse. Check the edit history to make sure youre reverting to a "clean" version of the page. Alternatively, if you cant tell where the best place is, take your best guess and leave a note on the articles talk page so that someone more familiar with the page can address the issue - or you can manually remove the vandalism without reverting it.

If you see vandalism on a list of changes such as your watchlist, then revert it immediately. You may use the "undo" button and the automatic edit summary it generates, and mark the change as minor. It may be helpful to check the page history to determine whether other recent edits by the same or other editors also represent vandalism. Repair all vandalism you can identify.

For a new article, if all versions of the article are pure vandalism, mark it for speedy deletion by tagging it with in the text, approximately where the vandalism appears, then go to the page Template: Template name and revert any vandalism. When you return to the original page, the vandalism should be gone, though you may need to purge the page.



                                     

3.1. How to respond to vandalism Image vandalism

Images are occasionally used for vandalism, such as by placing shock or explicit images where they should not be. When an image has been created exclusively for vandalism, it can be requested for speedy deletion: under criterion G3 if hosted on Wikipedia or as vandalism if hosted on Commons a file repository for Wikimedia projects. When an image is used for vandalism due to its explicit nature but has legitimate encyclopedic uses Wikipedia is not censored or is hosted on Commons and has legitimate uses on other projects, it can be requested for being added to the bad image list, which precludes its addition on any page except those specified.

                                     

4. How not to respond to vandalism

  • Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal attacks.
  • Do not feed the trolls. Fanning the fire will only serve to make the situation worse. Similarly, do not insult the vandals. If someone is doing something they know is wrong, insulting them over it is likely to make them vandalize more, just to get that reaction. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not the place for personal attacks, it is not a battleground, and two wrongs dont make a right. Instead, report them to the administrators if they continue.
  • Do not nominate an article for deletion because it is being vandalized. If an article is persistently vandalized, consider filing a request for protection of the article at WP:RfPP.
                                     

5. Warnings

ទំព័រគំរូ:WarningsSmall

The purpose of warning a user who has vandalized is to inform the user that the users conduct is abusive and prohibited, and seek the users compliance. Not all that appears to be vandalism is in bad faith, and a warning can politely advise and correct users unaware of the nature of their actions. A warning may even dissuade a user acting in bad faith from continuing, particularly as the warnings escalate and the user is informed of the consequences of continuing.

Warning a user for vandalism is generally a prerequisite to administrator intervention. Because of this, users should be warned for each and every instance of vandalism see the guidance below on what constitutes a single instance.

                                     

5.1. Warnings How to warn vandalizing users

A list of user warning templates, with descriptions and instructions for their use, is at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. In addition to a series of user warning templates for vandalism, there are series for specific types of vandalism. Use the most specific user warning template for the conduct.

Assume good faith such as that the user is simply unaware of the policies and guidelines, but only if plausible. Circumstances may warrant no assumption of good faith, or indicate bad faith; respond accordingly.

Users should be warned for each instance of vandalism for which the user has not been warned previously. For purposes of warning, multiple edits should be considered a single instance, and only one warning given, if:

  • the same user warning template series would be used to warn for each edit.
  • the user received no intervening warning between the edits; and
  • the edits are of the same page;

A new warning generally should not escalate from a previous warning unless a user received the previous warning and failed to heed it. So, if a user vandalizes, and, before a responding user can warn the vandalizing user, the vandalizing user vandalizes again, the responding user should not yet escalate the warning for example, give a final warning or report the user for administrator intervention yet.

If the user receives the warning and, after receiving it, continues to vandalize, the warning may be escalated or the user reported for administrator intervention.



                                     

5.2. Warnings Reminding responding users to correctly warn

Because warnings for vandalism are generally a prerequisite to administrator intervention, it is important that users responding to vandalism warn vandalizing users. To inform responding users of this responsibility, use the user warning template series of user warning templates may be used, but a detailed talk page message is better.

