This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Vandalism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
In light of the new push to be vigilant about WP:BLP, I've found that I've had to word my own warnings for these types of cases:
Be careful on what you add to articles on biographies of living people. Please see Biographies of living persons, which states that unsourced, negative information is not allowed.
Support The existing BLP warnings ( {{blp1}}, {{blp2}}, {{blp3}} ) are far too strong for a new account or anonymous IP, who may not be familiar with the BLP policy. Dansiman15:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if I should revert the massive link insertions of an appearantly SPA, 200.52.127.152, of 3rd October so I let others decide. As I have seen, nobody even tried to react on this IP user's editing. --V. Szabolcs19:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Template idea for experienced users who make a vandalism-type edit.
I've noticed that the test and vandalism templates are geared more towards new and anonymous users with welcome messages and "Please use the sandbox if you would like to experiment." Well, what about users who have already been around wikipedia for a decent amount of time, such as User:Karrmann, a Vandal Hunter and WP Auto member, who decides to vandalize Atlantic Records because of the attention it got with Weird Al's White and Nerdy song? Karrmann got two warnings starting with "Welcome to Wikipedia." I think we need a template that gives a stern, yet kinda friendly reminder that vandalism is against policy. Check this out:
We know how tempting it can be to break down and vandalize a page, but you've been around Wikipedia for long enough to know that committing vandalism is against Wikipedia policy. You know better. Don't do it again.
It doesn't mention the sandbox, because Experienced users shouldn't have to use it, and no welcome message for people who have been around for a while. Think this would be a good idea, or is there a template I'm missing already? Comment or edit the template at User:Targetter/Sandbox --Targetter(Lock On)02:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course, having the welcome message and sandbox reference could in itself add a little impact to the warning, causing the user to realize that their actions reek of newb. Dansiman03:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I would make it a bit nicer. Remember that in content disputes, people often accuse each other of vandalism. So this should include something about, "If you believe your edit(s) in fact improved Wikipedia, please discuss it either on the article talk page, or on my talk page." And then there's the time I saw someone commit vandalism because they wanted an enforced wikibreak. I'm not sure what the best way to deal with that is, but its probably not a vandalism warning. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that among experienced editors, any standardized text could be perceived as dismissive of what was going on. So it's probably better not to use a template for that. >Radiant<15:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
IP Address Template
It seems to me that an IP address specific template could be useful. Something with that warns an editor who shares an IP address (that has been used for vandalism, specifically) with others (such as a school or library) to be aware of it & consider making an account. Keep the baby & throw out the bathwater, as it were. --mordicai.16:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Clarification of language pertaining to use of vandalism warning templates in communicating with established users
Users must be appropriately warned using a final warning template, such as {{test3}}, {{test4}} or {{blatantvandal}} before being listed on this page. Users without appropriate final warnings will not be blocked.
Therefore, if an established user is engaging in obvious, blatant vandalism, they need to be warned with the appropriate templates before being blocked. Of course, the language from the header of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism doesn't describe actual practice in all cases; however, there is a significant prospect of an administrator refusing to block an established user for vandalism if the "appropriate warning templates" have not been applied. Thus, the statement "Note: Do not use these templates with established users; instead, write a clear message explaining your disagreement." immunizes established editors from immediate blocking for vandalism, in a manner that is quite contrary to consensus. Furthermore, if an established user is engaging in rapid vandalism to a large number of pages, "[writing] a clear message explaining your disagreement" would result in an unacceptable delay in the issuance of a warning.
I realize that the advice to avoid of the use of warning templates in communicating with established editors is based, in part, on the claim that nothing an established user does is really vandalism. It is indeed quite inappropriate to use vandalism warnings in content disputes. However, whether edits are content disputes or vandalism generally does not depend on whether the edits are made by new or established users, but rather is determined by the examination of the content of the edits themselves. While, generally, most vandalism is committed by new users, some well-established users have made edits that clearly qualify as vandalism, such as this -- which would clearly merit the issuance of a vandalism warning. Furthermore, if one happens to be in a content dispute with a new user, it would be far more appropriate to "write a clear message explaining your disagreement" than to place template:test4im on the editor's talk page. Indeed, the claim "Note: Do not use these templates with established users; instead, write a clear message explaining your disagreement." seems to imply that when one has a disagreement with a new user, that users edits are automatically vandalism, not good faith contributions, which is clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It's far more appropriate to state that vandalism warnings should only be used in responding to actual vandalism, and that one should "write a clear message explaining your disagreement" in cases of content disputes over good faith contributions. John25402:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Removal of language inconsistent with actual practice
The claim that
Even when such edits [blanking biographies of living persons] are inappropriate, they should be treated as content disputes, not vandalism. In particular, vandalism warnings should not be left on the talk page of the editor.
is not consistent with actual practice in RC patrol, or with the practices of most administrators who respond to vandalism. Users who repeatedly blank articles, even biographies of living persons, will be blocked for vandalism, and users restoring the articles' text will not be blocked for 3RR violations (as they might be if they were involved in genuine content disputes). Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons justifies the immediate removal of unreferenced, negative information from such biographies, without regard to the 3RR, but it does not constitute a license for wholesale blanking of the entirety of articles (unless such articles are comprised entirely of unreferenced negative information). The claim that inappropriate blankings of biographies of living persons should be treated as content disputes does not have "wide acceptance among editors", because it does not comport with common practice. John25402:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Is making an obviously false edit to try to make a point vandalism? Or how should it be dealt with? Is there a template or something to put on a user's page who has done this? --Awiseman16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Probably - see also WP:POINT. If it's a single incident you should simply undo the edit and kindly ask the user not to do it again; if you don't know a template for that, just type in some text - it's the message that counts. Without knowing the specifics I can't recommend much more than that. >Radiant<07:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The "Crap" Vandaliser
I was recently looking at the page for Jaws, and as I was looking, someone had the nerve to type in random sections "POOOOOOPPPPIIIIIEEEE!!!!!" Keep an eye out for this shitty vandalist, and edit this section if you have any info on the disturbing outlaw. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StealthsneakII (talk • contribs) .
Unfortunately, this kind of vandalism is not uncommon. We have tools to catch it, but since it's a human system it's not 100% effective. --Ginkgo100talk · e@18:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This ip had a 24 hour ban on 16:26, 7 October 2006 for long term disruption (possibly vandalism). After the ban was over the user continued to making edits that are kind of weird. Some seem to be trying to add content, some seem to be removing red links, and some still seems to be linking common or already linked terms. Personally, I think the user is still vandalizing but not quite sure what to make of him/her. Also, I'm not sure what template I would use for the vandalizing.
After the 24 hour ban was lifted, someone gave used a test4 template for vandalism. Am I suppose to ask an admin to block or give him a test2? Ivvan Cain22:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Can you point to specific diffs that appear to be vandalism? Wikilinking and removing red links are generally not vandalism. --Ginkgo100talk · e@22:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
First time: He wikilinked Dan Akroyd which seemed appropriate since Dan Akroyd wasn't wikilinked in the article anywhere nearby.
Second time: Wikilinked rain, winter, money, gold, lemonade, and cookie. All common terms and generally not important to the article.
Third time: Wikilinked ticket and squeak. Also wikilinked Harry Elefante, the nonsense name of a pink elephant, to Harry Belefonte. Possibly the individual thinks Harry Elefante is just a pun on Harry Belefonte and the word elephant but seems it would make more sense to add that note to the episode notes section.
In general, before the individual got blocked, the only editting before was wikilinking common terms even though other editors have reverted them due to them being common terms. Rarely does the individual edits an article ever again after his initial edits. After the blocking, this individual's edits seem to fall in two categories:
1. Wikilinking common and unimportant terms
2. Adding content or pictures though usually in an incorrect procedure.
My question is mainly would this individual's continued action be considered disruption and/or vandalism?
Also, if so...what template should I use to warn this individual since some other editor used test4 right off the bat for a bad edit after his block was lifted? Ivvan Cain23:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Although I did not check every one of this user's edits, and might have missed something, I have not seen anything that qualifies as vandalism or bad faith. I am not quite sure why this user was blocked, to be frank. At any rate, a kindly note on the talk page for the odd wikilinking and image procedure problems, seems like it would probably be more than sufficient for future edits. --Ginkgo100talk · e@02:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Profanity
Is there a separate wiki - policy on profanity? I've recently removed instances of vandalism where editors had simply added swearwords ranging from minor to fairly severe and wonderred whether there was a separate policy on use of bad language? -- MLD·T·C·@:14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The word "integrity" should be replaced as it is ambiguous.
Is anyone else noticing this?
I've seen this several times in the past few days. A vandal will vandalize a page twice, then remove the last vandalism. I doubt this is likely to happen legitimately, since a user who knew how to, and knew it was important to remove the second vandalization should know the same of the first vandalization. Should I give these people the only warning tag, or give them the benefit of the doubt? -NorsemanII23:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't go soft on vandals. Self-reverted, half-reverted, whatever. If you think an edit warrants a mention on their talk page, give them an appropriate warning. Benefit of the doubt is for ambiguous edits. Ånd no, I haven't noticed such behavior before. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I mean should I give a plain warning for vandalism, or the tag that says it will be their "only warning"? It seems to me that this type of vandalism is intentionally trying to create difficulties in removing it. The AntiVandalBot doesn't seem to notice it if the last edit removed vandalism instead of adding it. Likewise, I've seen tricks like this used to make the AntiVandalBot and regular users revert vandalism back in. The nature of the edits suggests that the vandalism was done intentionally, and intended to be difficult to remove. I'm not sure when to use the "only warning" tag, but this seems to be one good application of it. I'm just curious if there's any consensus on how that tag should be used, and if this goes against it. -NorsemanII23:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Ohh! Sorry. Busy day. Plain vandalism. Unless they've vandalized multiple articles this way and seem persistant, you cannot assume that they need something that severe. Sorry. I thought you were talking about the first warning template. And, for the record, you can "go soft" if you think the user isn't a hardcore troll. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Why are there hardly any links in section Types of vandalism?
I came here because I wanted to do something about a sneaky vandal. Unfortunately, section Types of vandalism only describes the term and doesn't say anything what to do about it. Likewise for most of the other types. Is this just an ivory tower page or one that tries to help people help Wikipedia? — Sebastian(talk)20:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Mostly English football players and American professional wrestlers.
In one odd case the article Arnold Schwarzenegger, the vandal added the fictitious middle name Avlot, another corrected it with a sourced real middle name of Alois.
The Miscellany for Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist may be of interest to those who monitor and deal with vandalism. This MfD proposes deletion for a number of "user watchlists" which users have created in their userspace for the purpose of monitoring vandals, policy violators, and other controversial editors. The issue is whether such watchlists are acceptable on Wikipedia or whether they contravene policies such as WP:AGF and WP:PA. —Psychonaut16:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That seems to be a misunderstanding. The issue of the MFD is actually that some of these pages would seem to contrave both the spirit and the letter of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:PA in specific circumstances where there is negative personal commentary on specific named users. --Zeraeph17:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd say yes, but only under specific circumstances. The Arbitration Committee sometimes gives users Probation or Mentorship as an alternative to long-term blocks/bans. I don't have a problem with this, and I wouldn't mind seeing it also used as a ruling of administrators or the community (RfCs) as an alternative to long-term blocks/bans. However, there should be some broad consensus for this - whether ArbCom, a number of administrators, or the community as a whole. Individual users making such lists could be considered to be wikistalking. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 16:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
St. Luke
Greetings,
Someone has vandalized the entry on St. Luke in Wikipedia with profanity.
