Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia talk:Vandalism/Archive 4 

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
Talk archives for Wikipedia:Vandalism (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 > 7 >>

Contents

Vandalism via image naming

I noticed the this article, where following the History it appears to be an attempt to introduce obscenities into WP by bypassing normal checks, via image naming (rest mouse over images). In this particular case it appears to be a pre-meditated attempt by the article's creator, but in theory similar actions could be taken by anyone. Should this action be declared as vandalism? (I would think so - it is a clear attempt to reduce the quality of WP) and should 'vandalism via image naming' be added to the list of types of vandalism? I cannot find in the current WP:VAN article a description of this type of vandalism. Also, what would be the best way to deal with this type of vandalism? Remove the images pending name change? Thanks, Crum375 17:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious vandalism/trolling, and should be dealt with accordingly. We don't need a special policy for this; listing it as a type of vandalism probably violates WP:BEANS. I suppose we should move the images through the standard procedure, whatever that is. -- SCZenz 18:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the WP:BEANS aspect. I guess the existing Sneaky/Silly types will do for now. Crum375 19:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Good catch finding this, by the way. -- SCZenz 19:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I assume you noticed he was shooting for FA. Crum375 19:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Although I may have ridden the WP:VAN, there was absolutely no justification for the deletion of those images. They should've been uploaded again, or the software changed to allow image renaming.

Vandal Clinic

I have set up a vandalism clinic where vandals can come for cures without being blocked! It is at user:GangstaEB/Vandal Clinic! GangstaEB (talk • contribs • count • ice slides) 19:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this?

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you really want to add nonsense, try adding it to Uncyclopedia. Thank you.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RocketMaster (talk • contribs) 10:07, July 2, 2006 (UTC).

No, that would deter users from trying to edit properly.--Andeh 15:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense Discussion

I made an edit for consistency. Sometimes nonsense is only an accident or a person had problems expressing themselves. They should NOT be treated as vandals immediately! but more importantly, One user was already confused by the difference in policy. You can read the problem on User talk:Pat8722. The policy WP:Nonsense says that Nonsense is not Vandalism. The Policy WP:Vandalism says that it is. The should be consistent. And I think my edit fixed the problem reasonably. My Edit was:

Nonsense: While nonsense can be a form of vandalism, sometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves incorrectly or there may have been a connection error resulting in the appearance of nonsense. Assume good faith.

User:Gwernol Thinks that this opens up too much of a loophole. I disagree. I think an intelligent person can understand the difference between obnoxious, intentional repeated nonsense vandalism and errors. I also think that vandals do not care about the rules -- these rules are for the honest "law abiding" wikipedians. Vandals will have their way regardless of what is put here, so I do not think that this "Opens a loophole" as Gwernol thinks.

But, if you have a policy that says All Nonsense is Vandalism, it disagrees with your other policy that says that Nonsense is NOT vandalism. ONE of these two policies must change for consistency. The choice as I see it is this:

  1. You can make them both consistent in the direction of Assuming Good Faith and agree that good people sometimes make honest mistakes or that "stuff" happens or
  2. You can violate that tradition and Assume Bad Faith, making them both consistent by declaring that "All Nonsense is Vandalism", even if it is a random connection error (which has happened to me).

I think that we should go with #1, Gwernol thinks #2 is better. Either way, the two policy statements should be in agreement.

--Blue Tie 22:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Talking of assuming good faith please do not presume to tell others what I believe. I have never expressed the opinion you ascribe to me above. Indeed in my last comment on your talk page I told you that there is an inconsitency and that it should be fixed. I just disagreed with your particular change. I never argued that the status quo was preferable.
The problem with your suggested fix is that it introduces its own inconsistency. By adding a statement saying that "nonsense can sometimes not be vandalism" into a section that says "the following things are never vandalism" you end up in just as bad a situation as you were trying to fix.
In my opinion, the best way to fix this is to change WP:Nonsense so that it makes clear that nonsense is vandalism under some circumstances, so its consistent with the WP:Vandalism policy. Gwernol 22:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Please accept my apologies. I did not intend to misrepresent. I do not see how I did so, but I fully accept that you do not ascribe to the views that I put forth. However, I am not entirely clear on how to interpret your words though. They do not make sense to me at this point. I thought I had read them correctly.
For example, you claim that the section says "the following things are never vandalism. I am unable to find that statement on the page. Can you locate it?
I now understand that you do not want to change this policy but the other policy. And by your comments, I believe (I do not want to misrepresent you) that you feel it is best to believe that "all Nonsense is by default, vandalism". I disagree. Again, I think it violates WP:AGF.
However, I can see that perhaps it should not say "Nonsense" as the first word, but rather "Unintended Nonsense". But this requires a bit of mind reading. Maybe though, it is a special category of "Mistake", which is listed. If so, I still think that it should be somewhat explicit: Nonsense may sometimes be mistakes!
I would like to hear how others feel about this. --Blue Tie 22:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Maybe BOTH policy pages need a change. WP:Nonsense should be changed to say that "Inadvertant Nonsense" is not vandalism but intentional Nonsense IS Vandalism and WP:VAN should be changed to say the same thing. But I do not want to edit EITHER page and get into another conflict! --Blue Tie 22:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

more discussion

I agree, good faith accidental introduction of nonsense is already covered by mistakes. Also WP:Nonsense is a guideline and this is policy. Policy should not be altered like this to introduce a loophole without discussion. Kevin_b_er 04:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

There was previously a discussion between myself and another wikipedian administrator. See above. The administrator agreed with what I was trying to do (He told me) but felt that the wording was wrong and introduced other inconsistencies. I suggested different wording that met his concerns. I also requested comments. I waited a week. There was no response.
The problem is (and it is strange to see Pat make the change) is that the policies between WP:VAN and WP:Nonsense were in conflict. Pat, in particular, brought this up in a spirited argument regarding nonsense and vandalism which can be seen on Pat's page if it is still there. Pat argued that the logic of the two pages was in conflict and thus something (I am not sure what it was) was permitted or ok. Clearly, if Pat was confused on this matter, then others could be similarly confused -- even though one might suppose it is already covered by mistake. I am seeking a change that DOES NOT permit any loophole (What loophole do you see? -- if you believe that this is ALREADY covered by mistake then it cannot be a new loophole. Are you suggesting that "mistake" is a loophole?) but instead clarifies the contradiction between two different policies. This edit and one in WP:Nonsense harmonize both policies. Is that not a good thing?
Do you think that the policy on Nonsense should be adjusted to say "All Nonsense is Vandalism"? That is the alternative position and would pretty much negate that other policy. Do you think that policy should be deleted? That would also be a matter for discussion on that page I suppose.
Since I previously requested a discussion, and got no thoughts either way I did not think it was a problem. However, since you object, then please discuss it on this page before making a change again. That would be good manners, seeing that I have worked hard already to do the same. --Blue Tie 01:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want to try to define "unintentional nonsense", you're going to have to do it in a way that it is not itself nonsense. "Unintentional nonsense" would be such as to "mis-key" something, such as to position your fingers one digit to the left while you type, and thus to enter nonsense into the article unintentionally. "Honest editors may not have expressed themselves correctly" is not talking about nonsense, it is talking about "error", unless the error was inserted by a diagnosable imbecile, in which case it would rightly be termed "unintentional nonsense", rather than error. "There may have been a connection error resulting in the appearance of nonsense" is also itself nonsense. "Connection error"? "appearance of nonsense"? Please don't edit the policy pages without a long-standing discussion and clear consensus.

