This is not the page for reporting vandalism. This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Vandalism page and the associated policy. Report obvious vandals at Administrator intervention against vandalism Report any other incidents at the incidents noticeboard. For common cases of vandalism, just revert them.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Vandalism page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

See also: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings.

Archives

Past discussion prior to these archives is available in the page history. Dec 2005 Jan–Apr 2006 Apr–Jun 2006 Jul–Sep 2006 Oct 2006–February 2007 February 2007-October 2007 October 2007-May 2008

Ease of Use Vinegar

Like syntactic vinegar, vandalism should be discouraged by requiring a logged in user to edit any page. This will prevent most casual vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggb667 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been rejected many times before. The main problems are that most (~70%) of unregistered edits are constructive, so requiring registration will remove many good editors, and many vandals will just register as it only requires a username and password. Plus we couldn't prevent most editing from vandalism hotspots such as schools as we do now. There are plenty of other problems that are more pressing than vandalism, and such a drastic change really isn't warranted. Hut 8.5 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know where this 70% figure comes from. In my experience, there's a lot of mindless vandalism from anonymous users. i can't see that it is asking too much to require editors to log in before editing. It's not exactly setting the bar very high. Michael Glass (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes me too. Problem is for schools like Primary schools the block should be lifted. Whats the probability of 7 to 11 year olds knowing about this site? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itfc+canes=me (talk • contribs)

High. Consider today's technologically minded world. Unlike high schoolers an above, whom often are limited to sources other than generalised encyclopaedias, but it's a simple, easy to use source of information for young people to use for reports and projects, that don't require bibliographic record and lack limitations on sources. Neuro√Synapse 11:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit history vandalism

Copied from WT:VAN/Archive 6:

Is the creation of edit histories on redirect pages (via multiple edits with the effect of preventing future non-admin assisted page moves to the redirect) vandalism? — AjaxSmack 04:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please provide an example. I make loads of RDRs and mistakes are not uncommon. Richard001 05:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to create a hypothetical example. A page is titled Lage Raho Munna Bhai and I want to move it to the outrageous new title of Rajkumar Hirani's insult of Gandhi. I proceed to move it to Rajkumar Hirani's insult of Gandhi and Lage Raho Munna Bhai is now automatically made a redirect with one entry in the edit history. To prevent another editor from returning the page to Lage Raho Munna Bhai, I then go to Lage Raho Munna Bhai and change it from #REDIRECT [[Rajkumar Hirani's insult of Gandhi]] to #redirect [[Rajkumar Hirani's insult of Gandhi]]. This creates a two-entry edit history preventing non-admin moves and forcing editors who want to return the article to Lage Raho Munna Bhai to post it at WP:RM and get wide "consensus" to move it back to its orginal title. — AjaxSmack 19:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any real examples of this though? I'd just treat it on a case by case basis. The worst that can happen is having to ask an admin to move it. Richard001 21:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

An example is here where the edit summary reads "Null edit to pre-empt move war." This user was straightforward about it but others aren't. So, I repeat my question: Is the creation of edit histories on redirect pages (via multiple edits with the effect of preventing future non-admin assisted page moves to the redirect) vandalism? — AjaxSmack 01:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if it counts as vandalism, but it certainly seems dubious behaviour.--Kotniski (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that vandalism is defined here as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", I don't think the case you have cited would qualify. Talking to the Wikipedian in question would be the best idea. Richard001 (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There is an Arbcom ruling on the subject here, which will apply to the "having to post it to WP:RM" issue. I don't feel that it's even approaching vandalism. It's closer to WP:DE going on, if the user is doing so with ill intent. As Richard states, it's probably best to just talk to the user in question. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and for pointing me to WP:DE. I was just curious about the issue in general and, in this particular case, I assume good faith since the user announced his purpose. It will work itself out through the RM process that has already started. — AjaxSmack 00:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you a real example. Colin Ferguson was moved to Colin Ferguson (mass murderer) and then Colin Ferguson was edited, preventing reversing the move. When it was suggested that it be reversed at WP:RM, the inappropriateness of the move was overlooked. There have been numerous previous attempts to make the move to (mass murderer), each of which have been reverted previously. It is never appropriate to use (mass murderer) as a part of a subjects name, no matter how much you dislike them. Apteva (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Finding It