I'm doing some research on Wikipedia vandalism, and I was wondering what things I should look for in comments to indicate that the editor's revert was a vandalism revert. My initial guess:
"rv blanking" is sometimes used, I don't know how commonly. In general, something that begins with "rv" could be a vandalism revert or it could be a revert over disputed content. —Centrx→talk • 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The first two are typed in manually by the reverting editor, and can be assumed to refer to true vandalism. The second two are automatically generated by admin rollback and various software programs, respectively, and may refer to a vandalism revert or to a very poor (but good faith) minor edit. Usually when reverting non-vandalism, I do it manually and type a descriptive edit summary for this very reason. --Ginkgo100talk · e@20:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism in the wiki neighborhood
I can't believe people are taking our hard work and research and mutilating it with nonsense! I think that the editing should be emailed to the starter of wiki, he checks it, and adds it! what does every one think about that idea?!
It would help combat vandalism, but a method like that would be too time-consuming due to the size of Wikipedia. Anyway, this is the reason why Bots have been created to help with the interception of vandalism. S-man6411:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Adding a pre-review procedure is a common suggestion, and it would indeed cut way down on vandalism, but it goes against the nature of wiki. It would also reduce contributions dramatically; any time you add another step to any process, fewer people go through the process. So far, it seems that the total value of more contributions with more vandalism exceeds that of fewer contributions and less vandalism. HTH. -- R2718281815:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Extra warnings
I'm wondering if we should perhaps add some clarifying language that a warning does not need to be applied to every instance of vandalism/spam. For instance, if a vandal hits multiple pages before they are warned for the first time, and ceases vandalism post first warning, it seems unnecessary and counterproductive to warn them for vandalism made prior to the first warning... Thoughts on adding a note about this to the page? --TeaDrinker22:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
If you are saying that vandalism commited in the past is out of bounds after it has been reverted or otherwise undone/removed, I agree. However, even if a vandal seems to have stopped, it is important to make a note of all vandalous instances. If I revert a vandalous edit, look at their history and find more edits from dates earlier than that pf the edit I reverted, I'll make note of them all. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Also, I would like to note that once a vandal has been given a final warning and reported at WP:AIV, it is not necessary to add another final warning template for each instance following. If one didn't send the message, neither will twenty. And admins will look at contribs before blocking. --Ginkgo100talk · e@19:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
My concern is that a warning's primary purpose is to warn the user to stop, not mark their edits as vandalism. What prompted this was comming across a low-level spammer (adding his blog). I gave spam1, various people reverted the damage, and he stopped. Someone else came along and gave 3 more spam warnings (since, I guess, he had spammed four times), even though he had not done anything since the first warning. It struck me as unnessary and misleading, but consistent with a lawyerly reading of the policy (not really, however, the intent of warnings). --TeaDrinker01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah. I got ya. Yeah, that sort of excessive warning is unnecessary. Make a note of vandalism in as few warnings as possible. Vandals given multiple "last warnings" and warnings just for the sake of mentioning that "He did it four timees" don't help. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Need warning template about repeated creation of nonsense pages
I noticed several new pages created by User:Brett Hohenwarter, all of which were inappropriate (vanity bio pages for friends, empty or nonsensical content, etc.). These pages were speedily deleted. The talk page indicates this user's IP address 207.6.243.206 was autoblocked at one time, although I see no logs about it. I also don't see any logs of the speedily deleted pages. Before the pages were deleted, the contribution log showed that this user's sole purpose appears to be creating nonsense pages. Is there a warning template suitable for something like this, so that a record can be established for a habitual junk-page creator? Does this behavior even count as "vandalism"? -Axlq19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Unencyclopedic content = vandalism...?
Hello English Wikipedia,
Some time ago, me and a friend have added unencyclopedic content in the Dutch Wikipedia, such as "CHEESE tastes like CHEESE" and "The moon is made of CHEESE" - and we both got banned for vandalism. Of course, we know it wasn't a good thing to do, and unencyclopedic content should not be in Wikipedia, but how can this possibly be 'vandalism'? Nowhere in the 'Types of vandalism' does it say unencyclopedic content is vandalism. Also, we didn't intend to "add, delete, or change content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", as is the definition of 'vandalism' on this page.
What amazes me even more, is that we even got banned for alleged vandalism when using the Sandbox. That surely can't be vandalism? How can anyone get banned for using the Sandbox? I don't know if the English Wikipedia has any authority over the Dutch Wikipedia, but I strongly suspect the Dutch admins are making bad use of their power, and I would like anyone "in charge" to at least address this matter to them.
Just in case it's really not clear to you, 'childishness' and 'silliness' are specific examples of vandalism. In general, deliberately inserting 'unencyclopedic content', as you call it, into WP, reduces WP's quality, and is therefore vandalism. Crum37516:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really. Vandalism in the wikipedic sense requires an effort to make the project worse. In the examples 82... gives above, clearly there is no way that the edits were an effort to improve anything, were jokes and so, on the English Wikipedia anyway, they were blockable vandalism. On the other hand, merely 'unencyclopedic content' can be added with perfectly good intentions by someone who either does not know, or does not appreciate its unencyclopedic nature. That's not vandalism, and wouldn't/oughtn't result in a block. Splash - tk17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that I specifically said "deliberately inserting unencyclopedic content" would be vandalism. The deliberation step is definitely required, and would exclude your 'misguided good intention' cases. Crum37517:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Though the unencyclopedic contend we added was surely not in anyway intended to make the quality of the article worse (though one may argue that information like "CHEESE tastes like CHEESE" is redundant or useless, one cannot deny that it's true), the Dutch Wikipedia has a slightly different policy towards vandalism, so I'm "legally" (by Wikipedia rules) unable to protest against my blocking by admins. 82.92.73.19318:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It would still fall under 'childish' and 'nonsense', which are clear examples of vandalism, at least in the EN-WP. Also, in my own opinion, any edit that is made that is not intended to improve WP, is by definition harming it. I don't believe there is a middle ground. And you don't explain why inserting "The moon is made of CHEESE" is not reducing WP's quality. Crum37519:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm kind of wondering about your comment on being banned, in part, for editing the sandbox. I don't see how you can vandalize it, unless you were deliberately placing profanity and 'shock images' in it. However, I'm not familiar with the Dutch Wiki's rules, although I don't understand why they'd be different for something as basic as the sandbox. 205.202.204.4416:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
HOW DO WE GO ABOUT BANNING A PERSON WHO KEEPS CHANGING ARTICLES MALICIOUSLY??? Look up "Daytona king" and his/her contributions. They keep attacking and messing up articles all morning. I don't know what to do because I am kinda new here. But this guy needs to stop. i can't spend my day following in his footsteps changing articles back. Irishgt17:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, for starters, calm down. Secondly, I notice you haven't tried warning the user. Warnings are an indication both to blockers and vandals that edits have been reverted and requests to avoid further misconduct have been made. Third, this is not the place to request that a user be blocked, and wouldn't have strong case even if it was. Fourth, I think, over all, you were overreacting. Exaggerating, really. Four edits is hardly "attacking all morning", and since no one told the user what they were doing was wrong, how can you assume it was "MALICIOUS"? Fifth, if you do ever find a blatent vandal who needs to be blocked, you'll have to present yourself and your case better. Read the policy this talk pages belongs to and our blocking policy. Use Templates like {{user}} to quickly display information about a person. Administrators are especially busy and will likely ignore you if you cannot display links to the user's information yourself. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I have found someone who is vandalizing the episode tables of the article List of Celebrity Deathmatch episodes. It is known as 206.169.38. He/she is the one who is messing up celebrity names, episodes, and tables and that is how I have told ZS. You must make sure he/she is permanently banned from editing, plus his account termination, and he/she must not create new accounts again. Professional Gamer20:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I visited the " Donatella Versace " page a few days ago on
November 16th 2006, and it contained a paragraph which I
have been able to find no confirmation anywhere else on the
web. Under the heading " Heiress to the Throne " , in the
last paragraph , it reads as follows :
"Allegra Versace died on November 14, 2006 of anorexia while being treated at UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, CA. At the time of her death, she weighed only 75 pounds, had to be force fed intravenously, and was relegated to diapers. "
I couldn't believe it, and searched
for any kind of validity elsewhere on the web, and I can't find
a single article on this anywhere. A story like that would have been huge. There is nothing. I think it is probably someone pulling a
prank, as it was first written on November 14th , I saw it on
the 16th as a single sentence, and now it's evolved into a paragraph since the 19th. Any suggestions?
Wikipedia Community Service as redemption for blatant vandals
I suggest the creation of a Wikipedia Community service program for blatant (please note, blatant) vandals.
I have seen cases of vandals re-vandalizing over and over once the temporary block (hours, days, weeks...whatever) expires.
Current policy: I think that blocks penalty should not be temporary, because You have to do nothing to let time pass.
The only thing that the vandal has to do is to let time pass by... and here we go, again.
Proposed policy I think that blocks penalty should be a certain amount of Wikipedia Community service to do. Just some examples:
Reversing a certain amount of vandal edits (made previously to the punishment to avoid foul play).
Finding a correct source for an unsourced statement.
Correcting typos.
Uploading a good image...
...the blatant vandal could choose the task to do from a "punishments menu", proportional to his/hers previous degree of vandalism.
If the User has no interest in doing a few simple tasks, we are much better without him/her.
I think that the blatant would have to earn the right to go back again to Wikipedia.
Paroled blatant vandals could be stripped from their right to search for articles (just as administrators and experienced users have some extra rights) and/or funneled into a "Quarry page" with Wikipedia Community service tasks listed.
A blatant vandal under Wikipedia Community Service parole making new blatant vandalism should be banned for a looooooong time (v.gr. a couple of years).
Wikipedia isn't a fully functioning society with laws and such extreme punishments. Must of the stuff you're asking for would be far too harsh. While I do believe Wikipedia could stand to improve from firmer stances and more lengthy/indefinite block times, your proprosal boarders on sadistic. We certainly cannot force users to do anything, first off. Second, your talk of "parole" is a bit off putting when one considers the fact that Wikipedia does not imprison or have any real authority over vandals. We can prevent someone from damaging this site, but we can't obsessively control how they use it in a non-editting sense. No searches? What good would that even do? Really, I think you should chillax, and maybe have a cup of tea. (yes, I do know how stupid the latter part sounds, but just bear with me) Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia. All the discussions, policies, etc related to it only exist to help in its creation and maintainance. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
O.K., Ace Class Shadow. I am the kind of person who favors harsher crime punishment "in the real world" and penal labour for criminals, so it is not a surprise that I ask for harsher punishments against vandals here.