If you want to clear up the discrepancy problem between the wikipedia vandalism and nonsense pages, I suggest you start with the nonsense page, as nonsense has the presumption of being vandalism, unless there exist clear reasons why it should not be so considered, such as suspecting an inadvertent mis-key. The vandalism page is CORRECT in its present form, as it has long identified the insertion of "nonsense" into an article as "vandalism". It is clear you do not have consensus for editing this policy page. pat8722 17:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not want to try to define "unintentional nonsense". However, there is already a definition on Patent Nonsense. Unintentional nonsense might not only be a mistyping of a single key but statement of words that combined are nonsense or meaningless, but the author had some meaning in mind. This would not be vandalism but it would be nonsense. I agree that this is error, but error may be confused for vandalism, particularly if it is nonsense. Another type of "nonsense" error happens in a connection situation. This has happened to me. I edited a page -- quite honestly -- and yet the connection failed in some way and nonsense appeared. I was warned for vandalism, though I had no such intent -- it was a connection error and had I been aware of it, I would have corrected it myself. So there are a number of ways that nonsense may appear that are not simply mistyping letters on a keyboard, none of them being vandalism. Thus the policy, right now is NOT CORRECT in its present form.
As far as clearing up the discrepancy on both pages, I have also put a similar entry on WP:Nonsense. My goal was to harmonize the two policies. Before I made my changes, I requested comments. I waited a week. I got no comments. There was no problem with the change. Since that change has been in place now for a few weeks and you have not solicited or obtained comment prior to making your changes as I did, you do not have concensus for the revert. Furthermore, concensus is not a democratic vote. Finally, I have responded to each of your points.
Basically, if the policy already covers "Error" then this is simply a clarification. A reasonable thing to clarify since some people -- like you -- have been confused in the past (and what reason would you have for wanting to continue that confusion?). Clarification does not change the policy and is no reason to object to what I have posted. But if the policy does NOT already cover error then I am making a really big change and resistance would be understandable. Both you and I seem to agree that it is already covered. So I do not understand the resistance to a change that would have originally helped you in your previous confusion over whether Nonsense was Vandalism, which confusion is evident on your user talk page.
I would also welcome a good strong discussion on this involving more than just two people. --Blue Tie 21:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[01] Policies cannot be changed by individual editors who happen to make a change that may have somehow survived for two weeks (I haven't checked to see if actually lasted two weeks, which isn't very long, in any event), the policy as previously stated is the policy, and to persist in changing a policy page without discussion and consensus is vandalism. It requires discussion and consensus to change a policy page, and you had neither. You encountered only objections to your proposed changes, you just kept making them anyway. See the above discussion and the edit summaries reverting you.

I am surprised you consider this a change in policy since you have said that it was already covered by mistake. If already covered, then it cannot be a change. I do not considere it a change in policy but as I said, a clarification. However, if you mean that an individual editor may not make changes to policy pages, you are wrong -- they can. I requested discussion PRIOR to the change. You, on the other hand, have not done that. While it is true that I only encountered objections, I did not encounter them AFTER I made changes to my proposed wording. You are ignoring the fact that the objections were to an OLD version and one of the key objections was to the wording, which I changed. --Blue Tie 12:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[02] "Not expressing yourself correctly" is never called vandalism, so to put it on this page as an example of "unintentional nonsense" is itself patent nonsense, and serves no purpose other than to give vandals a foothold/loophole, as has already been explained to you by others. "Connection error" is not a defined term, therefore to use it in a definition of "unintentional nonsense", as you have done, is nonsense, - most people probably have no clue what you are even trying to talk about.

No, you evidently do not understand the concept of patent nonsense (unless you are joking). There are places on Wikipedia where the edits have been nonsensical, even though the author was trying to be clear. He was simply unable (perhaps temporarily) to put his thoughts down into correct wording. The result was nonsense but it was not vandalism. It is appropriate for the policy to recognize this.
However, I take note of your concern that it gives vandals a foothold. You have previously said that "Mistake" was covered already. Are you now saying that it was not covered and that to allow mistakes to be excused it gives vandals a foothold?
Connection error is a standard term in telecommunications and a reality in the world of online communications, even if you are unfamiliar with it. It can result in garbled transmissions that result in nonsense or in changes to article pages that are unintended. This is true even if you (or others) do not have experience with it. --Blue Tie 12:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[03] The idea is to not to put ambiguity and confusion on this page, and not to create loopholes for vandals, such as by using undefined terms, or terms with multiple meanings, or terms which no one but a probable vandal would think to call an example of "unintentional nonsense", i.e. "not expressing yourself correctly".

No, the idea is not to put ambiguity and confusion on this page. The idea is to clarify that some nonsense can be mistakes rather than vandalism. You, yourself, had a problem with this issue. That you now understand it is no assurance that others in the future will also be clear. --Blue Tie 12:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[04] Nonsense is rightly called vandalism in wikipedia. Absent exculpiating factors, nonsense is always vandalism just as graffiti is assumed to be vandalism. If you want, you might be able to add a sentence to the effect that "nonsense excused by evident exculpiating factors is not vandalism", to this article under the title of "unintentional nonsense", but such a sentence is really not necessary as the concept of "exculpiating factors" is univerally understood and applied, across all concepts, on a case by case basis, and in any event doesn't come into play until AFTER the revert of the nonsense is made, and then is only relevant for apology purposes.

Intentional and repeated nonsense is rightly called vandalism but not all nonsense is vandalism. This is the key point that you are ignoring. The clarification recognizes this reality and is in accordance with wikipedias guidance to assume good faith. Your comparison to grafitti is not appropriate for grafitti does not occur by accident whereas nonsense might. An exculpiating factor is a lack of bad intent. If this were universally understood, you would not have an objection this clarification of policy, for you would undestand it clearly. But you do not.
I note your comment about revert. I have no problem with reversion of nonsense, either intentional or unintentional. It should be reverted. The clarification does not change any reversion policies. However, the individual who created the nonsense may not have engaged in vandalism. Do you see the difference? --Blue Tie 12:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[05]Your proposed description of what you called "unintential nonsense" serves only to create confusion and a loophole for vandals. I would recommend you open at least a month-long discussion on any policy change you want to make, and obtain real discussion and consensus on the issue before making any more edits to a policy page that has been stabile for long time. pat8722 04:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you recommend that. However, I recommend one week. So, I request that you wait for a week before you make your changes. A week with no objections to your change. Note that I have already objected. --Blue Tie 12:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[07] Your specific change did not even survive THREE MINUTES {see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVandalism&diff=61742545&oldid=61742194. You had been reverted at least four times for making your change to this policy page, by at least two different wikipedians, you just persist in making it, contrary to wikipedia rules. (Here are three of the reversions of you http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVandalism&diff=61745872&oldid=61743781 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVandalism&diff=61742194&oldid=61740878 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVandalism&diff=64232668&oldid=64174153. No one has reverted in favor of your edit.

