![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
A vandal is a person who deliberately damages property, information etc. Vandalism is the act of damaging the property, information etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rage1750 ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 September 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia it seems does not delineate between freedom of expression and the right to protest and vandalism. Wikipedia is supposed to be a viable source of information. In my mind it must also be an "appropriate" source of information. But if we can't conduct peaceful, nonviolent protests on the texts of actual articles which people find disturbing (i.e. queef) what kind of message are we sending across to people who wish to protest but find themselves being blocked as a result of what editors consider "vandalism". I agree with the sentiments expressed by some that a template that has been termed as "nonsense" (Wiki-Protest) should be allowed in order for editors, WPs, and contributors to protest what they consider as harsh, racist, or inappropriate wikipedia articles in a manner outside of the normal spectrum for wikipedia. What do you all think about this? A friend of mine was blocked recently for participating in this kind of protest.
Does this read correctly? If the vandal has been properly warned yet continues, do not report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Admins can't block vandals as per the blocking policy. I would have just changed it but it seems to read that way even in much much older versions of the article. What gives?
Template:WikipediaSister, including on the Main Page, was recently editted to include a Christmas message/advert for a project. While the person that did it could claim the be bold rule I think that the lack of discussion and repeated reversion could be seen as a kind of vandalism. Yes, it was quite appropriate but, at least in it's rather ugly form, it should not have been done. I can see both sides of the argument - anyone got any views? violet/riga (t) 14:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I find that dates of birth and death are particularly vulnerable to sneaky vandalism.
I have a question. The vandalism policy says "Bad Jokes" are an example of vandalism. How is it determinted if a joke is bad? For example, if I were to replace the entire article on "vandalism" with ["This"], I would find that hillarious, and I suspsect many others would as well. Doesn't the vandalism policy contradict the NPOV policy when it talks about bad jokes?
Also, as you can tell from my font, I am following the policy of "being bold" LOL!!
I think that it should be considered vandalism when someone eviscerates an article by deleting large quantities of factual, relevant reference material. NCdave 19:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I created another shortcut: wp:vand
I disagree with the apparent blanket statement that POV edits are not vandalism. There are some cases - particularly where a user continues to restore POV rants that have repeatedly been deleted and go against clearly established consensus - where introduction of POV is indeed vandalism. -- BD2412 talk 15:11, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Is this page official policy? Should it have the {{policy}} template on it? the wub "?/!" 09:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see Hoaxes being described as vanadalism, and "Hoax from known vandal" as a reason for a speedy delete. But "Hoax" is not included in the list of types of vandalism. Should it be? DES 18:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
If it was meant to trick somebody on purpose, then yes. But if it is reporting a hoax (like debunking urban legends or the Report from Iron Mountain article, then it is acceptable. Davidizer13 17:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
There is an RfC currently in progress against a user who has, among other violations of Wikiquette, deleted other Wikipedians' comments from talk pages. The allegations against the user include vandalism because of the deletion of comments from talk pages. My question is: Is this considered vandalism?
In reading the definitions of vandalism, that appears to me to be a gray area of definition. I see that the blanking of pages, whether talk pages or articles, is vandalism. The blanking of sections from an article is not necessarily vandalism. It may be a bold (or reckless) edit.
It is clear enough that the deletion of posts by other users on talk pages is a serious breach of Wikiquette. It interferes with the function of the talk page to be a cumulative archive of comments. It has been my understanding that the only edits one could perform on material already in talk pages would be minor edits to one's own posts, e.g., to correct typos.
