Youtube

Go to The Main Page Add Youtube to favorite!

Wikipedia talk:Vandalism/Archive 5 

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 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 > 7 >>

Contents

Proposal for a new variant to test2

In light of the new push to be vigilant about WP:BLP, I've found that I've had to word my own warnings for these types of cases:

Be careful on what you add to articles on biographies of living people. Please see Biographies of living persons, which states that unsourced, negative information is not allowed.

and thought perhaps we could make a {{test2b}} or something like that, for this? See this recent rv for this kind of example... What do you think? --plange 04:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Support The existing BLP warnings ( {{blp1}}, {{blp2}}, {{blp3}} ) are far too strong for a new account or anonymous IP, who may not be familiar with the BLP policy. Dansiman 15:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • oops, I didn't know about those, good to know! But, yep, I agree... --plange 16:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Support The blp1 and blp2 are basically the same, so we could replace blp1 for the proposed one. --V. Szabolcs 20:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have created template:blp0 and template:blp0-n for this purpose, as well as template:blp1-n and template:blp2-n to indicate the names of the pages for the editing of which the warnings are issued. John254 01:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

awesome, thanks! --plange 03:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What can be considered link spam?

I don't know if I should revert the massive link insertions of an appearantly SPA, 200.52.127.152, of 3rd October so I let others decide. As I have seen, nobody even tried to react on this IP user's editing. --V. Szabolcs 19:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Template idea for experienced users who make a vandalism-type edit.

I've noticed that the test and vandalism templates are geared more towards new and anonymous users with welcome messages and "Please use the sandbox if you would like to experiment." Well, what about users who have already been around wikipedia for a decent amount of time, such as User:Karrmann, a Vandal Hunter and WP Auto member, who decides to vandalize Atlantic Records because of the attention it got with Weird Al's White and Nerdy song? Karrmann got two warnings starting with "Welcome to Wikipedia." I think we need a template that gives a stern, yet kinda friendly reminder that vandalism is against policy. Check this out:

We know how tempting it can be to break down and vandalize a page, but you've been around Wikipedia for long enough to know that committing vandalism is against Wikipedia policy. You know better. Don't do it again.

It doesn't mention the sandbox, because Experienced users shouldn't have to use it, and no welcome message for people who have been around for a while. Think this would be a good idea, or is there a template I'm missing already? Comment or edit the template at User:Targetter/Sandbox --Targetter (Lock On) 02:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Saying 'Welcome to Wikipedia' to somone who's been here for a year is pretty stupid to me.--KojiDude (viva la BAM!) 02:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course, having the welcome message and sandbox reference could in itself add a little impact to the warning, causing the user to realize that their actions reek of newb. Dansiman 03:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I would make it a bit nicer. Remember that in content disputes, people often accuse each other of vandalism. So this should include something about, "If you believe your edit(s) in fact improved Wikipedia, please discuss it either on the article talk page, or on my talk page." And then there's the time I saw someone commit vandalism because they wanted an enforced wikibreak. I'm not sure what the best way to deal with that is, but its probably not a vandalism warning. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 15:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that among experienced editors, any standardized text could be perceived as dismissive of what was going on. So it's probably better not to use a template for that. >Radiant< 15:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

IP Address Template

It seems to me that an IP address specific template could be useful. Something with that warns an editor who shares an IP address (that has been used for vandalism, specifically) with others (such as a school or library) to be aware of it & consider making an account. Keep the baby & throw out the bathwater, as it were. --mordicai. 16:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of language pertaining to use of vandalism warning templates in communicating with established users

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism states that

Users must be appropriately warned using a final warning template, such as {{test3}}, {{test4}} or {{blatantvandal}} before being listed on this page. Users without appropriate final warnings will not be blocked.

Therefore, if an established user is engaging in obvious, blatant vandalism, they need to be warned with the appropriate templates before being blocked. Of course, the language from the header of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism doesn't describe actual practice in all cases; however, there is a significant prospect of an administrator refusing to block an established user for vandalism if the "appropriate warning templates" have not been applied. Thus, the statement "Note: Do not use these templates with established users; instead, write a clear message explaining your disagreement." immunizes established editors from immediate blocking for vandalism, in a manner that is quite contrary to consensus. Furthermore, if an established user is engaging in rapid vandalism to a large number of pages, "[writing] a clear message explaining your disagreement" would result in an unacceptable delay in the issuance of a warning.

I realize that the advice to avoid of the use of warning templates in communicating with established editors is based, in part, on the claim that nothing an established user does is really vandalism. It is indeed quite inappropriate to use vandalism warnings in content disputes. However, whether edits are content disputes or vandalism generally does not depend on whether the edits are made by new or established users, but rather is determined by the examination of the content of the edits themselves. While, generally, most vandalism is committed by new users, some well-established users have made edits that clearly qualify as vandalism, such as this -- which would clearly merit the issuance of a vandalism warning. Furthermore, if one happens to be in a content dispute with a new user, it would be far more appropriate to "write a clear message explaining your disagreement" than to place template:test4im on the editor's talk page. Indeed, the claim "Note: Do not use these templates with established users; instead, write a clear message explaining your disagreement." seems to imply that when one has a disagreement with a new user, that users edits are automatically vandalism, not good faith contributions, which is clearly inconsistent with Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It's far more appropriate to state that vandalism warnings should only be used in responding to actual vandalism, and that one should "write a clear message explaining your disagreement" in cases of content disputes over good faith contributions. John254 02:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal of language inconsistent with actual practice

The claim that

Even when such edits [blanking biographies of living persons] are inappropriate, they should be treated as content disputes, not vandalism. In particular, vandalism warnings should not be left on the talk page of the editor.

is not consistent with actual practice in RC patrol, or with the practices of most administrators who respond to vandalism. Users who repeatedly blank articles, even biographies of living persons, will be blocked for vandalism, and users restoring the articles' text will not be blocked for 3RR violations (as they might be if they were involved in genuine content disputes). Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons justifies the immediate removal of unreferenced, negative information from such biographies, without regard to the 3RR, but it does not constitute a license for wholesale blanking of the entirety of articles (unless such articles are comprised entirely of unreferenced negative information). The claim that inappropriate blankings of biographies of living persons should be treated as content disputes does not have "wide acceptance among editors", because it does not comport with common practice. John254 02:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to write an essay for every edit. —Centrx→talk • 05:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Bad edit question

Is making an obviously false edit to try to make a point vandalism? Or how should it be dealt with? Is there a template or something to put on a user's page who has done this? --Awiseman 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Probably - see also WP:POINT. If it's a single incident you should simply undo the edit and kindly ask the user not to do it again; if you don't know a template for that, just type in some text - it's the message that counts. Without knowing the specifics I can't recommend much more than that. >Radiant< 07:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Crap" Vandaliser

I was recently looking at the page for Jaws, and as I was looking, someone had the nerve to type in random sections "POOOOOOPPPPIIIIIEEEE!!!!!" Keep an eye out for this shitty vandalist, and edit this section if you have any info on the disturbing outlaw. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StealthsneakII (talk • contribs) .