What do you think? When people attempt to vote more than once, often by not putting unsigned votes in a talk page, over a long period of time. It isn't mentioned in the article. Robocracy14:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This template says that "Removing warnings is vandalism." There is no consensus for this, and it is not listed as a form of vandalism here. I would remove it myself, but the template is fully protected. An admin needs to remove this and all other comments on any template claiming the removing warnings is vandalism, because it isn't. Polonium16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is vandalism. It's referring to other user warnings on a user talk page. Stuff like a "civility" section is fair game, but if someone tells you your edit's been reverted and identified as vandalism, that stays. User talk pages belong to Wikipedia, not users. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's wrong, and the template has been modified to reflect that. It can be disruptive to remove warnings from your talk page, but it's not vandalism, as it does not harm the encyclopedia. A user must open the page to see the template, therefore they have read it, therefore requiring them to wear a scarlet letter for eternity is useless in getting them to become a contributing member of the 'pedia. Very few templates in Category:user warning templates had any wording of that sort when I went through it the other day (prior to seeing this note, actually), and now none of them should say that. The multiple polls and discussions about this issue have consistently failed to reach a consensus that removing warnings is vandalism, although they have pointed out issues with current process in some cases, and ways to remedy that. Good edit summaries can get around a disruptive editor who is trying to mask their intentions, as there's nothing the editor can do to remove those from their talk page history summary. -- nae'blis23:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
New category needed?
Is there such a thing as revert-vandalism? Not including genuine reverts to prevent vandalism etc but there is such a thing as gaming the system that I've witnessed many times. Maybe we can discuss if revert-vandalism should be included as a type of vandalism? Ekantik18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Definitely. Wikipedia is not a baureacracy. We follow rules, but can't allow them to hinder our purpose of encyclopedically displaying information. Misappropriation or other such abuse of rules to defend distruptive behavior won't work. I'd gladly advise users to look at the spirit of an action, not simply the policy or guideline it claims to follow. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Shall I go ahead and add this new category to 'What Vandalism Is' along with a brief note of explanation? Ekantik15:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead with it since there seems to be consensus and placed it near the top so it is considered an important point. Please reword or delete as necessary. Ekantik15:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Vandals Unhappy???
Yeah, I know, you are mad at me for feeling sorry for the vandals. Their probably attention craving. That's just a little more to think about... Moofinluvr
I've noticed some vandals are using the technique of performing several edits quckly, one after the other - sometimes with the second being a partial revert of the first. A naive editor then only reverts the final edit, leaving vandalism behind. Where vandalism is suspected, can I suggest editors look at the article history and check the effect of all the most recent edits of a suspected vandal. Obviously, some of this may well be newbies incorrectly reverting a test edit, but others look far more deliberate to me. I'm not sure if the anti-vandal bots are up to coping with this yet. WLDtalk|edits16:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Law Enforcement
Hello
Having recently taken over leadership of the Law Enforcement wikiproject I saw what seemed to me as a good opportunity for reducing vandalism and fostering better community relations.
The Law enforcement wikiproject will eventually grow to cover quite a range of articles. Many of these articles can be common targets for vandalism, and many serve as areas for poor wikiquette, civility and so on. We have already set a reduction in vandalism and an increase in good community relations on the articles we cover as two goals for the project, and as many of our users are current or ex police officers we hope we have some expertise in remaining impartial, polite as well as efficient at sorting out conflicts.
In light of this, we wish to offer the services of the wikiproject as a tool for addressing vandalism and poor community relations on wikipedia. We have already set up a subpage on the project page where users can gain access to key wikipedia guidelines when it comes to wikiquette, and if there are any ways in which the administrators believe the Law Enforcement wikiproject could aid in addressing the aforementioned problems in either an official or unofficial capacity, please don't hesitate to contact via my userpage, or by a talk page on the project pages themselves.
SGGH17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
School vandals
Is there a "school vandal" template? I've searched but cannot find one. I think it would be beneficial for vandal fighters if certain IP accounts could be tagged as "school vandal". This would help to know why the IP in concern is yielding particularly juvenile vandalism, and it would also be beneficial for the blocking admin to know how to relate to the vandalism, ie. short temporal (instead of permanent) blocks are probably warranted (at least initially) for school IP vandals. --Ezeu19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Just a question relating to types of vandalizm. If a user inserts one or more pictures of genitalia or pornography in the article or in front of the article; what type of vandalizm should that be classified as? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sub6 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
This thought has been bugging me for a while. The amount of vandalism on some pages is so high that when browsing the article's history the majority of edits are vandalism and subsequent reverts. Is it possible that the sheer number of edits and reverts will at some point adversely affect the running of wikipedia? Perhaps in terms of the amount of information being stored in the history, which perhaps doesn't really need to be there. But also, when browsing an article's history it is a pain having to go through several unhelpful edits in order to look at the important ones. No matter how effective the vandalism bots become, there will always effectively be two edits for each vandalism. Will vandalism always be present in the article history for the sake of completeness, or at some point is there a possibility of it being removed? (Don't bite if it sounds like a stupid question, I was just pondering!) Thanks. Mushintalk21:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes this was discussed above just recently and a new category of vandalism is on the project page, Revert vandalism. Vandalism is generally preserved for legal and technical reasons, but administrator help can be requested in the case of revealing personal details about other editors and such. In those (rare) cases the edit may be removed from the edit history but not for general vandalism as far as I am aware. ekantiKtalk14:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I generally revert the blanking to replace the warnings. If the user/IP continues to do so you can always alert an administrator and they would most likely semi/fully protect the page so that the vandal cannot continue blanking the warnings.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk)00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Are they recent/ongoing warnings? Are they related to current behavior? Maybe it's worth keeping them there, but remember that they are always in the edit history, and edit summaries can be very useful if you've got someone who is trying to hide information about their activities. But frequently it's more strife than its worth to try to force someone to wear a Scarlet Letter on their talk page. -- nae'blis16:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
NPOV Vandalism
While we assume good faith of all editors, if it becomes apparent that someone is disregarding NPOV intentionally, but continually introducing material which has been show not to be NPOV, is there some good reason that should not be seen as vandalism?--Crossmr16:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Generally speaking, introducing or removing materials that result in what others consider is non-NPOV version of the article, is not considered vandalism. Vandalism is an intentional act to reduce the quality of WP. If an editor personally believes that his/her edits are NPOV (in his/her own mind), then the edits are not vandalism and the disagreement over them is a content dispute. If a content dispute cannot be resolved on the Talk page, then other dispute resolution procedures should be followed. Crum37516:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Right, which goes back to WP:AGF. However if its been demonstrated that material X is not NPOV and there are no sources for that opinion/statement/fact/etc does it not become an intentional act to reduce the quality of WP? I think we'd all agree that articles which are not NPOV are lower quality, so by intentionally introducing material which has been demonstrated not to be NPOV without providing sources not be intentionally lowering the quality of WP? At what point do we go from a statement put in an article from being vandalism to a content dispute. Placing an obviously false statement is obviously vandalism, so if a source cannot be found for statement X whether its more obvious vandalism or not, where is the difference? If its not a ridiculous statement written in all caps its a content dispute?--Crossmr16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
If it's a "ridiculous statement written in all caps", and any person off the street would recognize it as such (e.g. irrelevant to the article, or clearly a joke), then it would be vandalism, since any reasonable person would assume the editor's intent was to reduce WP's quality. If it's a statement that is not backed up by proper sourcing, then it should be removed per WP:V or WP:NOR, which are the core content policies. If the editor insists in reinserting them, after clearly being shown that they are not verifiable, dispute resolution procedure can be initiated, and the editor could eventually be blocked or banned for tendentious editing or disruption. But as long as that editor believes his/her edits are 'correct', in his/her own mind, they are not vandalism. Important note: if the article or the issues in question are WP:BLP-related, unsourced or poorly sourced edits should be reverted immediately and require no prior discussion. The BLP-related removal of unsourced or poorly sourced materials is excluded from the WP:3RR limits. Crum37517:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The only qualifying difference you are making though is But as long as that editor believes his/her edits are 'correct', in his/her own mind, they are not vandalism. If the vandal writing "George Bush sleeps with monkeys" is correct in his own mind (as ridiculous as that would be) how is that really different if we're going to put the onus on it being right in the mind of the person adding the material which violates NPOV after it has been demonstrated that there are no sources for the material to support that POV? I do agree that there are some other policies and guidelines which address it, but I'm failing to see what differentiates obvious vandalism like that from someone who is introducing material which fails NPOV and V after its been demonstrated not to without providing any support for it.--Crossmr17:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
If someone wrote "George Bush sleeps with monkeys" it could easily match 'nonsense' or 'silly' vandalism. So that would not be the issue here. If an edit is clearly nonsensical to most reasonable persons, it could be vandalism of the silly or nonsense type. But once you get into typical controversies, religion, politics, conspiracies, etc., and there is strong disagreement about issues, then the edits representing the extreme positions could easily be well-intentioned by their proponents. Then the issue becomes: is the editor civil and collaborating with others properly? if not, that editor could be blocked/banned for tendentiousness or disruptiveness via dispute resolution procedures. But as long as a reasonable person could agree that the edit was an intent to improve WP, whether properly sourced or not, it would not be vandalism. Crum37518:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Which I might agree with the 1st or 2nd time. But once its demonstrated that there is a NPOV issue with the material due to lack of source/other reasons I think you have to question the intent at that point. You don't assume good faith until you're blue in the face and the encyclopedia is a smoking ruin (dramatic I know, but AGF isn't meant to shield someone from continuing questionable behaviour indefinitely). As an analogy, lets say I got a needle in my arm and its quite sore. We're old friends we meet and you slap me on the arm as a greeting, I wince and tell you about the shot and ask you not to hit it. Later in the conversation we're joking around, you hit it again after good joke. I remind you about my arm and we have a laugh. As the meeting progresses you hit the arm three more times, I've got to seriously question your intent at that point. I think after if a reasonable effort has been made to explain to an editor that the edits they have made violate NPOV there is no reason not to treat them like vandalism. It would become apparent at that time that their intent is to ignore the rules and policies on wikipedia and degrade the quality of them.--Crossmr19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I would think that if someone were to intentionally hurt you, he'd be guilty of assault. In this case, in the example you cite, he'd be guilty of disruptive behavior and tendentiousness, but not vandalism. An admin can block a user who's properly warned for disruptiveness. All you need is to get an admin to review the article and Talk page (if you are an admin and have edited the page, get a non-involved one please) and assuming your description is accurate, that tendentious back-slapper would be blocked after a proper warning. Vandalism is an act of intentional defacement, that anyone can recognize on sight. It requires no history (like how many times the back was slapped) and no knowledge of sourcing rules. It does require understanding of the alleged vandal's mindset - what's s/he trying to do. If s/he's just trying to get his extreme view across, that has no support, it's not vandalism, but can easily be disruption. Hopefully this makes it clearer. Crum37523:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with the difference. Both are disruptive, both are done intentionally, and both degrade the quality of wikipedia. While one can be spotted by "JoeUser" surfing by, and the other requires someone familiar with the history I don't view them as being that different. I would actually see someone pushing POV as more detrimental to the article than random vandalism as they're likely to to be damaging the article repeatedly over time. I'm not sure why they should get "better" treatment than a random vandal who would get immediately reverted regardless, warned and banned quickly if they persisted. Instead we need to sometimes allow their edits to sit on a page for awhile, go through dispute resolution processes (which are slow compared to AIV), and then wait for admins who won't get involved until its gone through at least one dispute resolution process. On a slow article which gets little to no attention, you could have POV edits sitting there for a long time waiting for people to come by (even using third opinion and others) to "make sure" they're POV.--Crossmr23:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
(outdent) Ok, now that I think you understand the actual policy, it seems that your concern is why. IOW, if I paraphrase you correctly, you suggest that we treat simple vandals who deface WP the same as tendentious and disruptive POV-pushers. Although you are correct, that both types of users (and their respective actions) are harming WP, and the latter sometimes even more than the former, the problem is that judging vandalism is easy, hence we use a simple tool to clean it - anyone can simply revert vandalism, no questions asked (though warnings are highly recommended), and after a few repeat offenses the vandal is blocked. Judging tendentious disruption, OTOH, requires more expertise, and more attention. You can't just shoot on sight. You need to be neutral (hence the non-involved admin requirement), you need to read the history, understand the sources (sometime one source may apply to several places in the article), undertand the personalities, etc. - it requires impartiality, finesse and expertise, it requires an admin. This is why we make that distinction. It may take a bit longer, sometimes much longer, but we want to be sure to enforce true neutrality and collaboration, not a bunch of one-sided editors with one view ganging up on a single one with an opposite view, for example. That it is sometimes, maybe even often, frustrating, is part of the wiki-challenge, but please don't give up. Crum37500:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll mention another reason for the different handling of the two types of problems. The vandals are typically hit-and-run editors, often school children playing silly games. Once they get reverted a few times, the game starts getting boring and they move off somewhere else, and possibly, over time, even mature and start to contribute to WP. The tendentious editor OTOH, would not give up so easily. For him/her the edit could be a pressing emotional issue, not something that can be ignored or easily set aside. Therefore, even if you could hypothetically just revert that person, you wouldn't reach a stable state, as s/he would revert right back and start an ugly and highly counterproductive edit war. This is why we need the neutral admin to step in. The admin can not only examine the situation and reach fairly quick conclusions about alleged disruption, but can also block the disruptive user if needed. I personally think it's a good system, with good checks-and-balances built in - for example, if a blocked user complains, s/he could get unblocked if the block is wrong, and/or pursue dispute resolution. So overall I think the policies are very logical. Of course you are welcome to suggest improvements. Crum37504:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Invisible vandalism?