                                     

6. Tracing IP addresses

The owners of IP addresses can be found using:

  • RIPE NCC Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia
  • AfriNIC Africa
  • IPLigence
  • APNIC Asia Pacific
  • IP-adress.com sic
  • LACNIC Latin American and Caribbean
  • ARIN North America
  • Find-IP-address.org

If an address is not in one registry, it will probably be in another.

                                     

6.1. Tracing IP addresses Identifying associated IP addresses

If youre trying to determine whether a set of IP addresses involved in vandalism are related, a command-line WHOIS query will generally list this information, or can be shown using the Routeviews DNS name server asn.routeviews.org reverse IP look-up to find the CIDR and ASN for a set of IP addresses. This can be done using IP lookup tools on a Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, Linux or other Unix-like operating system.

A WHOIS query will typically return NetRange, CIDR, NetName, NetHandle, and OriginAS, all of which identify specific network spaces. Data and labeling vary considerably by WHOIS registrar.

The Routeviews data is far more uniformly structured and returns ASN and CIDR as a reverse-lookup TXT query result. It is more useful and faster than WHOIS when checking multiple IP addresses and can be scripted or automated.

CIDR identifies a set of related addresses "network space" and ASN identifies an Autonomous System - that is, a single administrative entity with control over multiple and often very many addresses. Some though not all abuse from multiple sources does come from such unified spaces - possibly corresponding to a set of hosts within a single facility.

Abuse originating in a short period of time from different IP addresses within the same CIDR or ASN may indicate a dedicated non-distributed attack, as opposed to a distributed denial of service attack.



                                     

6.2. Tracing IP addresses Proxies, VPNs and Tor exit nodes

Its possible that a users source location is being masked by routing traffic through a Proxy server, VPN or the Tor anonymity network. Such addresses typically serve many, not just one, person, and though they can be valid present challenges when used for abuse.

A proxy VPN is not necessarily detectable, but commercial services may be indicated by the hostname when resolving an IP address.

Users of the Tor anonymity network will show the IP address of a Tor "exit node". Lists of known Tor exit nodes are available from the Tor Projects Tor Bulk Exit List exporting tool.

                                     

7. Types of vandalism

Vandalism on Wikipedia usually falls into one or more of these categories:

Abuse of tags

Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as tag to prevent deletion of a page that would otherwise be a clear candidate for deletion, or use of sock puppets.

Hoaxing vandalism

Deliberately adding falsities to articles, particularly to biographies of living people, with hoax information is considered vandalism.

Link vandalism

Adding or changing internal or external links on a page to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate targets while disguising them with mislabeling.

Page-move vandalism

Changing the names of pages to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate names. Only autoconfirmed or confirmed users can move pages.

Vandalbots

A script or "robot" that attempts to vandalize or add spam to a mass of pages.
                                     

7.1. Types of vandalism Abuse of tags

Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as tag to prevent deletion of a page that would otherwise be a clear candidate for deletion, or use of sock puppets.
                                     

7.2. Types of vandalism Hidden vandalism

Any form of vandalism that makes use of embedded text, which is not visible to the final rendering of the article but visible during editing. This includes link vandalism, or placing malicious, offensive, or otherwise disruptive or irrelevant messages or spam in hidden comments for editors to see.
                                     

7.3. Types of vandalism Hoaxing vandalism

Deliberately adding falsities to articles, particularly to biographies of living people, with hoax information is considered vandalism.
                                     

7.4. Types of vandalism Image vandalism

Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explicit images on pages, or simply using any image in a way that is disruptive. Please note though that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors and that explicit images may be uploaded and/or placed on pages for legitimate reasons that is, if they have encyclopedic value.
                                     

7.5. Types of vandalism Link vandalism

Adding or changing internal or external links on a page to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate targets while disguising them with mislabeling.
                                     

7.6. Types of vandalism Page creation, illegitimate

Creating new pages with the sole intent of malicious behavior. It also includes personal attack pages articles written to disparage the subject, hoaxes and other intentionally inaccurate pages. There are many other types of pages that merit deletion, even speedy deletion, but which are not vandalism. New users sometimes create test pages containing nonsense or even autobiographies, and doing so is not vandalism; such pages can also be moved to become their sandbox or userpage. Pages on non-notable topics are not vandalism. Blatant advertising pages, and blatant POV pushes, are not vandalism, but frequently happen and often lead to editors being blocked. Its important that people creating inappropriate pages be given appropriate communication; even if they arent willing to edit within our rules, they are more likely to go away quietly if they understand why their page has been deleted.
                                     