[08]Your proposed change had also been resoundingly opposed on the discussion page by three different editors. [ See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism#Nonsense_Discussion at "Nonsense discussion".] NO ONE spoke in support of your proposed change. You clearly did not achieve consensus for your change - not a single person supported you. Therefore for you to have continued to make the edit was a violation of Wikipedia policy. I have reviewed the history of this article and am willing, for now, to let the original statement as present in the 2002 version stand, which, trying to assume good faith, I will assume is what you really meant to add. pat8722 18:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mass category vandalism

As with template vandalism, this can affect a lot of pages. Here is a kind of vandalism that would be hard to clean up, even though I haven't seen it yet. Modus operandi would be something like this:

  1. Vandal creates sockpuppet.
  2. Vandal opens ten or more browser tabs (for editing key user warning templates and other substituted templates.)
  3. Vandal adds categories like <includeonly>[[Category:Candidates for speedy deletion]]</includeonly>, <includeonly>[[Category:Proposed deletion]]</includeonly>, and <includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedians looking for help]] (might flood an IRC channel)</includeonly>.
  4. Vandal adds innocent-sounding edit summaries: "sp", "fixed spelling", "clarified", etc.
  5. Vandal commits changes as close together as possible.

The end result: many pages are vandalized and this is hard to clean up, as the templates are substituted. These interfere with key Wikipedia processes.

There needs to be a special procedure against this kind of stuff.

Invitatious 22:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You are sort of clever. Are you sure you do not have a career in disruption somewhere? --Blue Tie 22:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that commonly used substituted templates, like {{3RR}} really need to be protected. Non-administrators are not supposed to edit these. Invitatious 22:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Test templates for inappropriate page creation added

I have created several user warning templates based on the standard test templates that are for use as warnings for inappropriate page creation. These templates included {{test2article-n}}, {{test3article}}, {{test3article-n}}, {{test4article}}, and {{test4article-n}}. Please note that I did not create test1 templates or a nonspecific test2 template of this nature because the standard cooresponding test templates are appropriate as warnings for inappropriate article creation.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 08:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Improper use of dispute tags

The sub-section on improper use of dispute tags is rather unclear as to what behavior is actually considered vandalism. Given some of what it says, I'm almost tempted to move it into the "what vandalism is not" section. Could someone please clarify? Thanks. Arbitrary username 22:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the removal of a whole section of an article's discussion page, in this case, vandalism?

In Talk:Taco Bell, in the 15:24, 3 July edition [1] there is a section called Ryan Larsen's Taco Bell Adventures, which is an editor considering part of Taco Bell#Miscellaneous a vanity edit (WP:VANITY) and proposed to delete it.

I asked User:aguywearingacape to respond to the accusation on his talk page, and he did come to Taco Bell Talk page, only have that section removed.

It sounds like Talk Page Vandalism or Avoidant Vandalism, but is it?

Samuel Curtis 03:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If there's any doubt, it's not vandalism. I don't think it's hard to imagine how someone would think of that removal as appropriate, so I'd avoid calling it vandalism. The content in question, I've removed from the article, as uncited nonsense. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Newly discovered, but months-old, type of vandalism

Please see my additions to the types of vandalism section, under "Bad faith reverts." The exemplar vandalism occurred on April 15 and I only just discovered it today! SeahenNeonMerlin 08:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Talk Page

In Talk page vandalism it says "The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion..." Am i correct in saying is not against any policy to remove comments at their discretion? Feedyourfeet 12:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest anyone who answers this question does it after reading User:Feedyourfeet's contributions so the answer can be put in context. Generally, the line quoted above DOES NOT apply to users who:

I want a simple plain answer with out any bias, that Chug is trying to put on it. I was not the dick in the first place.

  • I did not ignore anything on my talkpage.
  • That is true becouse they are not.
  • I dought that one talkpage would disrupt the whole of Wikipedia.

Feedyourfeet 12:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Deleted Vandalism

I deleted the "suck a nut section". Looked like the "dialogue" was strictly on one IP addy anyways. Hope you don't miss it. --Coryma 21:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Bold Edits

In the Dimetrodon article, someone added:


"Creatures like Dimetrodon are our distant ancestors, because they had evolved the same meat-ripping teeth that we inherited today."


The edit of of that person was reverted by Zntrip under the reason: (Removed Vandalism) Does the edit constitute "vandalism"? Giant Blue Anteater 04:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's close enough for me. If there was a decision being made whether to punish the person who added that, I'd get a comment from the person first just in case he honestly believed that, but I see nothing wrong with calling it vandalism in an edit summary. -Barry- 04:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
It's very wrong to call it that, unless you know for a certain fact that the editor's intent was to reduce the quality of WP. If there is even a remote chance that in his/her own mind he/she felt this this edit would make the article better (i.e. actually believed that we are descended from those creatures, even without any proof), then it cannot be labeled as 'vandalism'. Improper labeling of vandalism then becomes un-civil behavior and a personal attack. Thanks, Crum375 12:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no signs of the editor trying to reduce the quality of WP. It is very possible that it could be the ancestor of mammals. If the edit was clearly vandalism, it will be like this:

"Dimetrodon is a stupid dinosaur that was so stupid that it died!!!!!!!!!!11"

By the way, Dimetrodon is not a dinosaur. Giant Blue Anteater 05:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify my edit, an anonymous user (81.111.110.5) went on a vandalizing binge on December 27, 2005 and added evolutionary information, which is under debate, about extinct creatures. – Zntrip 17:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The edits the anonymous user made is not vandalism, although they deserved to be reverted. The user obviously got the info from Walking with Monsters, which is not a valid source. I doubt that the users intent was vandalism, the edits were most likely mistakes. Giant Blue Anteater 00:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

AfD blanking template needed

AfD templates are frequently blanked by new creators. Rather than thinking up a form of words each time to warn them, it would be helpful to have a template. This is my suggestion for discussion:

Blanking AfD template - new user

'Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your interest. If you read the AfD template carefully you will see that you are not permitted to remove it. I appreciate, being new, that you may not have realised this. However, if you happen to do it again a more serious view would be taken.'