Unfortunately, this kind of vandalism is not uncommon. We have tools to catch it, but since it's a human system it's not 100% effective. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 18:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No sure what this person is doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=76.16.151.77

This ip had a 24 hour ban on 16:26, 7 October 2006 for long term disruption (possibly vandalism). After the ban was over the user continued to making edits that are kind of weird. Some seem to be trying to add content, some seem to be removing red links, and some still seems to be linking common or already linked terms. Personally, I think the user is still vandalizing but not quite sure what to make of him/her. Also, I'm not sure what template I would use for the vandalizing.

After the 24 hour ban was lifted, someone gave used a test4 template for vandalism. Am I suppose to ask an admin to block or give him a test2?
Ivvan Cain 22:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you point to specific diffs that appear to be vandalism? Wikilinking and removing red links are generally not vandalism. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 22:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The individual in general seems to wikilink a lot of common terms (like red or terms that have already been linked in articles. Yet at the same time some of the individual's edits are useful. For example, he editted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Foster%27s_Home_for_Imaginary_Friends_episodes 3 times.
First time: He wikilinked Dan Akroyd which seemed appropriate since Dan Akroyd wasn't wikilinked in the article anywhere nearby.
Second time: Wikilinked rain, winter, money, gold, lemonade, and cookie. All common terms and generally not important to the article.
Third time: Wikilinked ticket and squeak. Also wikilinked Harry Elefante, the nonsense name of a pink elephant, to Harry Belefonte. Possibly the individual thinks Harry Elefante is just a pun on Harry Belefonte and the word elephant but seems it would make more sense to add that note to the episode notes section.


In general, before the individual got blocked, the only editting before was wikilinking common terms even though other editors have reverted them due to them being common terms. Rarely does the individual edits an article ever again after his initial edits. After the blocking, this individual's edits seem to fall in two categories:
1. Wikilinking common and unimportant terms
2. Adding content or pictures though usually in an incorrect procedure.
My question is mainly would this individual's continued action be considered disruption and/or vandalism?
Also, if so...what template should I use to warn this individual since some other editor used test4 right off the bat for a bad edit after his block was lifted?
Ivvan Cain 23:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Although I did not check every one of this user's edits, and might have missed something, I have not seen anything that qualifies as vandalism or bad faith. I am not quite sure why this user was blocked, to be frank. At any rate, a kindly note on the talk page for the odd wikilinking and image procedure problems, seems like it would probably be more than sufficient for future edits. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 02:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Profanity

  • Is there a separate wiki - policy on profanity? I've recently removed instances of vandalism where editors had simply added swearwords ranging from minor to fairly severe and wonderred whether there was a separate policy on use of bad language? -- MLD · T · C · @:  14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is. It's Wikipedia:Profanity. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 14:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"integrity"

The word "integrity" should be replaced as it is ambiguous.

Is anyone else noticing this?

I've seen this several times in the past few days. A vandal will vandalize a page twice, then remove the last vandalism. I doubt this is likely to happen legitimately, since a user who knew how to, and knew it was important to remove the second vandalization should know the same of the first vandalization. Should I give these people the only warning tag, or give them the benefit of the doubt? -NorsemanII 23:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't go soft on vandals. Self-reverted, half-reverted, whatever. If you think an edit warrants a mention on their talk page, give them an appropriate warning. Benefit of the doubt is for ambiguous edits. Ånd no, I haven't noticed such behavior before. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I mean should I give a plain warning for vandalism, or the tag that says it will be their "only warning"? It seems to me that this type of vandalism is intentionally trying to create difficulties in removing it. The AntiVandalBot doesn't seem to notice it if the last edit removed vandalism instead of adding it. Likewise, I've seen tricks like this used to make the AntiVandalBot and regular users revert vandalism back in. The nature of the edits suggests that the vandalism was done intentionally, and intended to be difficult to remove. I'm not sure when to use the "only warning" tag, but this seems to be one good application of it. I'm just curious if there's any consensus on how that tag should be used, and if this goes against it. -NorsemanII 23:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Ohh! Sorry. Busy day. Plain vandalism. Unless they've vandalized multiple articles this way and seem persistant, you cannot assume that they need something that severe. Sorry. I thought you were talking about the first warning template. And, for the record, you can "go soft" if you think the user isn't a hardcore troll. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are there hardly any links in section Types of vandalism?

I came here because I wanted to do something about a sneaky vandal. Unfortunately, section Types of vandalism only describes the term and doesn't say anything what to do about it. Likewise for most of the other types. Is this just an ivory tower page or one that tries to help people help Wikipedia? — Sebastian (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Beware of sneaky middle name vandal

User talk:85.210.236.29 [1]

Found a sneaky vandal that edit articles to include fictitious middle names in articles such as Sinbad (actor) Howard Brown Stuart Parnaby Darius Vassell Mark Copani Matt Wiese Tommy Dreamer and others.

Mostly English football players and American professional wrestlers.

In one odd case the article Arnold Schwarzenegger, the vandal added the fictitious middle name Avlot, another corrected it with a sourced real middle name of Alois.

Who is report: Also because it a dynamic IP address, also used this IP User talk:85.210.235.250, and perhaps even more. ▪◦▪=Sirex98= 11:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is another fishy middle name. My impression is that many of 130.13.213.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)'s edits are fishy, but I don't know enough about the topics to just revert them. — Sebastian (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Should "problem user" watchlists be allowed?

The Miscellany for Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist may be of interest to those who monitor and deal with vandalism. This MfD proposes deletion for a number of "user watchlists" which users have created in their userspace for the purpose of monitoring vandals, policy violators, and other controversial editors. The issue is whether such watchlists are acceptable on Wikipedia or whether they contravene policies such as WP:AGF and WP:PA. —Psychonaut 16:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a misunderstanding. The issue of the MFD is actually that some of these pages would seem to contrave both the spirit and the letter of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:PA in specific circumstances where there is negative personal commentary on specific named users. --Zeraeph 17:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd say yes, but only under specific circumstances. The Arbitration Committee sometimes gives users Probation or Mentorship as an alternative to long-term blocks/bans. I don't have a problem with this, and I wouldn't mind seeing it also used as a ruling of administrators or the community (RfCs) as an alternative to long-term blocks/bans. However, there should be some broad consensus for this - whether ArbCom, a number of administrators, or the community as a whole. Individual users making such lists could be considered to be wikistalking. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 16:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

St. Luke

Greetings,

Someone has vandalized the entry on St. Luke in Wikipedia with profanity.