I've seen it myself. One person wrote something bad about Albert Murphy. If somebody says something bad about somebody, it's vandalism.Wollslleybuttock (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Table of types of vandalism

Given our dislike of spilling WP:BEANS, is there really any need for the policy page to include this detailed table of ways of vandalising Wikipedia? Wouldn't a general definition be enough?--Kotniski (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If vandals can't think this stuff up for themselves, they're unlikely to spend much time reading anything, let alone Wikipedia's guidelines. Richard001 (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So who is it for then, if it's all so obvious?--Kotniski (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

These categories can sometimes be useful - I once got a complaint from a vandal who thought that because his vandalism was hidden inside comments it was acceptable - but it could be trimmed down a bit. Hut 8.5 08:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Reality check

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone here could comment on this edit [1]. Someone keeps adding the word "terrorist" to the Hamas article, and others keep taking it out, characterizing it as vandalism. I think that's clearly not the case (it may be POV, or violate other policies), but I'd appreciate some neutral input: is this vandalism? IronDuke 00:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

New policy idea: Require IP edits to be made with edit summary

Here is a new idea for a policy: one in which those who edit using IP rather than an account, will be required to use the edit summary in order to be able to save the edit. Until something is filled into the edit summary line, clicking save will not be possible.

It is quite obvious by now that most vandalism is at the hands of IP editors, and quite a lot of it has involved blank edit summaries. Perhaps requiring this line to be filled in would reduce the amount of vandalism. Hellno2 (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it that much of a deterrence, as most of the vandals would just type in 1 char to overcome the limit. Also, it doesn't seem to be right to single out IPs for this change. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 19:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Requiring users to fill in the edit summary has been proposed many times. Among the objections is that it will lead to meaningless summaries added just to meet the requirement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding unsourced or original content

Is adding unsourced or original content vandalism? The template {{uw-unsourced3}} suggests that repeatedly adding such content is considered vandalism, but nothing about it is mentioned on this page. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"What vandalism is not" vs "What is not vandalism"

First of all, I apologize if this has been covered in another discussion.

What vandalism is not seems to me as an incorrect title for the section which it describes. The title, as it stands, would be more appropriate if the section described acts of vandalism and then sought to explain that these acts of vandalism do not constitute something else. "What is not vandalism" makes more sense to me because this title suggests that there will be a description of situations/acts that do not constitute vandalism.

I realize that this may not make a lot of sense to others as it does to me so I apologize if it souds confusing or overly trivial. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Be bold and change it.--Kotniski (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the change. I think it should be done.  Orfen  ^T • _C 20:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The title is What vandalism is not, and if you change it to a complete sentence for each subject, it would be Vandalism is not Tests by experimenting users for the first point, and so on. --Hamster X (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The point being, I think, that normal English would have it the other way round - "tests... are not vandalism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotniski (talk • contribs)

That's exactly my point. Tests are not vandalism sounds more correct that Vandalism is not tests. To me, at least. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

False charge of vandalism

An edit of mine was reversed by a bot due to being "vandalism," even though it was not. This concerned the article on death. If a bot is convinced your good-faith edit is vandalism, how do you get around that? My guess is just re-adding the material will get nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.168.205 (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was not undone by a bot but rather Wikiscient I suggest if you have any problems in regard to the the person made you ask on the editors talk page. Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 09:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dirtfoot

I need a whinge. The above article started life fairly well-formed, it has then been edited into nothing, even spent some time as a redirect. On balance of probability one could say that all edits are good faith, but if anybody and everybody can edit, which is an admirable ambition in itself, how can we ensure that the "facts, the whole facts and nothing but the facts" are there. Wouldn't it be great if each page was split into two - a protected page and an editable page - which could replace the protected page when authorised by a non-contributor to the article. This would enable the aims of WP to be kept, while at the same time offering something that could be a reliable source of information. At the moment it's nothing more than a semi-anarchist free-for-all graffiti wall. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Flagged revisions. Don't know when it's going to finally come live.--Kotniski (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do Wikipedia wanted to blame me?