7.7. Types of vandalism Page-move vandalism

Changing the names of pages to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate names. Only autoconfirmed or confirmed users can move pages.
                                     

7.8. Types of vandalism Silly vandalism

Adding profanity, graffiti, or patent nonsense to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously unencyclopedic pages, etc. It is one of the most common forms of vandalism. However, the addition of random characters to pages is often characteristic of an editing test and, though impermissible, may not be malicious.
                                     

7.9. Types of vandalism Sneaky vandalism

Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles such as minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes, hiding vandalism such as by making two bad edits and only reverting one, simultaneously using multiple accounts or IP addresses to vandalize, abuse of maintenance and deletion templates, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Impersonating other users by signing an edit with a different username or IP address also constitutes sneaky vandalism, but take care not to confuse this with appropriately correcting an unsigned edit made by another user. Some vandals even follow their vandalism with an edit that states "rv vandalism" in the edit summary in order to give the appearance the vandalism was reverted.
                                     

7.10. Types of vandalism Spam external linking

Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. A spam external link is one added to a page mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a users interests rather than to improve the page editorially.
                                     

7.11. Types of vandalism Stockbroking vandalism

Adding information to pages about quoted companies concerning forthcoming mergers, announcements, and the like. The vandals intent is to provide credibility to their attempt to promote shares.
                                     

7.12. Types of vandalism Talk page vandalism

Illegitimately deleting or editing other users comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are also permitted to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.
                                     

7.13. Types of vandalism Template vandalism

Modifying the wiki language or text of a template in a harmful or disruptive manner. This is especially serious, because it will negatively impact the appearance of multiple pages. Some templates appear on hundreds or thousands of pages, so they are permanently protected from editing to prevent vandalism.
                                     

7.14. Types of vandalism User and user talk page vandalism

Unwelcome, illegitimate edits to another persons user page may be considered vandalism. User pages are regarded as within the control of their respective users and, with certain exceptions, should not be edited without permission of the user to whom they belong. See WP:UP#OWN. Related is Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
                                     

7.15. Types of vandalism Vandalbots

A script or "robot" that attempts to vandalize or add spam to a mass of pages.
                                     

8. What is not vandalism

Although at times the following situations may be referred to as vandalism, they are not usually considered vandalism as such. However, each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether or not the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, it may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.

                                     

8.1. What is not vandalism Boldly editing

Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold, and acknowledges the role of bold edits in reaching consensus.
                                     

8.2. What is not vandalism Copyright policy violations

Uploading or using material on Wikipedia in violation of Wikipedias copyright policies is prohibited, but is not vandalism unless the user does so maliciously or fails to heed warnings. It is at least as serious an issue as vandalism and persistent offenders will ultimately get blocked, but it is well worth spending time communicating clearly with those who add copyvio as they are far more likely to reform than vandals or spammers.
                                     

8.3. What is not vandalism Disruptive editing or stubbornness

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help. See also: Tendentious editing
                                     

8.4. What is not vandalism Edit summary omission

The edit summary is important in that it helps other editors understand the purpose of your edit. Though its use is not required, it is strongly recommended, even for minor edits, and is considered proper Wikipedia etiquette. Even a brief edit summary is better than none. However, not leaving edit summaries is not considered vandalism.
                                     

8.5. What is not vandalism Editing tests by experimenting users

Users sometimes edit pages as an experiment. Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from vandalism. These users should be warned using the uw-test series of user warning templates, or by a talk page message including, if appropriate, a welcome and referral to the Wikipedia sandbox, where they can continue to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive. Registered users can also create their own sandboxes as a user subpage. If a user has made a test edit and then reverted it, consider placing the message, on their talk page. Editing tests are only considered vandalism when a user continues to make test edits despite receiving numerous warnings.
                                     