Just thought I'd bring it to your attention. 212.41.142.242 16:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this has been reverted by Wiki alf. Thanks for letting us know. Addhoc 17:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit comments indicating vandalism reversion?

I'm doing some research on Wikipedia vandalism, and I was wondering what things I should look for in comments to indicate that the editor's revert was a vandalism revert. My initial guess:

  • rvv
  • vandal (e.g. "reverted vandalism")
  • Reverted edits by ... to last version by ...
  • Reverted ... using ...

What else should I look for? Suggestions on a better place to ask welcome also. Many thanks for any help! -- R27182818 17:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"rv blanking" is sometimes used, I don't know how commonly. In general, something that begins with "rv" could be a vandalism revert or it could be a revert over disputed content. —Centrx→talk • 21:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The first two are typed in manually by the reverting editor, and can be assumed to refer to true vandalism. The second two are automatically generated by admin rollback and various software programs, respectively, and may refer to a vandalism revert or to a very poor (but good faith) minor edit. Usually when reverting non-vandalism, I do it manually and type a descriptive edit summary for this very reason. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in the wiki neighborhood

I can't believe people are taking our hard work and research and mutilating it with nonsense! I think that the editing should be emailed to the starter of wiki, he checks it, and adds it! what does every one think about that idea?!

It would help combat vandalism, but a method like that would be too time-consuming due to the size of Wikipedia. Anyway, this is the reason why Bots have been created to help with the interception of vandalism. S-man64 11:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Adding a pre-review procedure is a common suggestion, and it would indeed cut way down on vandalism, but it goes against the nature of wiki. It would also reduce contributions dramatically; any time you add another step to any process, fewer people go through the process. So far, it seems that the total value of more contributions with more vandalism exceeds that of fewer contributions and less vandalism. HTH. -- R27182818 15:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Extra warnings

I'm wondering if we should perhaps add some clarifying language that a warning does not need to be applied to every instance of vandalism/spam. For instance, if a vandal hits multiple pages before they are warned for the first time, and ceases vandalism post first warning, it seems unnecessary and counterproductive to warn them for vandalism made prior to the first warning... Thoughts on adding a note about this to the page? --TeaDrinker 22:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are saying that vandalism commited in the past is out of bounds after it has been reverted or otherwise undone/removed, I agree. However, even if a vandal seems to have stopped, it is important to make a note of all vandalous instances. If I revert a vandalous edit, look at their history and find more edits from dates earlier than that pf the edit I reverted, I'll make note of them all. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Also, I would like to note that once a vandal has been given a final warning and reported at WP:AIV, it is not necessary to add another final warning template for each instance following. If one didn't send the message, neither will twenty. And admins will look at contribs before blocking. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 19:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern is that a warning's primary purpose is to warn the user to stop, not mark their edits as vandalism. What prompted this was comming across a low-level spammer (adding his blog). I gave spam1, various people reverted the damage, and he stopped. Someone else came along and gave 3 more spam warnings (since, I guess, he had spammed four times), even though he had not done anything since the first warning. It struck me as unnessary and misleading, but consistent with a lawyerly reading of the policy (not really, however, the intent of warnings). --TeaDrinker 01:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah. I got ya. Yeah, that sort of excessive warning is unnecessary. Make a note of vandalism in as few warnings as possible. Vandals given multiple "last warnings" and warnings just for the sake of mentioning that "He did it four timees" don't help. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Need warning template about repeated creation of nonsense pages

I noticed several new pages created by User:Brett Hohenwarter, all of which were inappropriate (vanity bio pages for friends, empty or nonsensical content, etc.). These pages were speedily deleted. The talk page indicates this user's IP address 207.6.243.206 was autoblocked at one time, although I see no logs about it. I also don't see any logs of the speedily deleted pages. Before the pages were deleted, the contribution log showed that this user's sole purpose appears to be creating nonsense pages. Is there a warning template suitable for something like this, so that a record can be established for a habitual junk-page creator? Does this behavior even count as "vandalism"? -Axlq 19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic content = vandalism...?

Hello English Wikipedia,

Some time ago, me and a friend have added unencyclopedic content in the Dutch Wikipedia, such as "CHEESE tastes like CHEESE" and "The moon is made of CHEESE" - and we both got banned for vandalism. Of course, we know it wasn't a good thing to do, and unencyclopedic content should not be in Wikipedia, but how can this possibly be 'vandalism'? Nowhere in the 'Types of vandalism' does it say unencyclopedic content is vandalism. Also, we didn't intend to "add, delete, or change content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", as is the definition of 'vandalism' on this page.

What amazes me even more, is that we even got banned for alleged vandalism when using the Sandbox. That surely can't be vandalism? How can anyone get banned for using the Sandbox? I don't know if the English Wikipedia has any authority over the Dutch Wikipedia, but I strongly suspect the Dutch admins are making bad use of their power, and I would like anyone "in charge" to at least address this matter to them.

Kind regards, 82.92.73.193 16:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Could I suggest you have a look at WP:VANDAL... Addhoc 16:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Just in case it's really not clear to you, 'childishness' and 'silliness' are specific examples of vandalism. In general, deliberately inserting 'unencyclopedic content', as you call it, into WP, reduces WP's quality, and is therefore vandalism. Crum375 16:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really. Vandalism in the wikipedic sense requires an effort to make the project worse. In the examples 82... gives above, clearly there is no way that the edits were an effort to improve anything, were jokes and so, on the English Wikipedia anyway, they were blockable vandalism. On the other hand, merely 'unencyclopedic content' can be added with perfectly good intentions by someone who either does not know, or does not appreciate its unencyclopedic nature. That's not vandalism, and wouldn't/oughtn't result in a block. Splash - tk 17:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that I specifically said "deliberately inserting unencyclopedic content" would be vandalism. The deliberation step is definitely required, and would exclude your 'misguided good intention' cases. Crum375 17:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Though the unencyclopedic contend we added was surely not in anyway intended to make the quality of the article worse (though one may argue that information like "CHEESE tastes like CHEESE" is redundant or useless, one cannot deny that it's true), the Dutch Wikipedia has a slightly different policy towards vandalism, so I'm "legally" (by Wikipedia rules) unable to protest against my blocking by admins. 82.92.73.193 18:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
It would still fall under 'childish' and 'nonsense', which are clear examples of vandalism, at least in the EN-WP. Also, in my own opinion, any edit that is made that is not intended to improve WP, is by definition harming it. I don't believe there is a middle ground. And you don't explain why inserting "The moon is made of CHEESE" is not reducing WP's quality. Crum375 19:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm kind of wondering about your comment on being banned, in part, for editing the sandbox. I don't see how you can vandalize it, unless you were deliberately placing profanity and 'shock images' in it. However, I'm not familiar with the Dutch Wiki's rules, although I don't understand why they'd be different for something as basic as the sandbox. 205.202.204.44 16:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not WP:AIV

