উইকিপিডিয়া:ধ্বংসপ্রবণতা

উইকিপিডিয়া, মুক্ত বিশ্বকোষ থেকে

উইকিপিডিয়ার কোন নিবন্ধের বিষয়বস্তু অযাচিতভাবে মুছে ফেলা, অসংলগ্ন বা মিথ্যা তথ্য ঢোকানো, স্থুল রসিকতা ইত্যাদি ধ্বংসপ্রবণতার মধ্যে পড়ে। ধ্বংসপ্রবণতাকে উইকিপিডিয়াতে স্থান দেয়া হবেনা, ধ্বংসপ্রবণ ব্যবহারকারী বা আইপি ঠিকানাকে নিষিদ্ধ করা হতে পারে।

উইকিপিডিয়ার উন্নতির জন্য কোনো প্রচেষ্টা ধ্বংসপ্রবণতা নয় যদিও সে প্রচেষ্টার ধরন ভুল হয়। এমনকি ক্ষতিকর সম্পাদনা খারাপ উদ্দেশ্য নিয়ে করা না হলে সেটা ধ্বংসপ্রবণতা নয়। যেমন ব্যক্তিগত মতামত যোগ করা ধ্বংসপ্রবণতা নয়, তবে সতর্ক করার পরেও বারবার যোগ করাকে খারাপ চোখে দেখা হয়। বিতর্কিত কোনো সম্পাদনা ধ্বংসপ্রবণতা নয় তবে ইচ্ছাকৃতভাবে মিথ্যা তথ্য যোগ করা ধ্বংসপ্রবণতা। কোনটি ধ্বংসপ্রবণতা আর কোনটি নয় সেটা নির্ণয়ের জন্য খুবই সতর্কভাবে চিন্তা করা প্রয়োজন।

ধ্বংসপ্রবণতা উইকিপিডিয়ার নীতিবিরুদ্ধ। আপনি যদি কোনো ব্যবহারকারীকে ধ্বংসপ্রবণ বলে মনে করেন তাহলে তার সম্পাদনাগুলো সরিয়ে ফেলতে পারেন, আপনি তাকে সতর্ক করেও দিতে পারেন (নিচে দেখুন)। কোনো ব্যবহারকারীকে সতর্ক করা সত্ত্বেও এধরণের কার্যকলাপ চালিয়ে গেলে প্রশাসকদের কাছে অভিযোগ করতে হবে (দেখুনঃ ধ্বংসপ্রবণতার বিরূদ্ধে প্রশাসকের পদক্ষেপ), এক্ষেত্রে ব্যবহারকারীকে নিষিদ্ধ করা হতে পারে। বড়রকমের ধ্বংসাত্বক কর্মকান্ডের ক্ষেত্রে সতর্কতা ছাড়াও ব্যবহারকারীকে নিষিদ্ধ করা হতে পারে।


ধ্বংসপ্রবণতা কিভাবে চিহ্নিত করবেন[সম্পাদনা]

The best way to detect vandalism is through recent changes patrolling, using the recent changes link to spot articles with edits that had come from IP addresses, or keeping an eye on your watchlist. The what links here pages for Insert text, Link title, Headline text, Bold text, Image:Example.jpg and Image:Example.ogg are also good places to find many test edits or vandalism. The auto-summary feature can also help users spot vandalism, as can viewing the abuse log. Edits tagged by the abuse filter may also contain vandalism. However, many tagged edits are legitimate, so they should not be blindly reverted. In addition, 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 checks many suspicious edits at the same time.

ধ্বংসপ্রবণতার বিরুদ্ধে কিভাবে ব্যবস্থা নিবেন[সম্পাদনা]