If it isn't vandalism, there should be another policy forbidding it. If it is vandalism, I would suggest that this official policy be modified slightly to include improper alteration of talk pages as a form of vandalism. Robert McClenon 00:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I will not correct typos in the comment of others, by the way. That is not up to me. Robert McClenon 01:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Twice now I've had people delete my comments from discussion sections of a page and after I point out that is vandalism they point to wiki policy and state its vandalism and they can remove other peoples comments all they like. As far as I am concerned deletion of peoples posts in discussion (and I am talking selective discussion, not removal of old information) is vandalism and I will always call people on it. Alyeska 22:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I've added this to the page: "However, Wikipedia now only allows users with 25 edits or above to make page moves". I wonder if it's exactly 25 edits, or is it 20 edits? Those who have fewer than 20/25 edits should post at Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Stevey7788 ( talk) 00:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I have added "Official policy vandalism" to the list of types of vandalism. It consists of deleting or altering portions of an official policy with which the vandal disagrees. A recent example is Dot-Six. Robert McClenon 15:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
If somebody thinks that something is included to the official policy (i.e. agreeing to the policy), that should be considered as non-vandalism. Not to mention, new forms of vandalism on Wikipedia may be discovered. -- SuperDude 20:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
What I was referring to was deleting paragraphs from official policies. Attempting to improve the wording of a policy is not vandalism. It should be done cautiously, but is not vandalism. Deleting paragraphs from a policy, or changing the meaning of the policy, should be considered a form of vandalism.
The statement that new forms of vandalism may be discovered and will have to be dealt with is true. Robert McClenon 22:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think adding articles in foreign language should count as vandalism. It's more likely to be a newbie not realizing the different wikipedias, or realizing that there are other langs but thinking en: is THE only wikipedia. These usually are tagged {{notenglish}} and sent to WP:PNT. Usually a gentle warning and a point to the right place works better. On the other hand, 100% copy texts from other wikis, even after being asking not to would classify, but I htink that could be included into some other vand type. < drini ☎> 19:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
It should be a candidate for movement, not vandalism, since it is now obvious (from the Wikipedia front @ wikipedia.org) that there are many languages of Wikipedia over about 50K articles. Davidizer13 17:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Why was an NPOV tag put on the vandalism article page? I will remove it if a statement is not added on this talk page as to what the neutrality dispute is. Robert McClenon 23:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Subtantially changing other people's comments (and in particular, their votes on anything) is, to my knowledge, strongly frowned upon by the community as a whole, and can easily get the offender blocked. As such I thought it was best to add it here. R adiant _>|< 18:17, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I enjoy wikipedia vandalism very much and have absolutely no intention of stopping whatsoever. However, I don't see why it should be only me taking pleasure from it, and thus I propose that you guys recommend articles that you would like me to vandalise, perhaps by sending me a message on my talk page. Perhaps there's a user you don't like? Don't worry, I'll sort them out...
Alternatively, I will have to continue random blanking, long, stupid articles, predjudiced statements, or (my personal favourite) page move vandalism. -- Hardcoregaybuggery 21:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
If I understand this, hoaxes, although they may be removed through Afd, are not considered to be vandalism. I would recommend rethinking that. - WCFrancis 01:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there a process for dealing with an IP which is clearly being used by a range of people possibly sharing a PC resource somewhere. eg User:213.18.248.24 . The range of different types of attack show this is not a single person so warning messages are pointless. Lumos3 13:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The following text was posted on the Wikipedia:Vandalism article page (in place of the now-reverted content). It would have been a valid statement except that it was an example of what it condemned. -+ Robert McClenon 16:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism is bad. Plz stop it everyone! How will u feel if somebody destroys a piece of work u hav spent a lot of time doing?
Plz stop.
Thank you.
Let us make the Internet a better place to live, play and work in.
Originally read, "Despite being severely disabled by Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), a form of Motor Neurone Disease, he is highly active in physics, writing, and public life."
I decided to settle a bet with my professor that wikipedia is not credible by creating an account and noting that he was also an avid bicyclist. Within 5 minutes a moderator came and corrected my error. Thank you for demonstrating that you are indeed credible
A change was just made to the definition of vandalism that seems overly expansive. Vandalism has previously defined as any unquestionably bad-faith change to the encyclopedia. The change made by {User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] now appears to redefine vandalism as any change that compromises the content of the encylopedia, whether intended or unintended. I disagree. That change would appear to include reckless edits. I don't want to start an edit war, so I won't revert it immediately. However, can someone justify this change? It would appear to give admins the right to block anybody for any change with which they disagree. Robert McClenon 17:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I've come across a problem, especially at pop-music articles, which seems to me to be low-level vandalism, but which isn't covered in the article's definitions (so far as I can see). Typically, I'll go through a set of articles, perhaps on the albums or singles of a certain performer, bringing it into line with the MoS (removing multiply duplicated links, removing irrelevant links (such as months, seasons, etc.), correcting links that need piping, changing hyphens to dashes, changing Christian names to surnames, correcting titles in line with the naming conventions, expanding abbreviations, and so on. The main editors then revert all my changes wholesale (often dubbing them "vandalism", and continue to revert them, no matter how often I explain what I'm doing, point them in the direction of the MoS and other documents, etc. The intervention of other editors usually does no good either; most of the editors want the articles to look like what they find in fanzines, the music press, etc., and are quite open about not giving a damn for Wikipedia policies and styles.