While this is the place to go for information about vandalism, it is not the place to request that a user or users be blocked. Also, when/if you do contact Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and make such a request, please be certain you have followed the necessary procedures prior. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Newbie question

HOW DO WE GO ABOUT BANNING A PERSON WHO KEEPS CHANGING ARTICLES MALICIOUSLY??? Look up "Daytona king" and his/her contributions. They keep attacking and messing up articles all morning. I don't know what to do because I am kinda new here. But this guy needs to stop. i can't spend my day following in his footsteps changing articles back. Irishgt 17:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starters, calm down. Secondly, I notice you haven't tried warning the user. Warnings are an indication both to blockers and vandals that edits have been reverted and requests to avoid further misconduct have been made. Third, this is not the place to request that a user be blocked, and wouldn't have strong case even if it was. Fourth, I think, over all, you were overreacting. Exaggerating, really. Four edits is hardly "attacking all morning", and since no one told the user what they were doing was wrong, how can you assume it was "MALICIOUS"? Fifth, if you do ever find a blatent vandal who needs to be blocked, you'll have to present yourself and your case better. Read the policy this talk pages belongs to and our blocking policy. Use Templates like {{user}} to quickly display information about a person. Administrators are especially busy and will likely ignore you if you cannot display links to the user's information yourself. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry never even noticed I used caps :P

Kinda new here that's why I was trying to find out the steps to report someone. Thank you for the info. Irishgt 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Another vandalizer attacked other articles

I have found someone who is vandalizing the episode tables of the article List of Celebrity Deathmatch episodes. It is known as 206.169.38. He/she is the one who is messing up celebrity names, episodes, and tables and that is how I have told ZS. You must make sure he/she is permanently banned from editing, plus his account termination, and he/she must not create new accounts again. Professional Gamer 20:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place or the time. See the above subsection. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
How should I find a better place? Professional Gamer 18:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

British Empire page

Someone has vandalised the 2nd paragraph of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_empire to include homophobic comments.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.34.51.135 (talk • contribs) on 19:33, November 16, 2006 (UTC); Please sign your posts!

Please take the steps mentioned on this page to warn the vandal, and report him to WP:AIV (instructions are there too!) if necessary. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 20:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsure Vandalism to Donatella Versace page

I visited the " Donatella Versace " page a few days ago on November 16th 2006, and it contained a paragraph which I have been able to find no confirmation anywhere else on the web. Under the heading " Heiress to the Throne " , in the last paragraph , it reads as follows :

"Allegra Versace died on November 14, 2006 of anorexia while being treated at UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, CA. At the time of her death, she weighed only 75 pounds, had to be force fed intravenously, and was relegated to diapers. "

I couldn't believe it, and searched for any kind of validity elsewhere on the web, and I can't find

a single article on this anywhere. A story like that would have been huge. There is nothing. I think it is probably someone pulling a

prank, as it was first written on November 14th , I saw it on the 16th as a single sentence, and now it's evolved into a paragraph since the 19th. Any suggestions?

  • This is a discussion on our policy regarding vandalism. Please post reports of vandalism to WP:AIV instead of here. Thank you. (Radiant) 11:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia Community Service as redemption for blatant vandals

I suggest the creation of a Wikipedia Community service program for blatant (please note, blatant) vandals.

I have seen cases of vandals re-vandalizing over and over once the temporary block (hours, days, weeks...whatever) expires.

Current policy: I think that blocks penalty should not be temporary, because You have to do nothing to let time pass.

The only thing that the vandal has to do is to let time pass by... and here we go, again.

Proposed policy I think that blocks penalty should be a certain amount of Wikipedia Community service to do. Just some examples:

  • Reversing a certain amount of vandal edits (made previously to the punishment to avoid foul play).
  • Finding a correct source for an unsourced statement.
  • Correcting typos.
  • Uploading a good image...
...the blatant vandal could choose the task to do from a "punishments menu", proportional to his/hers previous degree of vandalism.
If the User has no interest in doing a few simple tasks, we are much better without him/her.
I think that the blatant would have to earn the right to go back again to Wikipedia.
Paroled blatant vandals could be stripped from their right to search for articles (just as administrators and experienced users have some extra rights) and/or funneled into a "Quarry page" with Wikipedia Community service tasks listed.
A blatant vandal under Wikipedia Community Service parole making new blatant vandalism should be banned for a looooooong time (v.gr. a couple of years).

Randroide 15:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a fully functioning society with laws and such extreme punishments. Must of the stuff you're asking for would be far too harsh. While I do believe Wikipedia could stand to improve from firmer stances and more lengthy/indefinite block times, your proprosal boarders on sadistic. We certainly cannot force users to do anything, first off. Second, your talk of "parole" is a bit off putting when one considers the fact that Wikipedia does not imprison or have any real authority over vandals. We can prevent someone from damaging this site, but we can't obsessively control how they use it in a non-editting sense. No searches? What good would that even do? Really, I think you should chillax, and maybe have a cup of tea. (yes, I do know how stupid the latter part sounds, but just bear with me) Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia. All the discussions, policies, etc related to it only exist to help in its creation and maintainance. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

O.K., Ace Class Shadow. I am the kind of person who favors harsher crime punishment "in the real world" and penal labour for criminals, so it is not a surprise that I ask for harsher punishments against vandals here.

What good would that even do?

To get rid of most vandals.

Thank you for the cup of tea, but I prefer coffe : ) Randroide 11:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

How would you enforce it? --h2g2bob 12:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Is multiple voting vandalism?