যদি আপনি কোন নিবন্ধে ধ্বংসপ্রবণতা লক্ষ্য করেন তাহলে এটি রোধের সবচেয়ে সহজ উপায় হলো ধ্বংসপ্রবণ সম্পাদনাটি বাতিল করা। কিন্তু সাবধান থাকবেন! মাঝে মাঝে ধ্বংসপ্রবণ সম্পাদনাটি পূর্বের অথবা পরের অন্যান্য ব্যবহারকারীর সম্পাদনার সাথে একীভূত হয়ে যেতে পারে। তখন আপনি ধ্বংসপ্রবণ সম্পাদনাটি খুঁজে নাও পেতে পারেন। সেক্ষেত্রে আপনাকে নিবন্ধের ইতিহাস অংশে যেতে হবে পূর্বের পরিচ্ছন্ন সম্পাদনাটি খোঁজে বের করতে। সেখানে আপনি বিভিন্ন ব্যবহারকারীর সম্পাদনা দেখতে পাবেন। মাঝে মাঝে বট ধ্বংসপ্রবণতা রোধে কাজ করে থাকে কিন্তু দূর্ঘটনাবশত অনেক সময় ধ্বংসপ্রবণতা বাতিল করতে গিয়ে পরিচ্ছন্ন অংশটিও বাতিল হয়ে যায়। আপনি যদি ধ্বংসপ্রবণ সম্পাদনাটি খুঁজে বের করতে না পারেন সেক্ষেত্রে নিবন্ধের আলাপ পাতায় আপনার সর্ব্বোচ অনুমিত অংশটি চিহ্নিত করে একটি বার্তা রাখতে পারেন যাতে পরবর্তীতে নিবন্ধটি সম্পর্কে পরিচিত কেউ ধ্বংসপ্রবণ সম্পাদনাটি বাতিল করতে পারে অথবা আপনি ধ্বংসপ্রবণতা দূর করার জন্য ম্যানুয়ালি নিবন্ধ থেকে ধ্বংসপ্রবণ লেখা বাতিল করতে পারেন।

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 {{Db-g3}}.

To make vandalism reverts easier you can ask for the rollback feature to be enabled for your registered Wikipedia account. This feature is only for reverting vandalism and other obvious disruption, and lets you revert several recent edits with a single click. See Wikipedia:Requests for permissions‎.

If you see that a user has added vandalism you may also check the user's other contributions (click "User contributions" on the left sidebar of the screen). If most or all of these are obvious vandalism you may report the user immediately at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, though even in this case you may consider issuing a warning first, unless there is an urgent need to block the user. Otherwise you can leave an appropriate warning message on the user's talk page. Remember that any editor may freely remove messages from their own talk page, so they might appear only in the talk history. If a user continues to cause disruption after being warned, report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. An administrator will then decide whether to block the user.

For repeated vandalism by an anonymous IP address it is helpful to take the following additional steps:

  1. Trace the IP address (e.g. http://www.domaintools.com/) and add {{whois|Name of owner}} to the user talk page of the address. If it appears to be a shared IP address, add {{SharedIP|Name of owner}} or {{SharedIPEDU|Name of owner}}. The OrgName on the IP trace result should be used as the Name of owner parameter in the above three templates.
  2. For repetitive anonymous vandalism, particularly where registered to a school or other kind of responsive ISP, consider listing it on Wikipedia:Abuse response.

Obstinate (Template and CSS) vandalism[সম্পাদনা]

If a particular act of vandalism is obstinate – no vandalism related edits appear in the page's edit history, or the vandalism obscures the page tabs so you can't easily access the history or edit the page – then it is probably a form of Template or CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) vandalism. These are not difficult to fix, but can be confusing.

To access the page history or edit the page when the 'history' or 'edit this page' tabs are inaccessible, use the Windows keyboard shortcut shift-alt-h to access the history, or shift-alt-e to edit the page (Macintosh computers use ctrl-h and ctrl-e – see Wikipedia:Keyboard_shortcuts). You can also access the history through a vandal patrolling tool if you're using one, or by going to another page and using the 'My Watchlist' or 'My Contributions' links if you've edited the page recently. Or, simply enter the URL manually into the address bar of your browser: it will take the form http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Name_of_article&action=foo where foo is edit or history.

If no vandalism-related edits appear in the page history, the vandal likely targeted a template instead of the page itself. Templates are small Wikipedia pages that are intended to be included as parts of other pages. When the page is accessed, any template codes are replaced by the content of the template page, including any vandalism that might be there. To find the template page, edit the article (using shift-alt-e if necessary) and scroll down towards the bottom of the page, where there is a list of all templates transcluded into the article. Check through the templates that are not marked as protected and look for vandalism there. Alternately, look for {{template name}} or {{template name|parameter|parameter|...}} in the text, then go to the page Template:template name and revert any vandalism you find. When you return to the original page, the vandalism should be gone, though you may need to purge the page to see the result.