To make the mistakes in the first place clearly isn't vandalism; to revert my changes is also not vandalism (though it's irritating and poor editing), but to do it repeatedly is low-level vandalism, I think.
Any opinions on this? If there's general agreement with me, could something be added to the definitions? If there's general disagreement, could people suggest ways of dealing with this — it's a huge problem, and has caused many editors to give up in frustration (the most recent being User:FuriousFreddy). The editors involved are extremely stubborn, and often aggressive to the point of hysteria. Most experienced editors avoid this area of Wikipedia, and to be honest I don't blame them — but I don't feel that I can walk away now. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I must admit that my previous experience with this editor (concerning his unexplained blanking of another User and Talk page), in which he simply ignored and deleted my comments on his Talk page, and his edit-summary descriptions of my editing in accordance with the MoS as "vandalism", probably influenced my attitude to his actions. If it hadn't been for that, I'd have explained earlier. Note, though, that when my edits were carefully explained to him, it had no effect whatsoever on his behaviour.
Note also that my question, though prompted by this set of articles, is much wider, and doesn't hang on what happened with BGC. To repeat: I'm not saying that "edits contrary to the Manual of Style qualify as vandalism", but that persistent reverting of edits that bring an article in line with the MoS and with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, after those edits have been explained, should count as low-level vandalism. If a certain editor or group of editors disagree with the MoS, then it's of course open to them to propose that it be changed — but until then, surely, the MoS should be followed, and those bringing articles into line with it shouldn't be harrassed and resisted.
Incidentally, one or two other editors have mentioned the use of rollback. I can't find any account of restrictions on its use (and no-one else has been able to help). I take it that there are two main problems with it: first, it labels the edit as minor, and secondly, it generates an edit summary that merely says who was reverted, and back to whom. Edits that only change style are minor, and once the edits have been explained there's nothing more to be said in the edit summary. I'm not sure, then, what the objection is to the use of rollback in this sort of case. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I've had my share of problems with Mel, though it wasn't about music articles. The problem with Mel is that he treats the work of other people with maximum disrespect. He makes you feel like a dumbass. If one makes a few errors, or if their language skill doesn't live up to his standards, he will not hessitate in saying that your English is bad. Another user, who was Asian, and whose English wasn't very fluently, was constantly insulted by Mel to the point that he stopped editing (see my talk-page).
Mel even rolled back my own talk-page. To be honest, he only did it once and I got over it; but what still bothers me is the way he treated my article on Battle of Vaslui. Again, if I have to be honest, I will admit that he fixed a few things - a few things which would have taken me more time to fix. However, I don't agree with his edits on the Suleyman dispute and I also don't agree with him on the Danube argument (see my talk-page). When Mel cannot revert the articles (because of the third-revert rule), he will bring back-up. That back-up reverted the Vaslui article and my user-page.