8.6. What is not vandalism Harassment or personal attacks

Personal attacks and harassment are not allowed. While some harassment is also vandalism, such as user page vandalism, or inserting a personal attack into an article, harassment in itself is not vandalism and should be handled differently.
                                     

8.7. What is not vandalism Incorrect wiki markup and style

Inexperienced users are often unfamiliar with Wikipedias formatting and grammatical standards, such as how to create internal and/or external links or which words should be bolded or italicized, etc. Rather than label such users as vandals, just explain to them what the standard style would be for the issue at hand, perhaps pointing them towards the documentation at How to edit a page, and the like.
                                     

8.8. What is not vandalism Misinformation, accidental

A user who, in good faith, adds content to an article that is factually inaccurate but in the belief that it is accurate is trying to contribute to and improve Wikipedia, not vandalize it. If you believe inaccurate information has been added to an article in good faith, remove it once you are certain it is inaccurate, or discuss its factuality with the user who has added it.
                                     

8.9. What is not vandalism NPOV contraventions

The neutral point of view policy is difficult for many of us to understand. Even Wikipedia veterans occasionally introduce material which is not ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected to a greater extent than we estimate by our beliefs. Though the material added may be inappropriate, it is not vandalism in itself.
                                     

8.10. What is not vandalism Nonsense, accidental

While intentionally adding nonsense to a page is a form of vandalism, sometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves correctly e.g. there may be an error in the syntax, particularly for Wikipedians who use English as a second language. Also, connection errors or edit conflicts can unintentionally produce the appearance of nonsense or malicious edits. In either case, assume good faith.
                                     

8.11. What is not vandalism Policy and guideline pages, good-faith changes to

Editors are encouraged to be bold. However, making edits to Wikipedia policies and guidelines pages, such as this one, does require some knowledge of the consensus on the issues. If people misjudge consensus, it would not be considered vandalism; rather, it would be an opportunity to discuss the matter with them, and help them understand the consensus.
                                     

8.12. What is not vandalism Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material, or of edits covered under the biographies of living persons policy

Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is not in line with Wikipedias standards may not be vandalism. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Otherwise, check to make sure that the content you are thinking about restoring isnt in line with Wikipedia standards before reporting its removal as vandalism.
                                     

8.13. What is not vandalism Deletion nominations

Good-faith nominations of articles are not vandalism.
                                     
  • ព ត ម នដ លម នន ទ ន ទ ខ ល មស រអត ថបទ ខ ល ត រ វប នក ប រ ន ព លថ ម ៗ ប ផ ល ច ប ផ ល ញ ឬប ដ រខ ល មស រទ ងស រ ង ដ យនរណ ម ន ក ដ លម នយ បល ខ សព អ វ ដ លគ សរស រម នន
  • A Wikipedia namespace is a set of Wikipedia pages whose names begin with a particular prefix recognized by the MediaWiki software followed by a colon

Users also searched:

តើ ការ ធ្វើ អាជីវកម្ម រ៉ែ នៅ ប៉ៃលិន នាំ មក នូវ ផល ប៉ះពាល់ អ្វី ខ្លះ ដល់ បរិស្ថាន, តើការធ្វើអាជីវកម្មរ៉ែផ្ដល់ផលប៉ះពាល់អ្វីខ្លះដល់បរិស្ថាន, ផលប៉ះពាល់នៃការបំពុលបរិស្ថាន, សេដ្ឋកិច្ចបរិស្ថាន,

...

ផលប៉ះពាល់នៃការបំពុលបរិស្ថាន.

ការបំផ្លិចបំផ្លាញដោយខ្យល់ព្យុះ ចំនួន៧​លើកបណ្តាលឲ្យរលំផ្ទះចំនួន ៥ខ្នង. ការវាយតម្លៃផលប៉ះពាល់បរិស្ថាន. តើការធ្វើអាជីវកម្មរ៉ែផ្ដល់ផលប៉ះពាល់អ្វីខ្លះដល់បរិស្ថាន. មេរៀនបរិស្ថាន. ស្រុកសណ្តាន់.


...