ধ্বংসপ্রবণতার বিরুদ্ধে কিভাবে ব্যবস্থা নিবেন না[সম্পাদনা]

Do not nominate an article for deletion because it is being vandalized. That's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and simply encourages vandalism.

Do not feed the trolls. Fanning the fire will 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 don't make a right. Instead, report them to the administrators if they continue.

Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or 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. Instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with them. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal comments.

সতর্কীকরণ[সম্পাদনা]

Warning templates
PageName is optional

See additional templates and examples of output

Note: Do not use these templates in content disputes; instead, write a clear message explaining your disagreement.

ধ্বংসপ্রবণতার বিরুদ্ধে সতর্ক করার জন্য বেশ কিছু টেমপ্লেট আছে। এগুলোকে ধ্বংসপ্রবণতার ধরণ এবং তীব্রতা অনুযায়ী সাজানো আছে। যদিও কিছু ধ্বংসপ্রবণ ব্যবহারকারী বারবার একই আচরণ করে এবং তাদের সম্পাদনার ক্ষমতা কেড়ে নেয়া হয়, অন্যদের সতর্কীকরণের মাধ্যমে থামানো সম্ভব এবং তারা ভবিষ্যতে উইকিতে ভালো অবদান রাখতে পারে। If you are not certain that an edit is vandalism, always start with {{subst:uw-test1}}. Conversely, if you are confident that a user is aware of the disruption they are causing, you may start with a stronger warning such as {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} or {{subst:uw-vandalism3}}.

For a full list of user warning templates see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace.

আইপি অ্যাড্রেস খুজে বের করা[সম্পাদনা]

সংক্ষিপ্ত:

এটা ব্যবহার করে আইপি ঠিকানার মালিকদের পাওয়া যাবে:

  • ARIN (উত্তর আমেরিকা)
  • RIPE NCC (ইউরোপ, মধ্যপ্রাচ্য এবং মধ্য এশিয়া)
  • APNIC (এশিয়া প্যাসিফিক)
  • LACNIC (ল্যাটিন আমেরিকান এবং ক্যারিবীয়)
  • AfriNIC (আফ্রিকা)
  • IPLigence

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

ধ্বংসপ্রবণতার ধরণ[সম্পাদনা]

Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:

Type Description
Blanking Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.

An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-delete1}}, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.

Page creation Creating new pages with the sole intent of malicious behavior. Includes blatant advertising pages, personal attack pages (articles written to disparage the subject), blatant POV pushes, hoaxes and other intentionally inaccurate pages. New users may sometimes create test pages containing nonsense or even autobiographies, and doing so is not vandalism, though such pages are normally speedily deleted. Also, creating a page on a topic that is simply not notable is not vandalism.
Page lengthening Adding very large (measured by the number of bytes) amounts of bad-faith content to a page so as to make the page's load time abnormally long or even make the page impossible to load on some computers without the browser or machine crashing. Adding large amounts of good-faith content is not vandalism, though prior to doing so, one should consider if splitting a long page may be appropriate (see Wikipedia:Article size).
Spam Adding or continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism, or sites that have some relationship to the subject matter, but advertise or promote in the user's interest, or text that promotes one's personal interests.