Somebody with more experience in vandalism should take a look at [2]! The user just inserts random names in articles, and nobody has detected it! --V. Szabolcs18:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There are occasions with less known or less edited articles where vandalism can remain undetected for days. Its sad that this is the case however it is exceedingly difficult to keep track of articles with very slow edit histories or very few editors working on them or reading them. However I would not look at this as a big issue. Eventually Murphy's Law will catch up with them the more they continue to vandalize notably or unnotably, and whatever bad that could happen to their editing privileges will happen to their editing priveleges or something along that jargon. I'm definitely not a strong theorist that's for sure :P....¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk)21:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Whenever an act of vandalism of this type is discovered, after fixing it on 'your' article, it is considered a courtesy to then do what you did - scan the vandal's contribs and look for similar acts of the same type that were not yet detected. You'll notice that most are reverted soon enough, but some are not, and it's your duty as Wikipedian to help revert them. If this is not in the WP:VAN page, maybe it should be. Crum37500:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
User BonniePrinceCharlie has a history of insulting users on his/her talk page. For example, on 12/10/06, this user responded to a user's "Assume good faith" message by calling that editor a "fucking shithead." The question I have relates to an incident that occurred earlier today. BonniePrinceCharlie edited [3] a personal attacks warning left on his/her talk page to include the phrase "I like penis," with that phrase attributed to the editor who issued the warning. What is the proper warning template to use for this action? -Trunkalunk22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I was browsing through wikipedia, when I encountered that when you type KFC: it re-directs to "Nigger." I find this highly offensive, and I would for something to happen so that no-one will get offended or have their feelings hurt. Please try and fix this.
Thank you,
Dgd1888
KFC Controversy
I recently encountered, while browsing wikipedia: I found that when you type "KFC" it redirects to "Nigger" I find this Highly offsensive, and I would like to see that it gets fixed, because people will talk about it negatively someday.
Yep, that was redirect vandalism; in this case it was fixed in about 60 seconds, probably shortly after you saw it. Redirect vandalism can be fixed the same way as any other (browse to an older edit and save that), but requires one additional step to click on the "Redirected from <X>" link at the top of the new target page. -- nae'blis06:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the heads up about the vandalism. Could you be more specific about what page this is on? you can provide a link by typing [[the page's title like this]]. Thanks very much, delldot | talk23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Real-life childish vandalism They are talking about this image that was recently removed from the project page to which this is the talk page. -- Beardo10:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
While I find the GIPU section starter a bit of a foolish prude, I don't care for that picture either. Wikipedians are far too casual with the Wikipedia:Wikipedia-space, adding silly images, phrases, et cetera. Vandalism is a serious issue and this image offers nothing. Furthermore, the self censored caption "#@%^!—in place of "Fuck", I assume—Vandals!" or such is hardly appropriate. Like one user told me, revert. We shouldn't create shrines to vandals or adorn our policies and guidelines with stupid images which are suppose to symbolize important concepts. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I have restored the image. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, and there is no reason why we can't have a bit of humor in the Wikipedia: space. Really, people, if you go out of your way to make Wikipedia too unfun, people will leave. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that these type examples are critically needed and they are definitely WP:BEAN. If someone needs fun, they can find lots of it all over the Internet. Crum37502:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes. I'm sure it has NEVER occurred to anyone to write "PENIS PENIS PENIS" all over a page on Wikipedia. We'd better not give them any ideas. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
As someone who spends way too much time reverting vandalism and adspams, I really don't feel that giving any ideas to prospective vandals is advantageous to WP. Silly vandals are typically quite silly, i.e. they may imitate a silly idea they spot. I see no reason to give them ideas. Crum37502:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, it would be so terrible for Wikipedia if a random vandal were to see this image and run out to their local park and spend hours changing the picture board to read "I LOVE PENIS". That would do so incalculable damage to Wikipedia. We should probably list the image for deletion, just to be certain, and get a developer to purge all of this discussion permanently from the history, too, just to be absolutely safe. We simply cannot take the risk that someone might engage in petty, reversible vandalism. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not a matter of 'danger' or 'risk'. It is simply that from the perspective of vandal fighting (which this policy is about) we want to minimize the vandalism and reduce our workload in reverting it. If this image does not help reduce that workload (and I believe it doesn't) then it does not belong here. Crum37503:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's get one thing straight: Wikipedia isn't "supposed to be" anything but a free encyclopedia. We clear, Martin? It can be fun, sure. We all keep coming back for some reason. However, there is no need to place this image on the project page. Just as vandalism outside of Wikipedia doesn't damage this site, obscure references to it don't help, either. Wikipedia policies and guidelines aren't meant to entertain. Plus, this boarders on something for bad jokes and other nonsense.
Seriously, I don't know what's worst: vandalism or the people who ("intentionally") abuse this area. (proj page, talk, etc.) Other than naming conventions, I can't think of any policy or guideline area that has to put up with this much BS. For god's sake...I'm having to tell people not to put irrelevant content on an official policy page meant solely to aid users in understanding Wikipedia vandalism and how to undo it. Meanwhile, a bunch of people use (or want to use) this talk page like a friggin complaints department for general vandalism-related issues thorough the site.
Dude, you need to loosen up a bit. I was an admin here for over a year, and I certainly have spent plenty of time doing the vandal fighting thing; I know what it's about. And I also wonder how much of Wikipedia space you've really read; a lot of it is really quite funny. So is a lot of the vandalism. Anyway, don't take Wikipedia quite so seriously. Wouldn't want you to burn out or anything. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I can be as lax as the next guy, babe, believe me. I've been around...and seen the "fun". I'm not calling for Wikipedia:Assume bad faith to be deleted, am I? I'm just saying that there are limits. There is a certain need for decency and relevance. If we don't treat this area seriously—and properly—why should anyone else? You add irrelevant images, others maje complaints. Soon, we're treated no more seriously than another essay and become the unofficial Wikipedia complaints department. Or not. I know it's not necessarily a slippery slop, but c'mon. This just isn't the place, okay? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Can't you people see that it is essential that we keep these vital images? If people are allowed to have images removed from Wikipedia simply because they are meant for fun, the next thing we know, images of puppies, kittens and adult furries will be the next to go. If we want to go down that road, soon enough people will demand that we only have black-and-white images, if any, because color images always color peoples perceptions and sometimes make them smile. If Wikipedia lets the long-faced stoics dictate what we do, it start a trend that leads to removal of colors for the United States flag, prohibition of any facial expression in the halls of Congress and potentially the arrest of election candidates who tell jokes during campaign stops. Please nip this thing in the bud before the very universe collapses. Sincerely, Alexa Chord20:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Was that supposed to be humorous, or just annoyingly ironic? Feh. If no one has a decent argument or anything constructive to say, I'm considering this case closed. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
AHHH! OMG! Kids, go to the playground and write "I LOVE PENIS" on it! Hurry! And don't tell anyone you're smart enough to use a computer, and somehow magically appear on a page entitled Wikipedia:Vandalism! —Pilotguy (ptt)21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Are you implying an ulterior motive? The original vandal wanted to see their work on Wikipedia? That would be amusing. Still, as I said before, let's end this now and cease the rambling. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Antisemitic Vandalism?
I have noticed that frequently anonymous users appear and quickly make a large number of edits to biographical articles and insert the sentence or phrase "X is Jewish", usually in the very first sentence. There is not inherently anything wrong with including this kind of information, as long as it is incorporated into the content of the article. I do however have a problem putting it front and center in articles unless the individual in question makes their religion/ethnicity central to their public persona. Usually the individual in question is controversial for some reason, and so the anonomous editor is seeking to establish a link between Judaism and some unpopular stance by editing a large number of biographies. I have gotten into the habit of reverting these edits when I see them. Is this problem common? Is this vandalism? Is it something else? Any advice would be appreciated.--Beaker34207:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd feel better if somebody could check a few instances for accuracy just so that we can say that it is definitely beyond all doubt vandalism. Else we leave ourselves open to claims of censorship or whitewashing (it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes of googling to prove that somebody is not Jewish). If an historically ropey person is Jewish, it's not antisemitism to say that they are, but it is vandalism if they are not.
Initially this issue didn't really seem like a major problem for me, as people on Wikipedia are often described as 'African American' or 'Asian American', etc. However, the sheer number of edits being made by (usually anonymous) users is rather disturbing, particularly when these users make no other changes to the encylopaedia, and suggests that there is some sort of ulterior motive to the edits. Chairman S.TalkContribs02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Since nobody has provided any examples, I can't speak with authority on any individual case (as in, it might be obvious/obviously not vandalism once you've seen it, but I haven't seen it so I'm speaking generically here), but has it actually occurred to anybody that these might be genuine edits made by random people who look up a famous Jewish person and then see that their religion is not marked, and so add it in.