Mel also managed to upset Bryan Adams. Yes, the artist himself. His assistant tried to fix a few things, only to have her edits reverted - over and over again. She tried to explain that she's Bryan's assistant and she tried to prove it by posting the email to the official site. I emailed her and, true enough, she confirmed her identity to me. Mel refused to verify her claims and he persisted on asking for sources. She is his assistant and she proved it quite clearly! The email was authentic! She is the ultimate axiom when it comes to factual accuracy on Bryan Adams! (see the discussion talk-page)
Mel does contribute to Wiki, but he also works against it and its users. All people, of all backgrounds and education skills, should feel welcome in contributing to this Free Encyclopedia. I'm more cautious now. Since our conflict started, my number of edits have dropped, and since then, I have only written one stub article. My activity used to be higher. I asked other people for assistance, but only those who had problems with Mel symphatized with me. True enough, I lost my temper and I insulted Mel. I still think he deserved it. -- Anittas 20:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I asked you to leave me alone, but you kept following me around. I reverted my own talk-page one or two times. I believe I have that right. The rest of your insults are still there, as are mine. What things distort the truth about the Bryan Adams incident? Are you saying that I'm manipulating the truth or that the person in question is not Bryan's assistant? I encourage everyone to go there and see for them selves. Click on 'history', if you will, and have everything checked up. Seriously, tho: how does it feel to upset a celebrity? In a rather bizzare way, I'm jealous. :D -- Anittas 22:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I got here via a link from the Village pump. Aren't we talking about whether or not edits contrary to the Manual of Style are vandalism, not the actions of one particular admin? Let's get back on track people.
I think that because style changes can be both good faith and mixed with content edits, we should not extend the definition of vandalism to extend to style violations. There's a sort of de facto standard that flagrant style violations are vandalism: if I were to take the first sentence of an article, and make the letter big, I'd probably get reverted. Maybe even by rollback (even though it's not really mass vandalism). This is further exacerbated by the fact that admins often use rollback in more iffy cases, and this is tolerated by the community.
So, I say the way things are right now are fine. Style disputes go in with content disputes, if the prevailing editor won't budge, file a request for comment or mediation or whatever, because the problem is probably an indicator of a deeper misunderstanding between the two parties. It may be difficult to develop consensus over all articles in Wikipedia, but it can be done. This is a user problem, whether it be good-faithed misunderstunding or bad-faithed disruption, and diplomatic conversation should occur rathering the labeling of "vandalism" to these editors. — Ambush Commander( Talk) 23:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I started several articles on Wiki, in which other people contributed to. Many of those people fixed my grammar errors. I never had a problem with that. I'm not insane, you know. This isn't about Mel doing honest editing. It's about something else. I'm tired of repeating my self. I know you've read what has been said, Ann. You know what transpired and I'm sure you understand that the problems doesn't lie in Mel's grammar corrections. I still believe he is wrong on the Danube argument. That article, in my opinion, remains awkward in that section. If Mel wanted to make peace with us all, he could have done so. Instead, he persists on treating us like mere objects - with a cold and disrespectful approach. I'm sure that all people, here, would like to go back to status quo with Mel. -- Anittas 00:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
In my experience, the style of many music-related articles is way unencyclopedic. There are a very few exceptions which, although not MoS compliant are so brilliantly and rollickingly written it doesn't matter a wit but more wontedly they can be a dreadful read and yes, they do seem to be somewhat "owned." This may come down to consensus. Do WP editors and readers prefer a fanzine style for most pop music articles? Wyss 00:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, just my two cents but I think that the MoS should be followed no matter what or who is involved. If they don't stop and are stubborn, I would not be too adverse to blocking them for say, 15 minutes, leaving a note on the page talk and user talk about the MoS and just tell them not to revert you again. I also concur that you probably shouldn't use the admin rollback tool for this but rather use edit summaries that link to the manual of style somewhere. Anyways, that's just me and I can't say I've seen this happen before. Sasquatch t| c 01:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
There are instructions at Repeat-pattern vandalism for detecting a vandal making multiple vandalisms. I'd kind of like it to also be under Dealing with vandalism so people remember to check if the same person has made any other vandalisms, but that would be duplicated. What is opinion on making a note under dealing with vandalism to remind people to check other edits? RJFJR 15:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Example {{subst:User:Adam1213/tsandbox}}
<--To edit this template without stuffing this up you need to: goto Preferences turn on raw signatures Make your nickname -- ```` (with shift) Made by adam1213 -->
☺Adam1213☺| talk 05:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Four warnings seems like a lot. Does anyone continue vandalism after the third but stop after the fourth? I propose that the second and third warnings be replaced by one intermediate in strength. — ciphergoth 07:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Admins need to be CLEAR that they are admins when posting comments. I read a comment on my talk page and have no idea it's an admin then they say Ok this is your third warning. And that's fair? No. Wjhonson 16:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
For shared IPs, I think it might be a good idea to have an explanatory message to ensure that others using the IP don't get bitten. This could be an additional template to add at the top of the user talk page. I made a draft at Template talk:Test2. The idea is that this would be an extra template to add the top of a user talk page when adding the usual messages, ensuring that users sharing the IP with a vandal don't feel the messages are necessarily addressed to them. Rd232 21:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems that someone has vandalized the page about vandalism.