Vandalbots

A script or "robot" that attempts to vandalize or spam massive numbers of articles (hundreds or thousands).
Silly vandalism Adding profanity, graffiti, random characters (gibberish), or other nonsense to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages, etc. Please note that the addition of random characters to pages is a common way that new users test edit and may not be intentionally malicious (though they should use the Sandbox).
Sneaky vandalism Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), using two or more different accounts and/or IP addresses at a time to vandalize, abuse of maintenance and deletion templates, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. 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.
Userspace vandalism Adding insults, profanity, etc. to user pages or user talk pages (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks).
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).
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 of pages.
Abuse of tags Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes removal of extremely-long-standing {{policy}} and related tags without forming consensus on such a change first.
Page-move vandalism Changing the names of pages (referred to as "page-moving") to disruptive, irrelevant, or otherwise inappropriate terms. Wikipedia now only allows registered users active for at least four days and with at least 10 edits (i.e. autoconfirmed users) to move pages.
Link vandalism Modifying internal or external links within a page so that they appear the same but link to a page/site that they are not intended to (e.g. spam, self-promotion, an explicit image, a shock site).
Avoidant vandalism Removing {{afd}}, {{copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content. Note that this is often mistakenly done by new users who are unfamiliar with AfD procedures and such users should be given the benefit of the doubt and pointed to the proper page to discuss the issue.
Modifying users' comments Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged.
Discussion page vandalism Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. Note: The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page. Editors are granted considerable latitude over editing their own userspace pages (including talk pages), and blanking one's own user talk page is specifically not prohibited. 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.
Repeated uploading of copyrighted material Uploading or using material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies after having been warned is vandalism. Because users may be unaware that the information is copyrighted, or of Wikipedia policies on how such material may and may not be used, such action only becomes vandalism if it continues after the copyrighted nature of the material and relevant policy restricting its use have been communicated to the user.
Malicious account creation Creating accounts with usernames that contain deliberately offensive or disruptive terms is considered vandalism, whether the account is used or not. For Wikipedia's policy on what is considered inappropriate for a username, see Wikipedia:Username policy. See also Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.
Edit summary vandalism Making offensive edit summaries in an attempt to leave a mark that cannot be easily expunged from the record (edit summaries cannot simply be "reverted" and remain visible when viewing a page's history. Only a small number of editors with special powers above administrators have the ability to modify edit summaries). Often combined with malicious account creation.
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 (described above), or placing malicious, offensive, or otherwise disruptive or irrelevant messages or spam in hidden comments for editors to see.
Gaming the system Deliberate attempts to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures by making bad faith edits go unnoticed. Includes marking bad faith edits as minor to get less scrutiny, making a minor edit following a bad faith edit so it won't appear on all watchlists, recreating previously deleted bad faith creations under a new title, use of the {{construction}} tag to prevent deletion of a page that would otherwise be a clear candidate for deletion, or use of sock puppets.

কি ধ্বংসপ্রবণতা না[সম্পাদনা]

নীতির সংক্ষিপ্ত:
WP:VAND#NOT
WP:NOTVAND

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

Type Description
Tests by experimenting users New users, who discover the "edit this page" button, sometimes want to experience editing a page and may add something unhelpful to a page (e.g., a few random characters) as a test. Such edits are not done in bad faith and therefore, are not vandalism. Rather than be warned for vandalism, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the Wikipedia sandbox by using the template message {{test}}, where they can continue to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive. If a user has made a test edit and then reverted it, consider placing the message {{uw-selfrevert}}, on their talk page. Registered users can create their own sandbox subpages as well. The template: {{uw-vandalism1}}—even though it is a warning template—is also appropriate, because it is courteous enough not to be perceived as offensive, and it does not imply vandalism. It is also the default template for Twinkle and Huggle.
Using incorrect wiki markup and style Inexperienced users are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia's 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.
NPOV violations 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 a NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. Though the material added may be inappropriate, it is not vandalism in itself.
Making bold edits Often, Wikipedians make sweeping changes to pages in order to improve them — most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While it can certainly be frustrating to have large chunks of your text removed or substantially rewritten, edits that noticeably alter the text or content of a page should not be immediately labeled as vandalism.
Failing to use the edit summary 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.
Unintentional misinformation Sometimes a user will add content to an article that is factually inaccurate but in the belief that it is accurate. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and to improve it rather than vandalize. If you believe inaccurate information has been added to an article in good faith, ensure that it is inaccurate and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it.
Unintentional nonsense 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.
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 opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable — you may wish to see the dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. See also: Tendentious editing
Harassment or personal attacks There is a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is also not allowed. While some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as user page vandalism, or inserting a personal attack into an article, harassment in itself is not considered "vandalism" and should be handled differently.
Changes to guideline and policy pages Editors are encouraged to be bold. However, making edits to the 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.
Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material, or of edits covered under Biographies of Living People. Some material — sometimes even factually correct material — does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Wikipedia standards, before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism.
Lack of understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia Some users are not familiar with Wikipedia's purpose or policies and may start editing it as if it were a different medium — such as a forum or blog — in a way that it appears as unproductive editing or borderline vandalism to experienced users. Although such edits can usually be reverted, it should not be treated as vandalism.