BlueValour 03:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism

I've been noticing a fair amount of statistical data getting changed in articles about US States. Does this seem like sneaky vandalism? If so the example (from TIME ?) that was removed may have a replacement such as this: [2] and [3]. If sources cannot be found easily, how should edits like these be handled? I've seen some editors drop a note on the user's page and wait, but if the pages are subsequently edited before a decision is made to revert, reversion can be time-consuming. Would reverting any unsourced edit to statistical data be justified? If both the original and the change are unsourced, which is really preferable? Gimmetrow 21:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't think a new unsourced edit would trump an old unsourced edit. Nor vice versa. The best solution might be to tag with citation needed and add a note to the talk page on why. Mark the page to watch, and wait a few days. If no one has posted a cite, just remove the entire statement and move it to talk and post it there. Wjhonson 23:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
In this case the original data was the US 2000 census data but the link to verify was only given in the "external link" section at the end of the long article. I don't know how many editors would connect them, but I would hope an entire section would not be deleted just because an editor didn't notice the connection. The editor did highlight a weakness, that many articles do not have inline, easily verifiable references for statistical data. Gimmetrow 03:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

A related question, if a user removes vandal warnings from their talk pages, ought these be reverted? What if the suspected vandals stops making questionable edits after removing the warning? Gimmetrow 01:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Report removal of warnings to the admin notice board. Wjhonson 03:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A request for Inputs on Nonsense

Hello everyone.

I have added a harmonizing clarification to the policy regarding nonsense. Previously WP:Nonsense said that Nonsense is not vandalism, where WP:Vandalism said that it is. The difference was really the matter of intent but neither document recognized this difference. So I have added a clarifying statement to each policy. The motivation for this clarification was an observed misunderstanding of the policy directly attributed to the different statements on these two pages.

It seems clear to me that in the interest of assuming good faith, some instances of errors are not reasonably considered vandalism. I believe that this is probably already implemented by the administrators anyway. It is "unwritten". My clarification makes it written.

Examples of nonsense that would not be vandalism would be connection errors and editors being unclear to the point of incomprehensibility but using real words to communicate. In both cases repetition of the error would show intent rather than accident, though in the latter case it may simply show incompetence as an editor, which may not be technically vandalism but is functionally no different.

Some criticisms of this clarification have been that it is "already covered under mistake". This may be true, but it is not clear.

Some criticisms of this clarification have been that this gives vandals a foothold. I observe that if this is so, then clearly mistakes are NOT covered and we need to revise WP:Nonsense to state that even if it is a mistake, nonsense is vandalism. I am not interested in giving vandals a foothold in wikipedia and since I view this as a clarification, not a change, I do not think it provides one. But others may disagree. However, if some mistakes ARE vandalism, then I think THAT would be a real change in policy.

In short, I do not see this as damaging but as clarifying. Some may see it as s damaging change to policy rather than a clarification. I would like to ask for inputs and discussion in the following areas:

  1. Is this a change of policy or is it a clarification of policy?
  2. Is this in harmony with how things are already done or is it a change of practice?
  3. Is this out of harmony with the intent of wikipedia?
  4. Does this give vandals a foothold (that they do not already have?)
  5. Are there any versions of this that would be acceptable or is it all wrong?
  6. What implications are there for WP:nonsense and Nonsense being or not being vandalism?

I am asking for this input to put to rest revisions and edit warring on this topic. I thank you in advance for your input. --Blue Tie 13:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong syntax

With this edit I'm saying that If you get wrong with syntax code although it can mess the article, this isn't vandalism if you explain it in the discussion page and try to revert it. -- User:Atenea26 13:00, 17 july 2006 (UTC)

Please help this get phrased best

This was on another person's talk page. I hope I can make sense of it to you Hardvice 13:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism&curid=140524&diff=64451051&oldid=64448887

You removed my edit. I am not sure how to phrase it an so I gave an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64437570

Can you help find a phrasing you would accept? This website claims to make bold edits so I just made it. Hardvice 11:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Bold edits are more strongly indicated in articles, especially articles on non-controversial topics. Policies usually require consensus prior to making an edit. I personally would support simply adding "and talk pages" after the word "articles" in the sentence, as I indicated in my summary. This would be changing Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit. to Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of articles or talk pages (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit. There has been heated debate about that, and I suggest you bring this up on talk to gain consensus if possible. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure how to phrase my question on that talk. Basically, it's blanking a talk and then archiving to wipe out the entire talk page. It's a sort of combination between blanking and sneaky vandalism. Maybe something other than sneaky? Hardvice 12:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that blanking the talk page is not necessarily vandalism, but it seems that there should be some balance regarding the age of the most recent and oldest discussions and the overall size of the page. It is a good thing to keep talk pages under control, but getting rid of recent or on-going talk when there is enough room to keep it is probably a type of sneaky vandalism. This is a good question and I would think that the comments by some administrators would be helpful.--Blue Tie 13:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I end the quote. Hardvice 13:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hardvice, many thanks for bringing this to the talk page. I don't think we should add archiving as part of the definition of blanking vandalism, since archiving is explicitly encouraged for talk pages - Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page. I agree with KillerChihuahua that adding "or talk pages" to the definition is a good idea, but archiving cannot be considered a form of vandalism. Gwernol 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
What about when people archive a page that has an active, ongoing conversation? That seems somehow different to me. --Blue Tie 14:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, but changing the policy to say that all talk page archiving is vandalism is not the way to address this. There may be edge cases where archiving a page is a form os sneaky vandalism, but even then its a thin case and something better handled at the discretionary level, not the policy level. Gwernol 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about if there are current discussions minutes old and sometime doesn't archive really, but blanks an entire talk page so nothing is left then hides all discussion in an archive but really is blanking it. example. Hardvice 14:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