I'm also a little concerned that these are being labeled as being bad faith edits, yet nobody appears to have attempted to verify matters. If I were Jewish, or Irish-American, or Mormon, etc, and I saw that a member of my community was not credited in the same way that a member of another race or faith was, I would be inclined to add it in.
For my own peace of mind, could somebody check a few just to be sure.
if a Wikipedia Manager from another country making Vandalism how we can complain them ? Not only me, many members left Turkish Vikipedi just for this reason. Is there any central control for managers ??--Onder K.18:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Chances are, if they're manager, or admin or sysop or janitor or powerhungry asshole or whatever you want to call them, they care too much to be a vandal. If they are caught vandalizing, they're treated like any other user; in fact blocked longer because they know better. They may even get de-admined. ★MESSEDROCKER★05:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Restoring a vandalised article
Is there an easy way to revert to a previously saved version of the article in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.57.174 (talk • contribs) 22:51, January 2, 2007
You're kidding me, right? This must be some kind of joke.
*sigh* hit "undo" and save the page. I suspect, however, that if you know what a "revert" is, you're asking a question you already know the answer to. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Oddly for me, clicking "undo" invariably gives me an editable copy of the same vandalized page, not the previous clean version. I find the "undo" link unreliable, so I just display the edit history, select the correct version, edit, and save it as the current article. It's more cumbersome but it works. I don't know what's wrong with undo; I thought maybe it's the way Proxomitron is handling embedded javascript. =Axlq03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You are not alone, Axlq. I had concluded that "Undo" was a non-functioning feature. I revert articles the same way you do. --orlady04:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I didn't mean to endorse such an obviously unpopular function. I was just sorta replying in kind. ("Stupid question, stupid amswer.") Let's not turn this into "bash unpopular features". Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we're bashing, and I understood the point of your answer. I thought I was alone in my experience with undo, I'm glad it's not just me. The feature would be popular if it worked. The first time I noticed the undo link, I thought "Cool! How efficient!" Unfortunately it didn't work as I expected.
I wonder, is there any developer team here to which we can report technical problems? It would be great to have the "undo" problem fixed. =Axlq06:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Software bugs can be reported at BugZilla. Last night I reported the "undo" bug described in this conversation. I got a reply saying the bug has already been addressed. Indeed, when I tried to undo a change just now, it worked perfectly well. -Amatulic00:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone help me with something? I edited a page today and did a good job with it, it was accurate and correct information and I gave links to go with the information I provided someone removed it for no good reason, how can I find out who it was or why it was removed?--just curious00:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
If the page was deleted, you can find this information by visiting the deleted page and checking the deletion log. If it was text removed from the article, you may be able to find out from the edit summary or the talk page. If there is no discussion on the talk page you can bring it up yourself.
I think that it would be a good idea to discourage signing vandal warnings with signatures for two reasons:
1. It would make it more difficult for the vandals to harass the vandal-fighters because it wouldn't provide links to the user's page.
2. By giving anonymous warnings, the vandals would be more under the impression that they are being warned by Wikipedia as a whole rather than by specific users. I think that one thing that encourages vandalism and trolling is when vandals become under the impression that they are just being bossed around by other users who have a problem with them.--Azer RedSi?23:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, a lot of vandals probably don't know about the edit history. But I actually think it's good to give a personalized message to vandals. I understand what you're saying about vandals taking it personally or feeling persecuted, Azer Red, but on the other hand I doubt if their feeling of persecution would be lessened if they thought it was Wikipedia in general warning htem. And I've had good experiences by making it clear to vandals that I am an actual person who would like them to stop. It's easier to do something damaging if there's not an actual person to say "hey, I wish you'd cut it out". I think we should focus or efforts of not provoking the vandals by remaining calm and polite even when faced with some pretty ridiculous behavior. Just my take. delldot | talk16:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
New Article Vandalism?
Would a blantant self-promotional or obviously pointless new article be considered vandalism? I understand that we can nominate for a speedy delete, but surely there must be something faster to remove pointless articles. UnfriendlyFire02:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Faster than speedy deletion? That's bordering on ADHD, son. Just submit the articles and have a little faith. Users found to be repeatedly making nonsensical or otherwise "pointless" articles in a distruptive fashion can be mentioned to an Admin or something for blocking. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Rfc: I'm a vandal?
Hi. Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I don't know where else I could, so here's the issue: I recently placed two vandalism warnings on the talk pages of two users that were posting non-sense on Talk:Linux. These were instantly reverted by user John254 without explanation and a similar warning was placed on my talk page. I then posted a note on the editor's talk page willing to know if there has been a misunderstanding as I believe I used the warnings appropriately. Much to my surprise my comment was also immediately reverted. (Please see the editor's talk page history [5], my talk page [6] and my contributions for detailed information.) I'm now being threatened to be blocked over having done something against Wikipedia's policies that I am entirely unaware of, and my edits are being reverted without further explanation, so I would really appreciate any help to solve this issue or at least an explanation on what it is exactly that I'm apparently doing wrong. Thanks, 80.233.255.705:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that the warning John placed on your talk page was excessively harsh. The conversation was getting out of hand, so you could be justified in reverting, but you mislabeled it as "WP:SPAM." Spam is using Wikipedia to advertise or promote business. Either way, you should try to reexplain to John about your warning. If you do get blocked, however, you could use Template:Unblock and argue your case. bibliomaniac1505:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure why you called these edits [7][8] "spam". In general, it's not a good idea to remove other people's comments from talk pages, even if you feel they are not serious or appropriate, unless they are obvious and blatant vandalism. Since your edits appear to be good faith, I don't think it's likely you will be blocked. --Ginkgo100talk05:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments. I'm not a native speaker, therefore I wasn't sure whether or not these edits can indeed be called spam. My bad then. I do think however that they are highly inappropriate, given the circumstances: there's a group of editors that prefer a compound name to an ordinary name. The comments seemed as if making fun of that group and that's not something to be tolerated in my opinion. Well, thanks again, 80.233.255.715:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this considered vandalism?
I recently encountered an IP address that was clearly adding vandalism to pages, for example, X is expletive. However, immediately after adding the vandalism, he would go back and reedit the page and delete the vandalism from the page. This was not an actual revert, just two edits. Do these count as vandalism? They don't really compromise the validity of the page, as it appears the same after both edits, but they do clutter up my watchlist with useless edits. Asmeurer06:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Some new users do this as a type of test edit. If it's only done once or twice, I usually give them {{test-self}} or {{test-self-n}}. If one user is doing this type of edit many times in a row, it could be considered disruptive; however, before assuming this is the case, make sure it's not a shared IP. --Ginkgo100talk15:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Multiple editors behind the same NAT firewall will look like they all have the same IP address. It can be difficult to tell if it's the same person. For example, if we didn't log in first, my wife and I could engage in an edit war from different computers on our home network, and it would look like all edits came from the same IP address.
When I see a vandal edit immediately corrected by the same editor (anonymous or not), I just let it go. If it's a blanking that the same editor corrects, I just assume the editor is correcting an error. I rarely see repeats. =Axlq23:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the key is the context and the history of that user's contributions. If I see an IP user with a history of being warned/blocked for vandalism self-reverting the user's own clear vandalism, I treat this as worthy of a warning. This seems like it might be a case of a vandal trying to be cute by testing the boundaries. I'm not sure this would be grounds for a block, but it doesn't seem right to completely ignore self-reverting vandalism. Rickterp20:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, this particular IP (24.39.80.230, I see no need to protect the guilty) has received several warnings, including a final warning (See user talk page), has repeated the act several times, and has been blocked at least twice now (the second time thanks to me). However, this only seems to be because every once in a while, an edit will not be reverted. These edits are clearly not test edits. How do you determine if an IP is shared, or does that just mean that more than one person uses a computer? Asmeurer05:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
My removal of text
I've removed the following text from the "Types of vandalism" section: "Another type of vandalbot appears to log on repeatedly with multiple random names to vandalize an article.[citation needed]". This probably refers to User:Vandalbot. That vandalbot isn't active now so I don't see the point of listing its characteristics in the main Wikipedia:Vandalism page. Graham8711:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Bots aren't perfect, and they can't be expected to spot everything. I'm just glad they generally don't make mistakes. Anyway, this really isn't a WT:V topic. If you spot vandalism that isn't from a recent version, just handle it. Not much sense in complaining about it wasn't handled sooner by someone/something else. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Reporting vandalism
I can understand the talk page header - but could it be amended to "... reporting vandalism. Please go to [link as appropriate] to do so"? Jackiespeel17:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the issue is that many people routinely come here with reports of specific vandalism incidents. Some ignore the message on top, but for the ones that do read it, it would be helpful to have a pointer as to where to go, if this is not the place. I think that part of WP is being helpful to others, and just saying 'no' or 'go away' is not. I added the suggested improvement that was just reverted, I think it makes sense to reconsider it. Crum37519:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between being helpful and catering to...well...the willfully less...ept. Furthermore, pointing to the project page only reinforces the misconception that this talk page should be used for reporting vandalism. If they're not willing to think, read or act, why should we even bother to be "helpful"? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not assuming bad faith, merely saying that their misconcepts aren't our problem. If people think "this is not a forum for reportig vandalism" means "there is forum for reporting vandalism...somewhere," it can't be helped. Furthermore, if they're at this WT, chances are they already failed to read/understand the project page once. (So much for policies in nutshells, eh?) Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You could be right, but I fail to see how being helpful by pointing someone, most likely a novice, who wanders into the wrong place to the right location, is harmful to the project. Crum37520:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that is they've come here, they didn't "miss" the "right" page so much as ignored it. I don't understand how someone can say "fix your wiki" or the equivilent of such, but I'd rather not encourage it. No amount of the foolproofing you seem so keen on will help, but I'll try it anyway. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Is repeatedly deleting well-sourced material, despite continued requests by other editors to stop doing so, considered vandalism? If not, what is the correct way to handle this? Thanks. Tanaats18:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Avoiding productive collaboration on the Talk page and ignoring consensus sounds more like disruption. If the editor truly believes that the material s/he deletes does not belong in the article, for whatever internal motive reason, it would not be vandalism. Persistent disruption of WP's encyclopedia building process is just as serious as vandalism, however, and can result in blocks or even a ban. Crum37518:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The correct way to handle it is by trying to engage the user in discussion and to find out why s/he deletes what to someone else appears to be well sourced material. If there is a dispute about it, then dispute resolution mechanisms should be followed. Crum37518:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I have again reverted Azer Red's edits. Some the more significant problems associated with these edits include:
(1) Deletion of a number of sections, including "Childish vandalism", "Redirect vandalism", and "Random character vandalism", without apparent consensus. While some of these sections might be seen as descriptions of subsets of other types of vandalism, they are described specifically because they are fairly common. In other cases, it appears that the deletion of the sections actually contracts the definition of vandalism. In any event, these sections should not be summarily deleted from an official policy page with such a terse explanation as "cleanup".