What do you think? When people attempt to vote more than once, often by not putting unsigned votes in a talk page, over a long period of time. It isn't mentioned in the article. Robocracy 14:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Vblock

This template says that "Removing warnings is vandalism." There is no consensus for this, and it is not listed as a form of vandalism here. I would remove it myself, but the template is fully protected. An admin needs to remove this and all other comments on any template claiming the removing warnings is vandalism, because it isn't. Polonium 16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is vandalism. It's referring to other user warnings on a user talk page. Stuff like a "civility" section is fair game, but if someone tells you your edit's been reverted and identified as vandalism, that stays. User talk pages belong to Wikipedia, not users. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's wrong, and the template has been modified to reflect that. It can be disruptive to remove warnings from your talk page, but it's not vandalism, as it does not harm the encyclopedia. A user must open the page to see the template, therefore they have read it, therefore requiring them to wear a scarlet letter for eternity is useless in getting them to become a contributing member of the 'pedia. Very few templates in Category:user warning templates had any wording of that sort when I went through it the other day (prior to seeing this note, actually), and now none of them should say that. The multiple polls and discussions about this issue have consistently failed to reach a consensus that removing warnings is vandalism, although they have pointed out issues with current process in some cases, and ways to remedy that. Good edit summaries can get around a disruptive editor who is trying to mask their intentions, as there's nothing the editor can do to remove those from their talk page history summary. -- nae'blis 23:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

New category needed?

Is there such a thing as revert-vandalism? Not including genuine reverts to prevent vandalism etc but there is such a thing as gaming the system that I've witnessed many times. Maybe we can discuss if revert-vandalism should be included as a type of vandalism? Ekantik 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Wikipedia is not a baureacracy. We follow rules, but can't allow them to hinder our purpose of encyclopedically displaying information. Misappropriation or other such abuse of rules to defend distruptive behavior won't work. I'd gladly advise users to look at the spirit of an action, not simply the policy or guideline it claims to follow. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Shall I go ahead and add this new category to 'What Vandalism Is' along with a brief note of explanation? Ekantik 15:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead with it since there seems to be consensus and placed it near the top so it is considered an important point. Please reword or delete as necessary. Ekantik 15:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandals Unhappy???

Yeah, I know, you are mad at me for feeling sorry for the vandals. Their probably attention craving. That's just a little more to think about... Moofinluvr

{{editprotected}}

Under "Abuse of tags", suggest adding "Knowingly tampering with templates on image pages". 68.39.174.238 00:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Multiple edit vandalism

I've noticed some vandals are using the technique of performing several edits quckly, one after the other - sometimes with the second being a partial revert of the first. A naive editor then only reverts the final edit, leaving vandalism behind. Where vandalism is suspected, can I suggest editors look at the article history and check the effect of all the most recent edits of a suspected vandal. Obviously, some of this may well be newbies incorrectly reverting a test edit, but others look far more deliberate to me. I'm not sure if the anti-vandal bots are up to coping with this yet. WLDtalk|edits 16:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Law Enforcement

Hello

Having recently taken over leadership of the Law Enforcement wikiproject I saw what seemed to me as a good opportunity for reducing vandalism and fostering better community relations.

The Law enforcement wikiproject will eventually grow to cover quite a range of articles. Many of these articles can be common targets for vandalism, and many serve as areas for poor wikiquette, civility and so on. We have already set a reduction in vandalism and an increase in good community relations on the articles we cover as two goals for the project, and as many of our users are current or ex police officers we hope we have some expertise in remaining impartial, polite as well as efficient at sorting out conflicts.

In light of this, we wish to offer the services of the wikiproject as a tool for addressing vandalism and poor community relations on wikipedia. We have already set up a subpage on the project page where users can gain access to key wikipedia guidelines when it comes to wikiquette, and if there are any ways in which the administrators believe the Law Enforcement wikiproject could aid in addressing the aforementioned problems in either an official or unofficial capacity, please don't hesitate to contact via my userpage, or by a talk page on the project pages themselves. SGGH 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

School vandals

Is there a "school vandal" template? I've searched but cannot find one. I think it would be beneficial for vandal fighters if certain IP accounts could be tagged as "school vandal". This would help to know why the IP in concern is yielding particularly juvenile vandalism, and it would also be beneficial for the blocking admin to know how to relate to the vandalism, ie. short temporal (instead of permanent) blocks are probably warranted (at least initially) for school IP vandals. --Ezeu 19:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Template:SharedIPEDU any good ? -- Beardo 01:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It is just fine. --Ezeu 23:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

New warning proposal

See here for a new proposal for administering vandalism warnings that I started.--Azer Red Si? 19:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Question.

Just a question relating to types of vandalizm. If a user inserts one or more pictures of genitalia or pornography in the article or in front of the article; what type of vandalizm should that be classified as? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sub6 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Image vandalism, as on the project page. ekantiK talk 14:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, reverts and edit history

This thought has been bugging me for a while. The amount of vandalism on some pages is so high that when browsing the article's history the majority of edits are vandalism and subsequent reverts. Is it possible that the sheer number of edits and reverts will at some point adversely affect the running of wikipedia? Perhaps in terms of the amount of information being stored in the history, which perhaps doesn't really need to be there. But also, when browsing an article's history it is a pain having to go through several unhelpful edits in order to look at the important ones. No matter how effective the vandalism bots become, there will always effectively be two edits for each vandalism. Will vandalism always be present in the article history for the sake of completeness, or at some point is there a possibility of it being removed? (Don't bite if it sounds like a stupid question, I was just pondering!) Thanks. Mushintalk 21:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes this was discussed above just recently and a new category of vandalism is on the project page, Revert vandalism. Vandalism is generally preserved for legal and technical reasons, but administrator help can be requested in the case of revealing personal details about other editors and such. In those (rare) cases the edit may be removed from the edit history but not for general vandalism as far as I am aware. ekantiK talk 14:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

User talk pages

What is the proper response if a user blanks his own talk page to suppress warnings? Goldfritha 00:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I generally revert the blanking to replace the warnings. If the user/IP continues to do so you can always alert an administrator and they would most likely semi/fully protect the page so that the vandal cannot continue blanking the warnings.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
{{Blankown}} could work Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Are they recent/ongoing warnings? Are they related to current behavior? Maybe it's worth keeping them there, but remember that they are always in the edit history, and edit summaries can be very useful if you've got someone who is trying to hide information about their activities. But frequently it's more strife than its worth to try to force someone to wear a Scarlet Letter on their talk page. -- nae'blis 16:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Vandalism