How can that possibly be vandalism? Its simply archiving; easy to view and completely accessible. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
And yet disrupting ongoing covnersations is a problem, yes? I'm not saying it rises to the level of "clearcut vanadlism", but it's not kosher, either, is it? -- nae'blis (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It depends, it could be a minor issue, or it might be perfectly valid. Its a judgement call about whether the conversation is ongoing and appropriate or has just finished. The best way to handle this is to ask another admin to review the specific change and take appropriate action. Changing policy to make all archiving vandalism is not the right way to deal with this. Gwernol 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Nothing was blanked. It was archived. There are two ways to archive, move and paste. This was a paste archive. I repeat, no blanking occured. As Gwernol points out, changing policy so that it is vandalism to archive is not a workable approach. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The entire page was archived 6 minutes after MONGO's last comment, and less than 20 minutes after the previous person's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Dramatica&diff=prev&oldid=64436043 last comment]. It was clearly an ongoing discussion, and to archive it himself was a conflict of interest. But instead we're here switching the focus to rootology. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I've done anything wrong here. I found this article, found this debate, piped up a bit, asked honest and legitimate questions, and was apparently labeled a troll and told by MONGO I should be permabanned for promoting filth. Huh? As I said on the complaint I lodged here after a couple of days: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN/I#How_to_report_abusive_admin_editing.3F_.2F_updated_with_details, it seemed like this whole thing was getting out of hand in part due to one admin's conflict of interest and possible bias. Assumptions that every person contributing to the article are part of some sinister ED troll cabal out to destroy wikipedia and "must be stopped", as are being bandied about here, the ED article, and in my complaint (which I submitted in what I perceive to be good faith) are just silly... I have *nothing* to do with ED. rootology 21:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The person did it to avoid losing an argument. OK, let's say someone did that to Jimbo Wales's talk page, or THIS talk page, would that be vandalism? Hardvice 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say it is not vandalism. It might be in violation of the policy against disrupting Wikipedia to make a point however. Again it seems like it would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. Gwernol 16:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was archiving to rid the trolling...nothing wrong here...get a life.--MONGO 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The vast bulk of what was archived was legitimate discussion of the ongoing block itself, hence it being immediately reverted back after it happened.... rootology 19:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Hardvice: Please tell me it wasn't MONGO you had in mind when you tried to rewrite WP:NPA so that any use of the word "troll" was a personal attack?[4][5] KillerChihuahua?!? 19:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I promise you I mean it for every single person online! I see the troll insult thrown around by everyone on the internet not just wikipedia, but for here I see it thrown around by so many wikipedians, including tons and tons of admins. I'd like everyone not to use that personal attack. I really don't like that insult. Hardvice 19:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Then my best advice to you is: don't troll. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, good advice...bascially, anyone trying to defend encyclopedia dramatica fits the definition of troll. I've been there and nary a person there that is defending that article and that website have many worthwhile contributions to wikipedia...that is the bottom line.--MONGO 20:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this a violation of the no personal attacks rule? You are calling myself and other longer time editors like SchmuckyTheCat a troll here. That is a personal attack. Perhaps you need to rein it in a bit? This is getting a bit tiring. rootology 20:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
To KillerChihuahua, the thing is I hate seeing it used anywhere. It's labelling people instead of talking about their actions. That's what personal attacks is. Calling someone a "liar" vs. saying they were untruthful/incorrect. Calling someone "stupid" instead of saying they made a mistake. How hard would it be to say "they were being X...X...X" instead of they are "(stereotype)"? To MONGO, the troll as an insult problem is a problem that spans the entire internet -- it's caught on like saying "NE1", "U R" and "TYPING IN ALL CAPS" or "aLtErNaTinG CaPs". It does not matter if MONGO uses it or 1000 people do, but just millions use it. Hardvice 20:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
What part of, "that's already covered" did you miss? If someone is trolling, there is a strong chance someone will say "you're trolling" or if they do it repeatedly "you're a troll." Sometimes it is "This post (link to diff) was trolling." Now you can be unhappy about it until the cows come home, but the word "troll" is not automatically an inexcusable personal attack, or even a personal attack at all. As far as the "millions" who are using the word, I imagine millions also use the word "felon" to describe someone who has been convicted of a felony, but hey, I'm not getting on a soapbox about it. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Continuing the trolling at a policy page is less than wise. FeloniousMonk 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It is my opinion that WP:NPA is surprisingly widely misunderstood. My view is this: when you say (ie) "You are trolling" or "You are a troll", obviously you have used the word "you", directing it thus at a person, and unavoidably making it personal. Obviously, "trolling" is always a malignment, hence those two phrases are inherently personal attacks. If no one ever discussed the personalities or motives of other editors, what would talk pages look like? Why, all we'd have to talk about would be <gasp> the actual edits themselves, and the content of the articles!
Well, one can dream. Eaglizard 06:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I must agree with Eaglizard that the word "troll" should not be used and replaced with are more specific description. I think that anything called "trolling" can be found against other wikipedia rules and those can be used instead because calling someone a "troll" is just saying "everything you say does not matter." Hardvice 07:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


I want to add that calling someone a troll is a way of saying, "your opinion does not matter, I am calling it trolling when it is not to claim that no matter how passionately you feel, your opinions and feelings make no difference to me." It's a way of saying, "you suck." It is used all over the internet and I've found it used by people who even fit the definition of a troll-oddly hypocritical. Hardvice 23:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Protecting article pages

It is a good idea that we must protect these articles at all cost. Some guy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.117.208.24 (talk • contribs) .

Which articles? Why should they be protected "at all costs"? Why did you add a .sig that wasn't yours (did you forget to sign in before leaving this comment?) Thanks, Gwernol 16:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't misuse warnings.

Warnings should not be used to be funny or to harass someone or to own a page or to prevent editing. Since a vandal might use the warnings first, the desire to have warnings and blocking seems snobbish and unrealistic. An edit you disagree with is not vandalism. --Chuck Marean 04:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange New Spam?

I posted this on Project:Spam, but I wanted to cc: it here. (Not exactly vandalism, but close.) I just want to point out a new thing I came across tonite[6]. Here, you can see this user adding 15 or 20 commercial links into articles, but doing so within a DIV STYLE="Display:None" element, so they don't actually show up when you view the page. There's even a sad little note included in comments: [We are delicate. We do not delete your content.] An apology, of sorts, I suppose.

It's not clear to me what end they hope to acheive, but it is clear that this can't be any better for us than any other spam or vandalism. I brought this to User:JesseW who suggested I mention it here, as well as over at Vandalism, to Tawker, CVU and Lupin, all of which I'm doing now. Anyone else? Pls let me know, but I think that should be enough ppl who care about this sort of thing. Hope this helps :) Eaglizard 06:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it looks like spam, until their edits begin to say, "Hi im a Spambot from 193.243.156.10. Please ban This IP." Hardvice 07:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a commercial linkspammer, probably from a zombie open proxy. I've seen their "contributions" on numerous other Wikis. It should be deleted on sight and the author IPs blocked. NawlinWiki 12:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Libelous warnings

Libelous warnings should not be done; no one would disagree with that.--Chuck Marean 16:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. There is no Wikipedic concept of a libellous warning;
  2. Giving out false (or mistaken) warnings is not vandalism. It's just not nice, and would be likely to earn the editor a block if they persisted.
-Splash - tk 16:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's assume that libelous warnings are undesireable. The example you gave is clearly not libelous: "There you go again" is only marginally incivil at most. I can't believe there's a court of law in any land that would even accept a case based on that comment. By providing a clearly untennable example, your proposed change becomes one gigantic loophole where anything perceived as libelous by any low standard is barred.
Even assuming we wanted to add this, there are serious problems of jurisdiction. Wikipedia also has a policy against legal threats which appears to contradict your addition to this policy. For these reasons, I have reverted the change to the policy until a consensus of editors here agree it should be added, and its wording. Gwernol 18:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to talk pages

I've found that there are vandals who sneak into the talk discussions as well. Are there bots who patrol the talk pages as well?Wikichange 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Watching a page automatically also watches its talk page. While talk pages are not as well patrolled, I certainly revert vandalism on talk pages. --TeaDrinker 22:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful information! Wikichange 22:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Is changing others "votes" on AfD vandalism?

I am not sure if the following issue would be considered vandalism. I have reverted the change and added the below to the appropriate AfD discussion.