(2) Rewriting sections so as to contract the definition of vandalism and/or reduce the clarity of the definition of vandalism, without apparent consensus. For instance, Azer Red modified the "Silly vandalism" section to remove the creation of joke and hoax articles from the definition of vandalism. Such articles might be seen as nonsense pages; however, due to the inherent ambiguity in the term "nonsense", it's best to specifically describe the creation of joke and hoax articles as vandalism. Azer Red also renamed the "Link vandalism" section to "Internal link vandalism", thereby removing the inappropriate redirection of external link targets from the definition of vandalism.
(3) Rewriting sections so as to make them vacuously recursive. For instance, Azer Red's version of the "template vandalism" section describes template vandalism as "Any vandalism to templates", without any further explanation or examples of what constitutes template vandalism. Azer Red also converted the non-recursive definition of "Hidden vandalism" to a recursive definition. Recursive definitions of vandalism, such as the description of "Hidden vandalism" as "Any form of vandalism..." decrease clarity, and should be avoided if a non-recursive definition would be reasonable.
(4) Introduction of a grammatical error, in the form of a subject-verb disagreement, into the "Vandalbot" section. Azer Red renamed the section to "vandalbots", but left the text of the section in the singular tense. John25403:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to make the section more concise and to the point. The is a lot of redundancy and overlapping. For example, there is a section describing "silly vandalism" and another describing "childish vandalism". "Spam" covers external link vandalism, so "Link vandalism" is really covering internal link vandalism". Since all the different types of vandalism are already covered, there is no point in re-listing every form of vandalism under sections like "template vandalism"; etc. I'll work on my revision a little, though.--Azer RedSi?04:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I've cleaned it up further and added some of the things that you complained about having been removed (e.g. the note about random characters). My revision looks like a lot has been removed, but in reality, it has just clarified better what constitutes vandalism without a lot of redundancy.--Azer RedSi?04:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Both parties here are editing in good faith. You shouldn't need to revert, if you're doing this right. Take edits section by section if necessary. No edit warring! See the harmonious editing club suggestions if you're having trouble. Perhaps see also Bold revert discuss, which also says that only 1 revert is necessary. If you think it useful, you could also perhaps ask the mediation cabal for help.
None of the above should be read as a licence by either Azer Red or John254 to make any further simple reverts. I'd prefer if you two both cooperate on this.
If you have any questions, you can always ask on my talk page! :-)
Actually, Azer Red's recent edits deleted the official policy vandalism section from Wikipedia:Vandalism. Perhaps it's worthwhile to quote from the section that he deleted:
Deleting or altering part of a Wikipedia official policy with which the vandal disagrees, without any attempt to seek consensus or recognize an existing consensus.
Note: The comments below are responsive to Azer Red's comments, before I saw his most recent edits:
Indeed, there is some amount of overlap between the existing definitions of vandalism. As I have explained, however, it may be necessary to create definitions that are not entirely disjoint, for the purpose of clearly and specifically defining common types of vandalism. This is an official policy page, not a set theory class; its goal is to clearly convey the substance of Wikipedia's vandalism policy to the average user, not to eliminate every theoretical redundancy. While some elimination of overlap between sections may be justified, it cannot come at the expense of clarity, nor may it be used to remove certain types of edits from the definition of vandalism altogether.
I respectfully disagree with the claim that
"Spam" covers external link vandalism, so "Link vandalism" is really covering internal link vandalism.
The term "spam", as used in Wikipedia:Vandalism, implies a commercial and/or self-promotional purpose:
Adding inappropriate external links for advertisement and/or self-promotion.
As such, it is inadequate to describe many types of vandalism from which external links may suffer. Particularly, redirecting an external link to an unrelated target, absent some commercial and/or self-promotional interest in the new link target, does not constitute "spam". John25405:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
You two need to work out how you want to define things, preferably here. John, I agree with about half of your types and half of Azers, but I will say that your opening paragraph changes are incorrect. Vandalism is not deletion from an article, as only admins can delete edits. It is in fact removal. Saying the most common type is..., and then using the plural is incorrect. But I do agree with the third part of removing "blatant" to how you phrased it. The rest I don't have much opinion on, you two need to collaborate and not war. Teke (talk)05:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
About the official policy vandalism section, there is no need of it since the types of vandalism that could apply to official policy are covered in the blanking vandalism section (e.g. removing chunks of text; replacing entire established pages with your own version). This page is supposed to cover generic types of vandalism (e.g. blanking, adding swearwords). There is no reason to list every type of page that these forms of vandalism could occur on (e.g. templates, articles, policy pages, etc.) as this is obvious; if a certain type of edit made to an article is vandalism, then it is still vandalism if made to a template or if made to a policy page. I have modified the link vandalism and spam sections as you requested. If there is any type of vandalism that is no longer qualified as vandalism by my version, please point it out.--Azer RedSi?05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As someone who hasn't touched the page in weeks, I think everyone should stop reverting to make a point. Reverting to denounce edit warring isn't okay. Reverting to enforce the "concensus before edits" rule isn't even okay in this sense. Not to get on my high house, but these reverts aren't helping. *Looks sternly at Kim, Killer, John and Azer*Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
<innocent look> I know I'm slightly naughty and using a revert like that, so stern glance I deserve. But the intent was to boost the irony level of any further revert so high that no one is going to try to beat it (Famous last words. This is wikipedia, after all.). </innocent look> --Kim Bruning06:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
No innocent look here: I was not "making a point" - my intention was to return the article to the pre-edit war status and attempt to get the warriors to engage on talk. As my only edit to this article in a long, long time, this can hardly be construed as "edit warring" either. Kim's irony notwithstanding, the war seems to be in remission, so to speak, so I fail to see the point of the "stern look" to either Kim or myself. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!?15:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with everything except restoring to pre-edit-war status. If you're going to leave a page on m:The Wrong Version due to protect or block, it's probably a really bad idea to actually make a revert. We all know you won't mean to, but to some people (especially the kind who like to edit war), it would look like you're endorsing a particular version. (Even though in reality that's likely the furthest thing from your mind)
If you don't revert you can at least go "Who? What? Not me! I just protected it at random, honest!", and your denial will at least appear to be plausible. --Kim Bruning19:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Not saying I agree with your reasoning, but... following that reasoning to its logical conclusion, we're both screwed on the Plausible Deniability, so its a good thing the page didn't need protection, eh? KillerChihuahua?!?19:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Um, both parties got blocked for shorter or for longer, so yes, the above applies. Since my revert basically only undid yours, we might just be able to squeek through and still be accepted as neutral without having to explain further. :-P <cross fingers> --Kim Bruning19:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
He had already been warned at least 5 times and Had recieved a last warning. He had not been blocked since that last warning according to the block log and all the other warnings had been placed after the last warning. Correct me if I'm wrong but at that point don't you just go to WP:AIV? Since he has already recieved enough warning.--St.daniel13:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Look, its good that you are reverting vandalism and reporting vandals to WP:AIV. However, in this very case, you did not warn the user a single time this day. The IP might be shared by other users, how would they know that what they are doing is wrong? We need to assume good faith with the vandals and not retaliate with the their kind of retribution. However, I cannot blame you. We have another administrator who blocked him. Reply here if you want to; or read what the top of my page says. ;) — Nearly Headless Nick13:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it a legtimite reason to request someone who has recieved many warnings ,not by me but by other people, had gotten a last warning and is still vandalizing. Isn't that a valid reason for blocking or do I still have to leve a warning to his page like all the other editors. Can't I use the other users warnings and the fact that he continues to vandalize as reason to nominate for blocking. Isn't that a valid reason?--St.daniel13:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Imagine, you are one of the persons using the anon IP. Your little brother tries Wikipedia. Its fun vandalising. He makes 6 vandalistic edits, gets the boilerplate templates slapped on his page and eventually gets blocked. You are new to Wikipedia too, you try vandalising and get blocked immediately. You never see the You have new messages message on the top of any page, you are clueless why you were blocked. In case the vandal was blanking pages and replacing them with small pieces of text, you could have put a {{bv}} template (also read WP:SUBST) on his talk page, and monitored his contributions. In case he vandalised again, you report him to WP:AIV. It's as simple as that. The last warning is the last warning before the block, after that its a clean slate, unless the user has a very long history of vandalism, which this user did not have. Also, please reply here, I am watching this page. Warm regards, — Nearly Headless Nick13:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
First off I would like to say that I did not attempt to be overally cruel to this vandal or deal out harsh justice. I was just following procedure. I have been blocked because of vandals on my shared IP even though I was a registered user. It sucked but I realized that it was what needed to be done. Second I didn't know it was a shared IP. That was not at the top of the page at the time I nominated him for deletion. Second he had gotten a last warning already. It if he had been a vadnal it would not be my responsibility that he had been blocked. When you vandalize you have given up at least some of the trust wiki places in you people begin to watch you closely for another page blank or swear word. I believe in good faith but there are limits. And I would like to stress that the reason I did not place {{bv}} or test 4 or any other template on his page was because he had been warned 11 times before and had recieved a last warning. Heck I would have given him a test4 excecpt that I saw that someone had placed it already and so I nominated him for blocking. Obviousally it being a shared IP changes it but I didn't know he was on a shared IP before. That was added after the block. You can't believe that after getting about 11 warnings including one test4 he was not a prime canidate for blocking. You also mention something about trying vandalizing. I have no sympathy for people who try vandalizing. I don't think you should be blocked for it because that would be wayy to harsh but I don't have sympathy for them all the same. As for monitoring his contribs he had already recieved a last warning and was continuing to vandalize that is enough monitoring for me especially when I'm Rc'ing. I'm sorry if it seems rude but I have never had anyone who had a problem with blocking a vandal with 11 warnings and one last warning who was still vandalizing. please reply.--St.daniel20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It appears that you seem to have made up your mind over this. Could you kindly take this to WT:VAND? Maybe more people talking will help you and me understanding the situation better. Best regards, — Nearly Headless Nick12:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Note(Sorry for the change in number of times he had been vandalized but I didn't stop to get a accurate count until I went back to make sure I hadn't done somthing wrong)--St.daniel20:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Links to www.usemod.com??
Some (or all?) of the links in the "See Also" section point to articles on the site www.usemod.com. For example, the link "Assume good faith" does not point to the Wikipedia policy WP:Assume good faith, but points to an article on www.usemod.com which contains different text from the Wikipedia policy page. Is this the way it's supposed to be?? At the very least, I would like to see the link called something like "Assume good faith (usemod article)" rather than having the same name as the Wikipedia policy. It would make even more sense to me to just point the link to the Wikipedia policy. I don't know anything about this site www.usemod.com or why there are links to it from this page. If it's considered a valuable source of information, perhaps the See Also section could be divided into two sections, one labelled as being articles on this other site, the other being links to Wikipedia pages expressing Wikipedia policies. --Coppertwig21:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia inherited a lot of guidelines from usemod. Only later did people start writing down new guidelines for wikipedia itself. It's interesting that the original usemod pages are still referenced at times.
Note that the usemod stuff is still quite useful even today.
Over at WikiProject user warnings, we have been working on developing a set of replacements for the existing user warning templates (WP:UTM). The project is currently in a review phase, looking for more eyes to check out the templates that have been created. You can find a list of them at the overview page, and most/all of the templates are actually transcluded within that page for easy review.