While we assume good faith of all editors, if it becomes apparent that someone is disregarding NPOV intentionally, but continually introducing material which has been show not to be NPOV, is there some good reason that should not be seen as vandalism?--Crossmr 16:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, introducing or removing materials that result in what others consider is non-NPOV version of the article, is not considered vandalism. Vandalism is an intentional act to reduce the quality of WP. If an editor personally believes that his/her edits are NPOV (in his/her own mind), then the edits are not vandalism and the disagreement over them is a content dispute. If a content dispute cannot be resolved on the Talk page, then other dispute resolution procedures should be followed. Crum375 16:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Right, which goes back to WP:AGF. However if its been demonstrated that material X is not NPOV and there are no sources for that opinion/statement/fact/etc does it not become an intentional act to reduce the quality of WP? I think we'd all agree that articles which are not NPOV are lower quality, so by intentionally introducing material which has been demonstrated not to be NPOV without providing sources not be intentionally lowering the quality of WP? At what point do we go from a statement put in an article from being vandalism to a content dispute. Placing an obviously false statement is obviously vandalism, so if a source cannot be found for statement X whether its more obvious vandalism or not, where is the difference? If its not a ridiculous statement written in all caps its a content dispute?--Crossmr 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps such actions qualify more as Disruptive Editing? Ekantik talk 17:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
If it's a "ridiculous statement written in all caps", and any person off the street would recognize it as such (e.g. irrelevant to the article, or clearly a joke), then it would be vandalism, since any reasonable person would assume the editor's intent was to reduce WP's quality. If it's a statement that is not backed up by proper sourcing, then it should be removed per WP:V or WP:NOR, which are the core content policies. If the editor insists in reinserting them, after clearly being shown that they are not verifiable, dispute resolution procedure can be initiated, and the editor could eventually be blocked or banned for tendentious editing or disruption. But as long as that editor believes his/her edits are 'correct', in his/her own mind, they are not vandalism. Important note: if the article or the issues in question are WP:BLP-related, unsourced or poorly sourced edits should be reverted immediately and require no prior discussion. The BLP-related removal of unsourced or poorly sourced materials is excluded from the WP:3RR limits. Crum375 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The only qualifying difference you are making though is But as long as that editor believes his/her edits are 'correct', in his/her own mind, they are not vandalism. If the vandal writing "George Bush sleeps with monkeys" is correct in his own mind (as ridiculous as that would be) how is that really different if we're going to put the onus on it being right in the mind of the person adding the material which violates NPOV after it has been demonstrated that there are no sources for the material to support that POV? I do agree that there are some other policies and guidelines which address it, but I'm failing to see what differentiates obvious vandalism like that from someone who is introducing material which fails NPOV and V after its been demonstrated not to without providing any support for it.--Crossmr 17:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
If someone wrote "George Bush sleeps with monkeys" it could easily match 'nonsense' or 'silly' vandalism. So that would not be the issue here. If an edit is clearly nonsensical to most reasonable persons, it could be vandalism of the silly or nonsense type. But once you get into typical controversies, religion, politics, conspiracies, etc., and there is strong disagreement about issues, then the edits representing the extreme positions could easily be well-intentioned by their proponents. Then the issue becomes: is the editor civil and collaborating with others properly? if not, that editor could be blocked/banned for tendentiousness or disruptiveness via dispute resolution procedures. But as long as a reasonable person could agree that the edit was an intent to improve WP, whether properly sourced or not, it would not be vandalism. Crum375 18:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Which I might agree with the 1st or 2nd time. But once its demonstrated that there is a NPOV issue with the material due to lack of source/other reasons I think you have to question the intent at that point. You don't assume good faith until you're blue in the face and the encyclopedia is a smoking ruin (dramatic I know, but AGF isn't meant to shield someone from continuing questionable behaviour indefinitely). As an analogy, lets say I got a needle in my arm and its quite sore. We're old friends we meet and you slap me on the arm as a greeting, I wince and tell you about the shot and ask you not to hit it. Later in the conversation we're joking around, you hit it again after good joke. I remind you about my arm and we have a laugh. As the meeting progresses you hit the arm three more times, I've got to seriously question your intent at that point. I think after if a reasonable effort has been made to explain to an editor that the edits they have made violate NPOV there is no reason not to treat them like vandalism. It would become apparent at that time that their intent is to ignore the rules and policies on wikipedia and degrade the quality of them.--Crossmr 19:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I would think that if someone were to intentionally hurt you, he'd be guilty of assault. In this case, in the example you cite, he'd be guilty of disruptive behavior and tendentiousness, but not vandalism. An admin can block a user who's properly warned for disruptiveness. All you need is to get an admin to review the article and Talk page (if you are an admin and have edited the page, get a non-involved one please) and assuming your description is accurate, that tendentious back-slapper would be blocked after a proper warning. Vandalism is an act of intentional defacement, that anyone can recognize on sight. It requires no history (like how many times the back was slapped) and no knowledge of sourcing rules. It does require understanding of the alleged vandal's mindset - what's s/he trying to do. If s/he's just trying to get his extreme view across, that has no support, it's not vandalism, but can easily be disruption. Hopefully this makes it clearer. Crum375 23:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm still not sure I'm comfortable with the difference. Both are disruptive, both are done intentionally, and both degrade the quality of wikipedia. While one can be spotted by "JoeUser" surfing by, and the other requires someone familiar with the history I don't view them as being that different. I would actually see someone pushing POV as more detrimental to the article than random vandalism as they're likely to to be damaging the article repeatedly over time. I'm not sure why they should get "better" treatment than a random vandal who would get immediately reverted regardless, warned and banned quickly if they persisted. Instead we need to sometimes allow their edits to sit on a page for awhile, go through dispute resolution processes (which are slow compared to AIV), and then wait for admins who won't get involved until its gone through at least one dispute resolution process. On a slow article which gets little to no attention, you could have POV edits sitting there for a long time waiting for people to come by (even using third opinion and others) to "make sure" they're POV.--Crossmr 23:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok, now that I think you understand the actual policy, it seems that your concern is why. IOW, if I paraphrase you correctly, you suggest that we treat simple vandals who deface WP the same as tendentious and disruptive POV-pushers. Although you are correct, that both types of users (and their respective actions) are harming WP, and the latter sometimes even more than the former, the problem is that judging vandalism is easy, hence we use a simple tool to clean it - anyone can simply revert vandalism, no questions asked (though warnings are highly recommended), and after a few repeat offenses the vandal is blocked. Judging tendentious disruption, OTOH, requires more expertise, and more attention. You can't just shoot on sight. You need to be neutral (hence the non-involved admin requirement), you need to read the history, understand the sources (sometime one source may apply to several places in the article), undertand the personalities, etc. - it requires impartiality, finesse and expertise, it requires an admin. This is why we make that distinction. It may take a bit longer, sometimes much longer, but we want to be sure to enforce true neutrality and collaboration, not a bunch of one-sided editors with one view ganging up on a single one with an opposite view, for example. That it is sometimes, maybe even often, frustrating, is part of the wiki-challenge, but please don't give up. Crum375 00:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll mention another reason for the different handling of the two types of problems. The vandals are typically hit-and-run editors, often school children playing silly games. Once they get reverted a few times, the game starts getting boring and they move off somewhere else, and possibly, over time, even mature and start to contribute to WP. The tendentious editor OTOH, would not give up so easily. For him/her the edit could be a pressing emotional issue, not something that can be ignored or easily set aside. Therefore, even if you could hypothetically just revert that person, you wouldn't reach a stable state, as s/he would revert right back and start an ugly and highly counterproductive edit war. This is why we need the neutral admin to step in. The admin can not only examine the situation and reach fairly quick conclusions about alleged disruption, but can also block the disruptive user if needed. I personally think it's a good system, with good checks-and-balances built in - for example, if a blocked user complains, s/he could get unblocked if the block is wrong, and/or pursue dispute resolution. So overall I think the policies are very logical. Of course you are welcome to suggest improvements. Crum375 04:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Invisible vandalism?