  • Changing a users "vote" from Speedy Delete to Keep is EXTREAMLY poor form! Especially when the change is by the article's author! [7] Reverted the page.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

People's thoughts on this. Thanks.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 23:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Clear-cut vandalism, in my eyes. --TeaDrinker 23:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually in my opinion this is worse than simple vandalism. Its an attempt to undermine the process without which vandalism would run rampant. Sort of meta-vandalism. Gwernol 23:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think changing another user's comments on a discussion page of any sort in a way that changes the meaning/tone of the message is vandalism. Doing anything to another user's comments (including spelling fixes) is generally frowned upon, but I wouldn't lump those good faith efforts into the vandalism category. However, trying to make it look like a user said something that they did not is a very bad thing. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 23:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong date for IBM study

The IBM study was done in 2003, not 2002. (It used data up to summer of 2003.) You might also link to the academic paper: http://web.media.mit.edu/~fviegas/papers/history_flow.pdf Given the methods of the paper, instead of saying "most" vandalism being reverted quickly, it would be more accurate to say the majority of some types of vandalism were reverted within 5 minutes.

Another form of vandalism?

I hate to give people ideas, but this seemed different: category silliness. Gimmetrow 14:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that was covered as "Sneaky vandalism" under the "adding minsinformation" clause. Gwernol 14:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

removing spam

I have made the policy reflect reality by noting that removing internal spam is not considered vandalism. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

umm i dont see how 'dun, dun, dun' was vandalism it was an attempt on recreating a child hood story that is told in norweigen i am apalled by your intolerance good day—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joodymoody (talk • contribs) 06:54, 25 July 2006


Editor problem?

There is someone going around deleting content from articles that mentions a ranking on a list (linked to another article about the ranking), because they feel the list is biased. I'm of the opinion, that if they think that, they should bring it up and discuss it on the list's talk page. The fact that these things were ranked by this list (which is clearly stated in each article - this isn't the definative list, it's just one ranking) is a fact, not opinion. The articles don't purport to say that the one ranking is the true ranking, it's merely a note of interest. Anyhoo, this person is going around deleting any mention of this ranking in every article. I mentioned it on their talk page, and they went about reverting the one re-add I did (at the time I only knew of one article they were doing it to). I then posted again in their talk page, and they again reverted the article. I've posted a 'please do not delete' vandalism warning tag, but I fear that this person is going to continue to ignore it.

Their other edits on wikipedia seem to be fine and even constructive, but they are ignoring their talk page and continue to revert these edits (also demanding 'do not readd' in the comment for these edits, even before anyone has attempted to). I don't think that someone who's doing good editing on other articles deserves to be treated like someone who just goes around vandalizing every article they can find, but this person is ignoring attempts to communicate with them. I'm not sure what to do about it. I wouldn't have called this vandalism initially, but after ignoring two talk page attempts to contact them and ignoring the points I made in comment of re-adding the material, (and basically insulting me in the latest), I posted the mild vandalism warning. I'm guessing they will continue to ignore it, and may likely repeat deleting the comments. Thoughts? TheHYPO 11:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sneaky vandalism

It seems like there are allot of page rewriting by some users here, who wanna claim things to a pro-Norwegian point of view with no sources. I'm pretty new here and don't know how things work like yet and deal with this kind of vandalism here on wikipedia. But on the article Normans the two Norwegian users Barend and Inge keep putting Norway in from no where. I have asked like 5 times in the discussion, what the sources are. I haven't got any answer, since there is no sources for it. Here the fake claiming started. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Normans&diff=27008966&oldid=26282705 Thanks --Comanche cph 13:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is slander at best. I view this entry as a personal attack as it is not based on facts and is made in order to discredit two editors trying to resolve the problems caused by User:Comanche cph. This user has been causing problems in articles which might not be considered main stream so a small number of wikipedians have been forced to face this users malicious behaviour. Any long term involvement by anyone is welcome (short peeps and comments have proven not to be effective)Inge 02:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not slander. Please stop talking about anything else than the subject. What is it you don't understand with this wikipedia. YOU NEED sources if you make edit's. And it seems like you don't have any. Since i have asked you two about them 10 times now. And that is called vandalism. --Comanche cph 07:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed section

I removed the following from the list of types of vandalism;

Bad faith reverts
Reverting most or all of a legitimate edit to an older version without explanation in the edit summary or anywhere else. An example is [8] reverted by [9]. This has a similar effect to partial blanking, but is much harder to detect on a diff to previous revision. It can go undetected for months, and there can be many intervening edits when it is detected, making it more time-consuming to reintegrate the affected edit. Editors are expected to explain reverts, and reverts with no edit summary, especially by new or anonymous users, are suspicious. (Even automated reverting tools, such as popups and the admins' rollback links, produce a default edit summary.)

This section was added by NeonMerlin and announced on this talk page about a month ago, but it seems to me to be in direct contradiction of the 'What vandalism is NOT' section. For instance, the example does not look like vandalism to me at all... it looks like a content dispute. Yes, people should use edit summaries... but not doing so isn't vandalism. Are we ready to say that any revert without an edit summary/explanation is vandalism and may be freely reverted in turn? Look for a vast increase in edit warring if we do. If we are going to say that edits without summaries are vandalism then we should just change the software to require edit summaries. --CBD 10:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your edit, with the caveat that I think it waffles a bit too much about spam. We do need to be careful about what we call "vandalism", not just to avoid WP:BITE, but also because this page defines what WP:3RR exemptions are. Jkelly 17:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't sure how to word the spam one. As an example of what I was trying to avoid; suppose a user adds an external link to their 'Foobar Wiki' on the Wikipedia 'Foobar' article. As the policy was written, if someone felt such a link was "inappropriate" they could claim that it was vandalism and they should be able to revert at will. Yet the person adding it could very well legitimitely think that their Wiki's more extensive coverage of Foobar is something which should be mentioned... they might even be right. I guess it is the ambiguity of 'inappropriate' that bothers me. I've seen similar problems with interpretations of "provocative" on the 'image vandalism' section... users who don't like a particular picture of Ann Coulter (cover of Time as I recall) label it 'provocative' and thus claim reverting it is immune to 3RR limits. I was trying to get more precisely to the intent of the policy to avoid these 'interpretations'. What kind of things are "inappropriate" or "provocative" in reference to this policy. --CBD 11:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsure vandalism to Teresa Palmer

Looking at this page I am reasonable sure that there is some vandalism but I really am not certain what point the page should be reverted to. At the very least the External Link to "Wikipedia" site has been tampered with - I would do it bu I might merely complicate reverts of a more experienced editor. Cheers -- Nigel (Talk) 11:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides the unfortunately typical lack of reliable sources for much of the article, I see no vandalism. I did see a bad IMDB link, which I fixed. Crum375 14:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK - I guess I looked at the pattern of editing from the IP address. First "afraid of moths" went in then "afraid of cats" in place of moths, that sort of thing combined with a number of changes to the "Quotes" bit made me suspicious. Thanks and regards -- Nigel (Talk) 14:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unvicil: minor edit

Spelling error on this page. "unvicil" should be changed to "uncivil". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wlmh65 (talk • contribs) .