One of the key changes, as it relates to vandalism, is that there are now separate sets of warnings for test edits and edits which appear to be more intentional vandalism. Since there is no clear-cut difference between the two, we have attempted to maintain an assumption of good faith within all of the "starting" level 1 templates, while, at the same time, providing new tools in the vandalism (and other specific circumstance) warning templates that allows RC patrollers to give a more targeted, effective warning to those who fill Wikipedia with random curse words, misinformation, and other malicious content.
So, if you're interested in helping to improve the warnings that are given to vandals and other users, please stop by WP:UW and give feedback, or, of course, as always on Wikipedia, be bold and help out directly by making the templates we've created better! —Krellis22:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Specific reports
The biography of Donald Tsang (Hong Kong Chief Executive) has been vandalized with the insertion: (snipped) With an election pending in Hong Kong in March 2007, perhaps this page and others related to the upcoming Chief Executive election need a closer watch. The vandalism in question probably is libelous; certainly it is racist and should be removed immediately.
First, this page is not for reporting vandalism. Repeat: Not fror reporting vandalism. No exceptions. Think of thi page like an article talk page. Think of this like Talk:Madonna. Would you report this Hong Kng thing there? Second, pleace create new headers for separate topics. Signing and remembering to "post at the bottom" are good, but your actions look otherwise lazy. Third, you can revert the vandalism and warn the user yourself. I do not mean to say we won't help or we don't want to, but if all the vandalism on Wikipedia had to be reporting to us and fought solely by us, we'd lose. This is a wiki, which means you can be be bold and act on your own. Please see the main project page for more information. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
By repeating it, you are helping the vandal. Please read the top of this page and follow the link to learn how to deal with vandalism. This page is about the policy itself, not specific incidents. Thank you. Crum37519:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not like the quality of the new vandalism templates which have been put on the page. For instance, there needs to be more templates, and the template on the experimenting user seems to me like the vandal test 1 template. It does not describe an act of experiment, but intentional vandalism. I also have a bone to pick with the new picture of the exclamation mark sign. It does not fit in with the template. The stop hand sign looked a lot better. Retiono Virginian20:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Why was the description of "revert vandalism" taken out? What was the rationale behind that? This type of vandalism is currently being discussed in an ArbCom case and needs to be restored immediately. I'm going to do it myself to save everyone else the trouble, but in case anyone has an objection then read the section of this talk-page above where it was proposed and there was consensus to include it. Ekantiktalk18:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
If this particular section warrants rewording, fine, but the principle (about gaming the system, etc) should remain intact. This addition to the article was gained by consensus, and disputes about what vandalism is may disrupt current ArbCom cases that are using this principle in discussion. Ekantiktalk19:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Possible?
Is mass vandalism possible? because Almost every page I go to says stuff lke gkmrmHhmsjRSm in it, and so do tags...or is this just mycomputerr? --69.167.77.23501:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
well, when I went to potassium, instead of sir humphry davy's name, it had random letes, and also when it said the cornwall project on said scientists article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.79.50 (talk • contribs) 22:48, January 29, 2007
You know, you're not being very coherent yourself, and sign your comments. Ace Class Shadow; My talk.
ACS, please remember not to bite. I checked the history of the article potassium and I didn't see any severe vandalism around the time you first made your post. It might be a porblem with your computer. I hope the problem has cleared up! --Ginkgo100talk03:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Azerbaijan Page Vandalism
Dear Admins, for a week now, page on Azerbaijan is repeatedly blocked due to vandalism by Azerbaijani. This person has removed some original references, and inserted a reference irrelevant to the article, and is confronted pretty much by majority in Talk:Azerbaijan page, but is unable to come up with either valid references or agree. I would like to ask you to review both Azerbaijan and Talk:Azerbaijan pages. This cannot go on endless, as the page represents a country of Azerbaijan, while user named Azerbaijani removes NPOV articles, inserts his clear OR or POV references. In particular he removed the reference to some published works (those from New York Philosophical Library or Journal of Contemporary History) and inserts links to amateur articles at http://www.milliondollarbabies.com website. He is committing the same vandalism editing articles of Atabek and AdilBaguirov. Please, assist, ASAP to curb this behavior. Thanks. Atabek23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I suggest everyone takes a look at this users edits, and then mine, and then the talk page, and then determine for themselves wants going on. This user does not know how Wikipedia works, has not read the rules or policies, continuously makes personal attacks, tries to use POV and OR information, and oh yea, deletes heavily sourced material without discussion or consensus. The Milliondollarbabies.com sources is just one out of 5 other sources, of which 4 are books and the other is a relatively reliable website that has good information on maps and related items!Azerbaijani00:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Gentlemen, this is not a forum for reporting vandalism, despite what the recently vandalized header may have indicated. Please see the main project page for ways you can fight vandalism. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. The American government is (I suppose) a democracy. Hence, Wikipedia is not the American government. Hence, we do not war on stuff. HAND. >Radiant<16:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
What's with the new templates?
I got totally turned off vandalism patrol, but still occassionally revert something. However, the new vandal templates seems much stronger than the older ones. Why? Since I got scolded to death by a tag teaming duo on failing to AGF, shouldn't I still be assuming good faith no matter how many times someone has vandalized? When did this change? KP Botany23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Warnings and AIV
The policy at present states:
If the vandal continues, list them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
I have discussed this at WP:AIV and {{InvalidAIV}} and it is unclear what level of warning is required before a block can be applied.
Please could someone who is more knowledgeable that me clarify this and incorporate into the policy page.
Treating content disputes/revert warring as vandalism will get the offending user blocked, as I recently was, for my legitimate attempts to enforce the "official policy vandalism" section that was formerly part of this policy. Citing this policy is no defense; the fact that I was reverting edits specifically defined as vandalism in the stable version of this policy did not prevent a member of the Arbitration Committee from personally blocking me for following a provision of this policy that turned out to be bad. The "revert vandalism" section likewise entraps innocent users into being blocked for using vandalism warnings in content disputes. Such a trap for the unwary user has no place in this policy. John25404:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi John, I'm sorry about your treatment but that's precisely why the principle was instituted in the first place, with consensus to boot. It is not legitimate to arbitrarily declare that a category of vandalism be removed because of effects of another, nor is it legitimate to change policy just because of one's own mistreatment. It is very important that one gains consensus before making a substantial edit to this page since this is an offical WP policy page. Another very important fact is that this particular principle is being used as a point of vandalism in current ArbCom cases, and removing (and repeated removal) will adversely impact upon those ArbCom cases. I have already discussed this before a few sections up and I would be appreciate it if more concrete reasons were given for removal, with consensus, and with an awareness that drastic changes to this page have an impact on mediations, dispute resolutions and even ArbCom cases. It is unlikely that removing this will happen, especially since gaming the system is itself a form of vandalism.
Of course if you want to reword it to make it more clearer, feel free. But the section (and the "principle") must remain intact. Ekantiktalk05:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I fail to see how this would "entrap innocent users". Editors should not be edit-warring in the first place even if it is a content dispute, much less do it for "innocent" reasons. And when they revert 3 times and stop short of a fourth revert (for no feasible reason), that is gaming the system to avoid being cited for 3RR. And while I'm on the subject, some administrators are of the opinion that 3 reverts are "arguably" enough for a 3RR citation. Ekantiktalk05:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to explain this situation more fully. For at least several months prior to January 14, 2007, this policy defined "official policy vandalism" as follows:
Deleting or altering part of a Wikipedia official policy with which the vandal disagrees, without any attempt to seek consensus or recognize an existing consensus. Improving or clarifying policy wording in line with the clear existing consensus is not vandalism.
Now, on January 18, Azer Reddeleted the "official policy vandalism" section with no prior discussion, and no explanation whatsoever beyond "revert to my revison and cleanup further". Correctly identifying this entirely unexplained removal of the "official policy vandalism" section as "official policy vandalism" itself, I revertedAzer Red's edits with javascript rollback, and issued an appropriate warning to him, using a template specifically designed for this very situation. Azer Red then restored his edits, and reported this situation on WP:ANI. Dmcdevit, who is not only an administrator, but also a member of the Arbitration Committee entrusted with checkuser and oversight privileges -- in other words, a powerful official on Wikipedia -- saw this report. Did he block Azer Red for "official policy vandalism"? No! He abrogated the policy, treated the situation as a "content dispute", and blocked me for "incivility, edit warring, inappropriate use of javascript rollback for good faith edits, and disruptive, improper use of vandalism warnings". Kim Bruning later explained this situation by stating that "The particular section of the vandalism policy you're quoting looks a tad wonky..." [9]. As should be apparent by now, the policy enforced by the people who hold real power on Wikipedia does not vary depending on the text that happens to be present on this official policy page. Rather, this policy page is an attempt -- sometimes unsuccessful -- to inform users of the actual policy itself.
Now how does defining "gaming the 3RR" as vandalism encourage other users to make the same mistakes that I did, and suffer a similarly unjust block for following the stable version of a written policy? If "gaming the 3RR" is defined as vandalism by this policy, users in content disputes will be encouraged to issue vandalism warnings to users who they deem to be "gaming the 3RR". Dmcdevit will then access Special:Blockip, and give the users issuing the warnings involuntary wikibreaks, and, perhaps more importantly, permanent stains in their block logs, for "disruptive, improper use of vandalism warnings" in content disputes. To avoid any other users being unjustly blocked for following and enforcing the letter and the spirit of an official policy, as I was, the "revert vandalism" section should be removed forthwith. This doesn't mean that "gaming the 3RR" is okay. It just means that it isn't vandalism, but may nonetheless be considered blockable disruption. John25406:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello John, thanks for taking the time to present your point in a very concise manner, I honestly appreciate it. I have followed your comment above and checked out the links that you provided. Let me say again that my opinionis that, on this occasion, you certainly appear to have been treated unjustly. For the record I also disagreed with AzerRed's edits, which is why I restored the section on revert vandalism and spoke about it. And perhaps Dmcdevit may have been a little hasty but I will not pass any further comment on that. If you're worried about permanent stains on your record you could discuss this with the involved parties and perhaps put in a Request For Oversight. I happen to know that Dmcdevit is currently involved in an ArbCom case in which revert vandalism is one of the charges against several editors, which is why my main concern is that removal of this clause will disrupt several disputes, mediations and ArbCom cases that are going on right now (I know of at least 3 current cases using this principle).
Apart from that, this certainly appears to be an individual oddity of a case and does not generally hold true for the majority of content disputes. Experience indeed shows that the majority of content disputes involve 3RR violations for which the violators are appropriately punished; I think that the difference is that filing a 3RR report is something different to referring to a violator's talk-page and showing how 3-4 warnings for content disputes/editwarring have been placed on their talk-pages. In many cases editors simply report this to an administrator they have some contact with, the administrator checks out their contribs list (to verify) and then blocks the offender straightaway, without the need to file a 3RR report. I do appreciate your feelings but we have to keep a view of the bigger picture of blatant vandalism because, AGF or no AGF, vandalism is a fact of life on Wikipedia and a major part of it is malicious. Edit-warring/Revert wars are vandalism and I'm sure everyone is agreed on that as it involves making intentional non-constructive edits, and blatantly gaming the system is an abuse of WP privileges. People who revert 3 times and suddenly stop (to avoid 3RR) is a prevalent problem which is why it became necessary to provide a provision on this page to prevent it.