Somebody with more experience in vandalism should take a look at [2]! The user just inserts random names in articles, and nobody has detected it! --V. Szabolcs 18:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There are occasions with less known or less edited articles where vandalism can remain undetected for days. Its sad that this is the case however it is exceedingly difficult to keep track of articles with very slow edit histories or very few editors working on them or reading them. However I would not look at this as a big issue. Eventually Murphy's Law will catch up with them the more they continue to vandalize notably or unnotably, and whatever bad that could happen to their editing privileges will happen to their editing priveleges or something along that jargon. I'm definitely not a strong theorist that's for sure :P....¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Whenever an act of vandalism of this type is discovered, after fixing it on 'your' article, it is considered a courtesy to then do what you did - scan the vandal's contribs and look for similar acts of the same type that were not yet detected. You'll notice that most are reverted soon enough, but some are not, and it's your duty as Wikipedian to help revert them. If this is not in the WP:VAN page, maybe it should be. Crum375 00:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It already is: "Also, check the vandal's other contributions — you will often find more malicious edits". Crum375 14:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Proper warning for editing comments on talk page?

User BonniePrinceCharlie has a history of insulting users on his/her talk page. For example, on 12/10/06, this user responded to a user's "Assume good faith" message by calling that editor a "fucking shithead." The question I have relates to an incident that occurred earlier today. BonniePrinceCharlie edited [3] a personal attacks warning left on his/her talk page to include the phrase "I like penis," with that phrase attributed to the editor who issued the warning. What is the proper warning template to use for this action? -Trunkalunk 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd start with the {{subst:bv-n|PageName}} (blatant vandal) tag, and escalate to {{subst:test4-n|PageName}}. However, it's apparent that the user doesn't respect or appreciate the vandalism tags, so what's the point? Instead try Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. =Axlq 22:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I was browsing through wikipedia, when I encountered that when you type KFC: it re-directs to "Nigger." I find this highly offensive, and I would for something to happen so that no-one will get offended or have their feelings hurt. Please try and fix this.

Thank you,

Dgd1888

KFC Controversy

I recently encountered, while browsing wikipedia: I found that when you type "KFC" it redirects to "Nigger" I find this Highly offsensive, and I would like to see that it gets fixed, because people will talk about it negatively someday.

Dgd1888 17:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Dgd188

Yep, that was redirect vandalism; in this case it was fixed in about 60 seconds, probably shortly after you saw it. Redirect vandalism can be fixed the same way as any other (browse to an older edit and save that), but requires one additional step to click on the "Redirected from <X>" link at the top of the new target page. -- nae'blis 06:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly...

Remove the picture of child vandalism that says "I love (beep)". I find this highly offensive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.103.220 (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

Hey, thanks for the heads up about the vandalism. Could you be more specific about what page this is on? you can provide a link by typing [[the page's title like this]]. Thanks very much, delldot | talk 23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Real-life childish vandalism
Real-life childish vandalism
They are talking about this image that was recently removed from the project page to which this is the talk page. -- Beardo 10:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

While I find the GIPU section starter a bit of a foolish prude, I don't care for that picture either. Wikipedians are far too casual with the Wikipedia:Wikipedia-space, adding silly images, phrases, et cetera. Vandalism is a serious issue and this image offers nothing. Furthermore, the self censored caption "#@%^!—in place of "Fuck", I assume—Vandals!" or such is hardly appropriate. Like one user told me, revert. We shouldn't create shrines to vandals or adorn our policies and guidelines with stupid images which are suppose to symbolize important concepts. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the image. Wikipedia is supposed to be fun, and there is no reason why we can't have a bit of humor in the Wikipedia: space. Really, people, if you go out of your way to make Wikipedia too unfun, people will leave. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that these type examples are critically needed and they are definitely WP:BEAN. If someone needs fun, they can find lots of it all over the Internet. Crum375 02:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes. I'm sure it has NEVER occurred to anyone to write "PENIS PENIS PENIS" all over a page on Wikipedia. We'd better not give them any ideas. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
As someone who spends way too much time reverting vandalism and adspams, I really don't feel that giving any ideas to prospective vandals is advantageous to WP. Silly vandals are typically quite silly, i.e. they may imitate a silly idea they spot. I see no reason to give them ideas. Crum375 02:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, it would be so terrible for Wikipedia if a random vandal were to see this image and run out to their local park and spend hours changing the picture board to read "I LOVE PENIS". That would do so incalculable damage to Wikipedia. We should probably list the image for deletion, just to be certain, and get a developer to purge all of this discussion permanently from the history, too, just to be absolutely safe. We simply cannot take the risk that someone might engage in petty, reversible vandalism. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not a matter of 'danger' or 'risk'. It is simply that from the perspective of vandal fighting (which this policy is about) we want to minimize the vandalism and reduce our workload in reverting it. If this image does not help reduce that workload (and I believe it doesn't) then it does not belong here. Crum375 03:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's get one thing straight: Wikipedia isn't "supposed to be" anything but a free encyclopedia. We clear, Martin? It can be fun, sure. We all keep coming back for some reason. However, there is no need to place this image on the project page. Just as vandalism outside of Wikipedia doesn't damage this site, obscure references to it don't help, either. Wikipedia policies and guidelines aren't meant to entertain. Plus, this boarders on something for bad jokes and other nonsense.