Good eye, thanks for fixing it! --TeaDrinker 19:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me. Thanks. --CBD 18:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeated NPOV violation as vandalism

According to test5 template[10]: "...and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism". I cannot find such a criterion for vandalism under WP:VAN#Types_of_vandalism. If we consider repeated NPOV violation as vandalism it should be added to the list, otherwise the template should be fixed, or the discrepancy explained. Thanks, Crum375 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the established policy that NPOV edits are not vandalism takes precedence and thus have edited the template. --CBD 18:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of language stating that removing legitimate warnings from talk pages is prohibited and proposed reintroduction of such language

As I stated on Wikipedia talk:Removing warnings

There is supermajority support on this page for the belief that removing legitimate vandalism warnings either constitutes vandalism or a non-vandalism policy violation. With 6 established users supporting "Removing warnings is Vandalism", 13 established users supporting "Removing warnings is against policy but not Vandalism", 7 established users supporting "Removing warnings is discouraged but not against policy", and 1 established user supporting "Removing warnings is Great" we have 19 comments in favor of the removal of legitimate warnings being characterized as some type of policy violation, but only 8 comments opposed to characterizing such removals as policy violations.

I believe that 19 comments in favor of prohibiting the removal of legitimate warnings, but only 8 comments in favor of allow such removals indicates supermajority support for characterizing such removals as against policy, whether they are actually vandalism or not. Note that my edit did not actually characterize such removals as vandalism:

The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of legitimate warnings, which they are generally prohibited from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors.

It is necessary to indicate that the removal of legitimate warnings is against policy since the preceding language "The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion" would otherwise provide express permission for such removals. John254 18:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'poll' you cite was closed / superceded by Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll and does not include the opinions of many others who have stated opposition on that page. In any case, a 21 to 6 majority (by your own numbers) saying that removing warnings is not vandalism seems to me an ironclad reason for not listing it on this page in the 'types of vandalism' section. Addendum: Also, please note that MANY things are 'against policy' without being vandalism or blockable. Policy requires NPOV and civility, but we don't block users for any infraction of those issues... and repeatedly reverting them is considered edit warring. Thus, the fact that a large number of people felt 'removing warnings' should be 'against policy' does not mean that such should be blockable... or infinitely revertable as per vandalism. --CBD 18:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Removing_warnings is the talk page for an active proposal. Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll is a poll that was never opened for comments. Since Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll contains only headers under which users would have submitted comments, but no actual comments, the statement that "The 'poll' you cite was closed / superceded by Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll and does not include the opinions of many others who have stated opposition on that page." is false. In marking Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll as rejected, Kim Bruning states that the proposal itself was not actually rejected (as the poll was never opened) in this edit summary. I do not believe that it is appropriate to cite literal falsehoods in defense of changes made to policy pages. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism presently contains language that characterizes certain non-vandalism misconduct as against policy:

However, note that removing comments without responding may be considered uncivil or become an issue for arbitration, especially where the intention of the removal is to conceal information (e.g. previous warnings) or mislead other editors.

Consequently, the argument that "a 21 to 6 majority (by your own numbers) saying that removing warnings is not vandalism seems to me an ironclad reason for not listing it on this page in the 'types of vandalism' section." is specious. John254 19:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The users who started the 'poll' you cite agreed to close it in favor of the other and said so... among other places in the box with the big 'i' at the top of THIS page. To me "closed / superceded" seems like an entirely accurate description of those facts rather than the 'literal falsehood' you call it. As to the, equally charming, "specious" comment... the 21 to 6 split on whether or not removing warnings is vandalism is simply a fact. Nothing specious about it. Further, 'against policy' is not the same as 'vandalism'. Vandalism is a blockable offense which may be reverted at whim. Making NPOV edits is "against policy" but is not blockable and reverting such will eventually result in a block on the person repeatedly removing the NPOV text. It is inappropriate to include removing warnings in the "Types of vandalism" given the absence of any consensus for that position. --CBD 19:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the claim that "Making NPOV edits is 'against policy'" [11] is quite literally false, as well. "Making POV edits is 'against policy'" would, in my opinion, be a far more accurate summary of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Indeed, the claim that "Making NPOV edits is 'against policy'" is a complete inversion of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which in fact requires adherence to a neutral point of view, rather than prohibiting it. Furthermore, the statement "the 21 to 6 split on whether or not removing warnings is vandalism is simply a fact. Nothing specious about it." misrepresents my comments, in which I have argued that the claim that if removing legitimate warnings isn't actually vandalism, this would be an "ironclad reason for not listing it on this page in the 'types of vandalism' section" is specious since Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism includes language concerning other non-vandalism policy violations for clarification purposes. Finally, the relevant portion of the information box

The Talk about removing warnings is spread out over this page and getting hard to follow. It has been suggested to move the conversation about this issue to Wikipedia:Removing warnings and to eventually vote on Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll.

provides little, if any, support for the statement that "The users who started the 'poll' you cite agreed to close it in favor of the other and said so.", especially since Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll has yet to be opened for comments. John254 20:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed reintroduction of language stating that the removal of legitimate warnings from talk pages is prohibited