That brings me neatly to my next point which I am at risk of repeating: Since reverting 3 times to avoid 3RR is itself a form of vandalism and while several editors out there may be guilty of this, this principle has already become operational in many dispute resolutions, mediations and above all, ArbCom cases. In the interests of transparency, I am currently involved in an ArbCom case in which revert-vandalism is one of the problems being worked out so I'm sure you can appreciate my concern that these processes would be severely disrupted if the section was removed. That is why I disagree with AzerRed's edit (which removed quite a lot of stuff) and restored this particular clause after a lot of the other stuff had been restored and this one hadn't. I'm sorry I didn't speak out about it at the time as I was more interested in restoring this clause. Although I personally consider your situation an oddity of sorts I'd agree to working this process out and discussing if the revert-vandalism principle needs to be amended or clarified further.
For a starters, I took a look at some of the types of vandalism and to my dismay, I saw that none of the other clauses adequately covered the principles of revert-vandalism (or could be amended/extended adequately) for the section to be removed and merged into. The closest that came to it is 'Blanking', and that is a whole other can of worms. So I would personally appreciate that you have taken the time to register your legitimate concerns and I would be happy to discuss further on how the revert-vandalism principle could be better clarified and amended as necessary. But because of the sole fact that this principle is now operational in matters of lasting dispute (ArbCom cases, etc.) I cannot agree to the deletion of the section in toto. Among other things, this page is official policy of Wikipedia and has the "wide acceptance" among editors, so there really should be a consideration of how any change to policy would impact upon the majority of incidents than a minority. Ekantiktalk05:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd be interested in reading the Arbitration Committee cases which involve the principle of "Revert Vandalism". Can you provide links to them? John25401:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it appears that the principle of "revert vandalism" may have been introduced as evidence in several Arbitration Committee cases. It does not appear, however, the Arbitration Committee has ever accepted this principle; references to alleged "revert vandalism" can, of course, be converted to permanent links to this policy page at the time of the supposed "vandalism". However, as explained below, the "revert vandalism" section was never really valid policy at any time. Its effect (if any) is only to create a possible defense for certain actions that may have been performed under a good faith belief that it actually was valid policy. John25405:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Removing the wall of separation between content disputes and vandalism
Despite claims to the contrary in the "revert vandalism" section, and on this talk page, revert warring isn't vandalism -- that's why the three-revert rule is on a separate policy page, instead of being incorporated into the vandalism policy. Furthermore, the three-revert rule already clearly states that
Editors may still be blocked even if they haven't made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behaviour is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system.
Defining "gaming" of the 3RR as "vandalism" in the "revert vandalism" section accomplishes nothing in terms of increasing the blockability of revert warring. The "revert vandalism" section is, however, an assumption of bad faith -- revert warring may be performed by well-meaning but overzealous editors; characterizing such editors as "vandals" is needlessly insulting, and would tend to exacerbate content disputes. Moreover, the application of the "revert vandalism" section leads to some very bizarre outcomes. For instance, the reversion of "simple and obvious vandalism" is itself exempted from the limitations of the three-revert rule, and is not otherwise considered to be edit warring. If "revert vandalism" is to be construed as "simple and obvious vandalism", then a user could engage in an unlimited number of reversions of such "revert vandalism". Indeed, both sides in a revert war could claim the reversion of "revert vandalism", and a consequent right to unlimited reversions. Likewise, participants in a content dispute who believe that the users on the other side are engaging in "revert vandalism" could place warnings such as template:blatantvandal on the talk pages of such users. Indeed, the header on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalismrequires the issuance of warnings to users before they are reported, "except in unusual circumstances". To the extent that users attempting to enforce the "revert vandalism" section do not engage in such behavior, and to the extent that users who do attempt to enforce the "revert vandalism" section in this manner will be blocked, it is only because the "revert vandalism" section is, in fact, non-policy, adopted as a result of a discussion between two users, and heretofore subjected to very little scrutiny. The "revert vandalism" section certainly does not have "wide acceptance among editors"; indeed, because of its potential to exacerbate content disputes between good-faith users, and the behavior that it promotes, its continued presence on this policy page is disruptive. John25405:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with removing that paragraph - vandalism is only when an editor clearly wishes to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. Fighting to maintain one's extremist POV (say) may be very disruptive, blockable or bannable, but is not vandalism, as in his/her mind that editor truly believes that his/her version is 'better'. Crum37516:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to let everyone on this subject know, I may have been guilty of a disruption last week, on the battleship talk page, when I opposed an edit by others over the type of writing I felt to be stupid. My fear was that the overall quality of the article would be diminished (I don't want anything less than 'featured article' status!). However, I may have failed to realize that these other editors were putting in what they felt was good material, and all the article may have needed was a simple polishing afterwards...which is what editors working together are supposed to do. So, before we go on a rant and point some fingers at people who don't deserve it, we should all kick back and do a litle thinking...myself included! Carajou04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
RFC on vandalism warnings.
I apparently need some perspective. I find myself immersed in some disagreements regarding my vandalism patrolling, and rather than just argue the logic of my position, I'd like to conform to whatever passes for convention.
If I discover somebody has done 5 blatant vandalisms in 10 days with no warnings (for example), I will give them 5 BV warnings. I feel this differentiates the hardcore professional vandals from the amateurs when an admin takes a look to decide on blocking, and also relieves the vandal of the impression that they can "get away with it" 4 times out of 5. (Which of course, they obviously can.) On the other hand, (since it's usually an anon IP and might be shared) if there are interspersed real edits, I don't go back past what appears to be a current "episode" of vandalism; to me the IP with nothing but a long string of vandalism and no good edits is a different matter than an IP with both good edits and vandalism, which is clearly shared between multiple users.
I have been informed that this is wrong, only one warning should be added at a time; and chastised for giving a warning for vandalism ten days ago, in addition to the current vandalism. Is this correct? If so, and there is the aforementioned 10 day's worth of vandalism, does that get a simple level 1 warning, or does one jump directly from no warning to level 4?
In a similar vein, if a vandal has received a warning which I feel is understated, i.e. a single level 1 for a week long spree of blatant vandalism, I sometimes add my own BV warning(s) (without removing the other editor's warning). I have been told this is incorrect.
In a still similar vein but on the other hand, some folks seem to feel justified in deleting my user warnings and replacing them with a downgraded warning; i.e. from BV to level 1. The actual case in point, where I felt a BV was justified:
a new user adds "Rice" and "RICEBALL" to the article Ferrari F430 (in two separate edits) and "RICEBALL" to the article Concept car, all on feb. 15; I give the individual 2 BVs; these are deleted by an editor who replaces them with a single level 1 warning.[10] I find it hard to assume good faith by the alleged vandal; if that wasn't an example of blatant vandalism, I'm at a loss as to how one can ever differentiate bv from a test. I don't consider my bv warnings "biting the newcomer"; I'm not blocking them, it's not even a level 4 warning, just pointing out that "unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and immediately reverted", which is something they ought to know, and apparently did not.
On the other hand, when I can still reasonably assume good faith, I do indeed give a level 1 warning. For instance, this edit, to which I gave a level 1. If the editor had added "George Bush is gay", however, I would have given it a BV.
I do not vandalise. I simply edit what I consider overly biased sections of articles which are, if examined objectively, fall into a category of information called propaganda. Those who accuse me of vandalism, are no more than poor people who have been brainwashed by American propaganda. Though this may sound blunt and of course, be critiscised and dismissed as a personal attack, it has been proven that a large percentage of the American public believed President Bush when he said that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Osama Bin Laden and Iraq was capable of producing nuclear weapons, propaganda with absolutely no basis which was in fact proven to be untrue. Therefore, to those who say I am attacking people, I say, I am merely providing truths and deleting really, really untrue facts. I pity you poor whites who are so unintelligent who are just unable to stomach the fact that America is the most hegemonistic, brutal and rogue-like state of today. In a poll conducted by Time Magazine, it was shown that the majority of Europeans would agree. Wake up yer pitiful souls, see beyond your pitiful boundaries and look at things objectively...we must save the world before the evil American empire takes over... --The preceding unsigned comment was added by user Mrssow on 05:25, 19 February 2007.
So;
Am I lacking good faith?
If an anon IP has an unbroken string of vandalism going way back, does good faith require the assumption that the previous edits were by somebody completely different and politeness requires that we not mention them?
Is there a limit of one warning per group of vandalisms, no matter how long they have remained uncorrected?
Is it taboo for me to add my warnings in addition to somebody else's?
Is it OK to for somebody to delete my user warnings and replace them with their own, even though it is taboo for me to add my warnings in addition to somebody else's?
1. No, you seem to be acting in good faith and with the best interests of Wikipedia as your goal. But you may be having difficulty in assuming that others are acting in good faith.
2. Yes. Ignoring some vandalism does little harm to Wikipedia: someone will revert it. But impoliteness can give Wikipedia a bad reputation and can discourage people who might have become productive editors and who might have helped revert a lot of other vandalism! I think lots of people begin by making random edits (purposely putting in things that look out-of-place in the article) just to see whether it's actually possible to edit Wikipedia, and many of these then move on to become productive Wikipedians. (Some of them are young people who may become more mature within a few years, or even reform immediately.) But, if they're treated impolitely, they may go away, which would be a loss, or they may get angry and do lots more vandalism, even sneaky vandalism, which would be even more of a loss. So politeness is more important than giving warnings for every little bit of vandalism.
3. Yes. A series of warnings is for the purpose of giving someone a chance to modify their behaviour. Giving them 5 warnings all at the same time doesn't give them any chance to change in between the warnings. There has to be at least one act of vandalism after the previous warning before moving up to the next level of warning. And if there was a string of vandalism with no warnings, you begin with the lowest level of warning. Assume good faith: the person may be under the impression that their changes only show up on their own computer. They may have asked a friend to look at their changes and the friend may have looked at the wrong page or a cached version of the page and not seen the change, or their change may have been reverted before they had a chance to see it. Or they may be looking at a cached version of the page themselves. They may be escalating their vandalism in an attempt to make a change that actually shows up. Receiving a warning is their first sign that a human being seems to have noticed their edits.
4. Yes, unless there was another act of vandalism after the last other warning.
5. I think this is probably OK if the user believes your warning was too strict and if there is a reasonable chance that the user is objectively correct about your warning being too strict; however, this is a complex issue. If it's one user following you around (i.e. finding your warnings on your user contribution log rather than somewhere else) and changing all your warnings, you may need some sort of mediation with that user; it's not immediately clear to me which one of you or both needs to modify your behaviour. If it's a variety of users occasionally changing your warnings (even if some happen to do it more than once) then you probably need to modify your behaviour to conform to the norm. If you had modified your behaviour the first time someone replaced one of your warnings, then maybe it wouldn't have kept happening. If you needed it to happen multiple times before you modify your behaviour, then maybe you can understand why vandals need multiple warnings before they modify their behaviour.