Seriously, I don't know what's worst: vandalism or the people who ("intentionally") abuse this area. (proj page, talk, etc.) Other than naming conventions, I can't think of any policy or guideline area that has to put up with this much BS. For god's sake...I'm having to tell people not to put irrelevant content on an official policy page meant solely to aid users in understanding Wikipedia vandalism and how to undo it. Meanwhile, a bunch of people use (or want to use) this talk page like a friggin complaints department for general vandalism-related issues thorough the site.

It's like...I'm seeing the exceptions, but where the hell is the common sense? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 05:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you need to loosen up a bit. I was an admin here for over a year, and I certainly have spent plenty of time doing the vandal fighting thing; I know what it's about. And I also wonder how much of Wikipedia space you've really read; a lot of it is really quite funny. So is a lot of the vandalism. Anyway, don't take Wikipedia quite so seriously. Wouldn't want you to burn out or anything. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I can be as lax as the next guy, babe, believe me. I've been around...and seen the "fun". I'm not calling for Wikipedia:Assume bad faith to be deleted, am I? I'm just saying that there are limits. There is a certain need for decency and relevance. If we don't treat this area seriously—and properly—why should anyone else? You add irrelevant images, others maje complaints. Soon, we're treated no more seriously than another essay and become the unofficial Wikipedia complaints department. Or not. I know it's not necessarily a slippery slop, but c'mon. This just isn't the place, okay? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 06:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Can't you people see that it is essential that we keep these vital images? If people are allowed to have images removed from Wikipedia simply because they are meant for fun, the next thing we know, images of puppies, kittens and adult furries will be the next to go. If we want to go down that road, soon enough people will demand that we only have black-and-white images, if any, because color images always color peoples perceptions and sometimes make them smile. If Wikipedia lets the long-faced stoics dictate what we do, it start a trend that leads to removal of colors for the United States flag, prohibition of any facial expression in the halls of Congress and potentially the arrest of election candidates who tell jokes during campaign stops. Please nip this thing in the bud before the very universe collapses. Sincerely, Alexa Chord 20:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Was that supposed to be humorous, or just annoyingly ironic? Feh. If no one has a decent argument or anything constructive to say, I'm considering this case closed. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

AHHH! OMG! Kids, go to the playground and write "I LOVE PENIS" on it! Hurry! And don't tell anyone you're smart enough to use a computer, and somehow magically appear on a page entitled Wikipedia:Vandalism! —Pilotguy (ptt) 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Are you implying an ulterior motive? The original vandal wanted to see their work on Wikipedia? That would be amusing. Still, as I said before, let's end this now and cease the rambling. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Antisemitic Vandalism?

I have noticed that frequently anonymous users appear and quickly make a large number of edits to biographical articles and insert the sentence or phrase "X is Jewish", usually in the very first sentence. There is not inherently anything wrong with including this kind of information, as long as it is incorporated into the content of the article. I do however have a problem putting it front and center in articles unless the individual in question makes their religion/ethnicity central to their public persona. Usually the individual in question is controversial for some reason, and so the anonomous editor is seeking to establish a link between Judaism and some unpopular stance by editing a large number of biographies. I have gotten into the habit of reverting these edits when I see them. Is this problem common? Is this vandalism? Is it something else? Any advice would be appreciated.--Beaker342 07:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's placed inappropriately and they continue after repeated warnings, there's certainly no room left for assuming good faith. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do I have a feeling these folks are running around yelling "Heil Hitler!"? --Luigifan 12:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's productive, Lui. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd feel better if somebody could check a few instances for accuracy just so that we can say that it is definitely beyond all doubt vandalism. Else we leave ourselves open to claims of censorship or whitewashing (it shouldn't take more than 5 minutes of googling to prove that somebody is not Jewish). If an historically ropey person is Jewish, it's not antisemitism to say that they are, but it is vandalism if they are not.
perfectblue 09:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Initially this issue didn't really seem like a major problem for me, as people on Wikipedia are often described as 'African American' or 'Asian American', etc. However, the sheer number of edits being made by (usually anonymous) users is rather disturbing, particularly when these users make no other changes to the encylopaedia, and suggests that there is some sort of ulterior motive to the edits. Chairman S. Talk Contribs 02:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Since nobody has provided any examples, I can't speak with authority on any individual case (as in, it might be obvious/obviously not vandalism once you've seen it, but I haven't seen it so I'm speaking generically here), but has it actually occurred to anybody that these might be genuine edits made by random people who look up a famous Jewish person and then see that their religion is not marked, and so add it in.
I'm also a little concerned that these are being labeled as being bad faith edits, yet nobody appears to have attempted to verify matters. If I were Jewish, or Irish-American, or Mormon, etc, and I saw that a member of my community was not credited in the same way that a member of another race or faith was, I would be inclined to add it in.
For my own peace of mind, could somebody check a few just to be sure.
perfectblue 12:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem of international area...

if a Wikipedia Manager from another country making Vandalism how we can complain them ? Not only me, many members left Turkish Vikipedi just for this reason. Is there any central control for managers ??--Onder K. 18:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "manager". Any user found to be vandalizing Wikipedia in any language should be warned and then blocked, period. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Chances are, if they're manager, or admin or sysop or janitor or powerhungry asshole or whatever you want to call them, they care too much to be a vandal. If they are caught vandalizing, they're treated like any other user; in fact blocked longer because they know better. They may even get de-admined. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 05:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoring a vandalised article

Is there an easy way to revert to a previously saved version of the article in question? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.74.57.174 (talk • contribs) on 22:51, January 2, 2007 (UTC); Please sign your posts!

You're kidding me, right? This must be some kind of joke.
*sigh* hit "undo" and save the page. I suspect, however, that if you know what a "revert" is, you're asking a question you already know the answer to. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Oddly for me, clicking "undo" invariably gives me an editable copy of the same vandalized page, not the previous clean version. I find the "undo" link unreliable, so I just display the edit history, select the correct version, edit, and save it as the current article. It's more cumbersome but it works. I don't know what's wrong with undo; I thought maybe it's the way Proxomitron is handling embedded javascript. =Axlq 03:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You are not alone, Axlq. I had concluded that "Undo" was a non-functioning feature. I revert articles the same way you do. --orlady 04:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't mean to endorse such an obviously unpopular function. I was just sorta replying in kind. ("Stupid question, stupid amswer.") Let's not turn this into "bash unpopular features". Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 04:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're bashing, and I understood the point of your answer. I thought I was alone in my experience with undo, I'm glad it's not just me. The feature would be popular if it worked. The first time I no