In light of the fact that no tenable arguments were made above against reintroduction of language stating that the removal of legitimate warnings from talk pages is prohibited, I am once again proposing that such language be reintroduced into the policy. John254 21:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It is reasonable that this be something that is wrong to do and opposed to at least SOME policy. I would prefer a separate policy on removing warnings, but since that policy does not exist, this policy is "ok". I am absolutely opposed to the idea that removing warnings quickly by the user is right. --Blue Tie 21:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BlueTie, a separate policy would clarify this. The strongest argument against splitting it out is probably that it would be instruction creep. However in this case the overall amount of instruction would probably stay about the same? Until we agree to do that, I don't see any justification for anyone unilaterally changing the Vandalism policy that has been serving us well for a while. Gwernol 21:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that it was originally added without discussion or consensus and has been disputed back and forth for 8 months? At the very least the issue of whether removing warnings is vandalism is controversial. Dragons flight 22:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. There are people who dispute that it has served us well. Edit wars over warnings can itself be very disruptive. Dragons flight 22:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Well it appears that the one data point we do have towards a consensus is 21:6 in favor of retaining it, so I'd argue that removing it requires some significant evidence of strong opposition, not just one editor deciding it should go. That said, I would welcome a proper debate on this to clarify it once and for all. Until we get that we're going to keep having this problem. Does anyone know why Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll stalled? Can it be restarted? The poll and (most importantly) its associated debate seems like what we need. Gwernol 22:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The poll, which I started by the way, stalled because I had to travel for work and was unavailable to do anything for about a month, and no one else took it up. When I got back, I was busy enough that I wasn't prepared to put time into what had largely become a defunct poll. I agree though that a definitive resolution to this issue is needed. Dragons flight 22:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that the 21:6 figure is in favour of not labelling it vandalism, so it doesn't belong here. It may belong elsewhere. JYolkowski // talk 22:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I misread the discussion. My apologies. In that case I agree it should not be included in the definition of vandalism until a consensus of editors here agree that it should. In this case I suggest there's an urgent need to start debating a new policy that prohibits the removal of legitimate talk page warnings. Gwernol 23:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'd argue instead that adding something to the policy in the face of strong opposition requires some sort of consensus... which does not exist for this change. Personally, I consider the repeated re-instatement of warnings a rather nasty form of edit-warring and harassment. It has certainly been used that way in several cases. The only 'benefit' to the practice is 'making it easier to see that the user has been warned before'... is the extra click required to check the talk page history really such a burden? If you want this then get the change proposal up and running again. I don't think it will pass consensus, and it shouldn't be part of the policy until it does. --CBD 23:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that since at least some version of this has been policy for 8 months it should not be just deleted immediately. I also think that this is important. The record of warnings needs to sit so that repeat offenders may be appropriately identified. --Blue Tie 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this concept was first introduced in February, and it has been removed repeatedly since then. And again, why can't you identify repeat offenders by clicking 'page history' to see if they have blanked out warnings? Especially if the edit summary says 'Warning - <whatever>'. We shouldn't be aggravating/harassing users to save ourselves a little effort. --CBD 00:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
As a user, I must say wouldn't feel 'aggravated/harassed' if I read that warnings must remain on the Talk page. And while looking at potential vandals and/or disruptive users' Talk pages, which unfortunately I am forced to do all too often, having the warnings displayed intact on their Talk page is an immense help. Yes, I could research their history, and often I do, but it would increase the workload. I prefer to spend that saved time and energy working on content or fighting more vandals. Thanks, Crum375 00:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The issue at stake on this page is whether the behaviour is vandalism. The definition of vandalism is something done in bad faith that harms the encyclopedia. Removing warnings, while it could be discouraged in some other policy, is neither. When people remove warnings, they are not trying to do something bad, nor do their actions actually harm the encyclopedia in any substantive way. As mentioned below, this probably should be taken to some other policy discussion page. JYolkowski // talk 02:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that 'vandalism' is not the best description. Maybe 'disruption' is better, and disruption is grounds for a block. But the bottom line is that it should not be acceptable for a user to remove a warning from his/her Talk page, as it would be misleading. Crum375 02:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Ever? Whatever happened to forgive and forget? And do we treat newbie errors the same as intentional vandalism? What if the warning is itself given in error (or even maliciously)? It is not exactly a simple issue. Dragons flight 02:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - 'ever' is too long. Erroneous or malicious warnings can be easily reverted by any admin, maybe even any other neutral editor, so that should not be an issue. I would agree to a clemency rule that old warnings can be removed - open to suggestions - 1 year comes to mind. Crum375 03:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Undent. I am strongly opposed to the proposal. But whether or not this discussion moves on, it should be taken to the appropriate talk board. It doesn't belong on vandalism. Wjhonson 01:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree that it doesn't belong here. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (a guideline, not policy) is probably a better place. -- nae'blis 02:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two reason why it DOES belong here on this POLICY page:

  1. It should be a policy not a guideline.
  2. Warnings are given chiefly for vandalism and this pages talks about these warnings.

I am at a loss as to why anyone would object to this. Why give vandals such an advantage? However, I think 1 year is too long. I think 4 months or 6 months is enough, unless directed by an admin to preserve it for a longer time, up to a year, due to extenuating circumstances. --Blue Tie 07:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I object because vandals are the least of it. Seriously... most vandals don't bother to remove warnings from their page at all because they are just trying to do as much damage as they can before being blocked or casually messing things up. Many of them are actually seeking attention... they get a reaction and display it proudly. Those who do remove warnings inevitably get caught at it. What's the worst that can happen? They get away with one or two 'extra' incidents of vandalism because someone didn't check the talk page history?
On the other hand, contributing users are very likely to remove warnings because they are inherently embarassing/annoying to people who care about their positive image... especially in the case of biased and/or false warnings, which are entirely too common - the moreso since this new philosophy was introduced. I've seen too many cases of people placing false 'vandalism' warnings for things which are clearly content disputes, edit warring when the user tries to remove them, and then seeking (or personally enacting) a block for 'removing warnings'. It is harassment of the worst kind and ought to be a bannable offense rather than something endorsed by policy.
A minor convenience for vandal-fighters... which is also a major avenue for harassment of contributing users. Which makes it a huge net negative in my opinion. A possible compromise might be to make removal of warnings a blockable offense only for warnings about blatant vandalism... and making the placement of such for things which aren't blatant vandalism an equally blockable offense. Any way the impact could be restricted to true vandals would be fine with me, but to date it has been consistently used against contributors that various people disagreed with as an 'allowed' means of harassing them. --CBD 17:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
While I agree with much of what you say, I feel that that having users remove warnings at will would vastly reduce our ability to keep poor behavior at bay. I include in 'poor behavior' anything from blatant vandalism to just plain rudeness. I see no major problem with getting an admin to remove an improperly issued warning from a user's talk page (with a corresponding warning to the originator of that improper warning). Perhaps we should specifically allow (or maybe we already do?) any neutral established editor to remove clear-cut inappropriate warnings, with an appropriate entry in the user's Talk page explaining the rationale for the removal. I fully agree that warnings in general will probably only tickle rather than impede real hardcore vandals, but there are a lot of editors for whom leaving the warnings in, at least for a defined period, will act as a useful deterrent, for the exact reasons you cite above. Crum375 17:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it can be a source of annoyance. Nevertheless, I think it is a good tool. I think that a petition to an admin should be appropriate to remove a warning before 4 or 6 months. I also think that spurious warnings should, in themselves, be considered disruption and if an admin finds that such a warning was used for that purpose, should take action against that perpetrator. On net, I do not think that it is a good idea to clear warnings off of user pages too quickbly by the user.--Blue Tie 18:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the CBDunkerson's statements that

I've seen too many cases of people placing false 'vandalism' warnings for things which are clearly content disputes, edit warring when the user tries to remove them, and then seeking (or personally enacting) a block for 'removing warnings'.

the policy as it is currently written clearly states that

removing legitimate warnings, especially with the intention of misleading other editors, can be disruptive and inappropriate behavior...

The removal of illegitimate warnings from talk pages, even by users from their own talk pages, does not violate the policy. Necessarily, users should exercise caution as to when they take it upon themselves to remove warnings from their own talk pages, as they must assume the risk that the warnings will later be found to be legitimate. In any case, "placing false 'vandalism' warnings for things which are clearly content disputes" is disruptive behavior, as is reapplying such warnings after a user removes them -- and the policy as currently written clearly does not endorse such disruption. I highly doubt that Wikipedia administrators actually "personally enact... block[s] for removing [illegitimate] vandalism warnings" to any significant extent. The fact that countervandalism tools, such as vandalism warnings, the policy against removing legitimate warnings, etc. can and have been misused for the purpose of disruption does not justify eliminating these tools, and thereby obstructing countervandalism efforts. John254 19:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Problem is that there'll often be disagreement as to whether a warning is legitimate or not. I have done quite a lot of vandal fighting in the past, and I have found that very few users will actually remove warning messages. I assume this is because most hardcore vandals are just trying to cause as much damage before they're blocked, an