I have never edited Paul McCartney's page, then they said that I vandalized the page.I've been blame for nothing,I look through the history and I saw the page was vandalized by my IP address, but it wasn't me who vandalized it.I am not an active user, so I need some help to report to the administrators. 124.82.61.100 (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already addressed this at this IP's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

a suggestion for group consideration

I'd like to suggest that the normal 'four-warning' process be skipped, and immediate intervention and blockage be available, whenever a vandal targets the user page of someone who flagged him for vandalism. this is pragmatism more than anything else - a vandal who targets vandal patrollers leaves no doubt that he is intending vandalism, and I haven't yet seen a case where such a user didn't get blocked anyway. in the long run, this would save a lot of people a lot of effort going through the motions of giving a 'fair chance' to someone who clearly isn't interested. --Ludwigs2 19:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion-What about just shortening it to two warnings, or one even, instead of four? Marcia Wright (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

well, I think that's partly implied (since they'd have to get at least one warning in order to have a patroller to attack) but I could agree with this as well. --Ludwigs2 18:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Deliberately adding false information

What form of vandalism would deliberately adding false information fall under? Example: [2]. Vandalism for the purpose of appropriating Wikipedia's reputation to lend validity to a false statement. (Or maybe it was deliberate misinformation to make WP look bad?) What's the course of action to take? Just a {{vandal}} on the IP talk page? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

inappropriate humor, maybe? that's probably what I'd use, anyway, since it seems he's intent on pulling someone's leg. --Ludwigs2 18:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well.. It sounds to me like he added info to the encyclopedia so he could tell a friend either "it's true, wikipedia says so" or to say "look what crap Wikipedia says". Either option deliberately disrupts and harms the encyclopedia, whether or not they thought it was just good fun to misrepresent it. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 15:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism

Since Template vandalism seems to be the new fad as a quick browse of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents will show (plus personal experience with the relatively few articles on my watchlist), I think it would be a good idea to have a Wikipedia:Template vandalism article. I would urge anyone who has any knowledge about this to write an article. It seems that the main fear when this sort of thing occurs is that Wiki has been hacked, I know because that was my first thought when I experienced it. A proper informative article would perhaps allay the worst fears for most casual editors .--Saddhiyama (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I could write one (and will tomorrow, if no one else gets to it) but I think it would only need a section in this article, not an entire article of its own. --Ludwigs2 03:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a blurb here - wp:Vandalism#Obstinate_.28Template_and_CSS.29_vandalism - though it could probably use some editing. --Ludwigs2 17:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, even though the blurb may or may not need more work it is still very helpful in removing some of the confusion concerning template vandalism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

"Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged"

Could someone explain why this is? Excessive typos, lack of spacing, improper letter casing, all make talk pages illegible and unappealing. They discourage rather than encourage proper discussion. I want to know who thinks it is discouraged, and why it should be. I think fixing obvious typos is perfectly fine. You can't alter the meaning of something meaningless.

Furthermore, how do you deal with people who keep reverting your refactoring? We can spend a lot of time making things more aesthetic and then have some guy come and roll it back in a second, it seems equivilent to vandalism to me. Tyciol (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

On occasion, someone may intentionally mispell something. More often, the person "fixing" the spelling is actually wrong, or has mistaken the intended word, which may be obscure or technical, for something else. The person fixing the spelling may inadvertently alter the meaning of the statement, and some might even take more liberty than simply fixing the spelling. While certainly, fixing a link-breaking typo is almost purely undebatable, outside of that it's just easier to make everyone accountable for their own spelling and grammar. Some people also take offense at having their comments revised, and this is a simple thing to avoid as aesthetic pleasure in a discussion is not a top priority. Although fixing God-awful formatting is not discouraged, and that can be far more annoying than spelling mistakes. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)