I think we need an alternative to the current test1. I don't think we should start out thanking vandals for vandalizing. Bubba73 (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe the featured page should be frozen because it is highly vandalized-- two days ago I watched it and everything popped up from BS to photographs of genetalia. Agreed?
I can understand what an offensive GIF might be, but malicious? What's that supposed to mean? -- Zetawoof 21:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Does anybody else think that WP:POINT should be added as another example of something which is not vandalism. I've been in a conflict where one user has accused another of vandalism based on something which, imo, comes more close to being a WP:POINT violation. I think the current gist of this page strongly suggests that WP:POINT violations wouldn't qualify as vandalism, but I think it might do us good to be more explicit on this front. john k 17:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
How is vandalism defined with regard to talk pages? For instance, Talk:P-block has comments similar to garden-variety article-namespace vandalism, but it's a talk page, so it should be subject to a different set of rules, no? -- Smack ( talk) 22:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I have noticed that most of the vandals I have encountered are those with no user accounts, just IP addresses. Why doesn't Wikipedia just make editing open to those with user accounts? Sure it wouldn't completely wipe out the vandalism problem, but it would help it at the very least. It is also still open to anybody to edit, but it will discourage those vandals who just vandalize it because they are on the site and are fascinated about being able to change a webpage for an internet encyclopedia. Croat Canuck 03:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Here is another thought don't change IP 'saves' immediately, instead redirect them to recent changes patrol for approval. Once approval they can be save them on the page. Also I think the wiki policy is too strict, all I did is make a joke edit and I got a warning to stop vandalising Wikipedia! It was a very funny joke!!!!(To me at least, administrators have not sense of humour!) I think a few light hearted jokes on wikipedia wouldn't or at least shouldn't hurt; don't you? Adding a few to a few articles could really losen up Wikipedia, or put a jokes related to that article section on each article like the 'also see' section. Heck, there could even be a jokes portal for jokes of all kind divided into articles. For the warning templates, a suggestion, instead of subst:test2, subst:test2a or subst:test3; how about subst:test3a/and or subst:test2b: Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you enjoy vandalising please try Uncyclopedia. Thank you. I think the aforementioned suggestions would serve to reduce vandalism on quite a bit on Wikipedia, without violating the anyone can edit policy :) by the way I am a IP/non member :D 24.43.51.199 01:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I have posted this idea on Anti-vandalism ideas in meta-wiki, but I thought I might post it here too...for your information. Since I have started to grow weary of vandalism (haven't we all?) I have come up with an idea. I am a programmer myself, and it is possible that this idea has been discussed before, and/or has too serious disadvantages, but I thought I might aswell share it with you.
Many vandalisms I have encountered concerns the removal of an entire page, replacing it with obscene and/or funny words.
My idea is to re-program the edit-process (i.e when the user hits the "Save Page" button) so that (current page = presumed unvandalized page, new page = presumed vandalized page)
I know there is at least one problem with the idea; when a page needs to be deleted, removed, redirected...etc. One solution to deal with the redirection issue is to insert the following exception into the pseudo-code above:
To solve this, the idea must be put forward to developers. As I said, I don't know if the idea is good or bad, but I thought it would be of interest anyway. If it is bad, it might nevertheless give rise to better ideas. I'd be thankful for feedback and all kinds of opinions. If you wish to contact me, please use my talk page in Wikipedia: my talk page
Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 18:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Remember when Pope Benedict was getting all that vandalism is it still happening? -- Maoririder 21:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Yes. That is still a frequently vandalized and frequently restored article, as are a number of other prominent people. Robert McClenon 21:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
How can one tell vandalisim from a glitch, like what happened when the HTML Tidy program malfunctioned, taking this site down and may have caused some Vandal reports, due to this malfunction ? Can this be moved to User Talk:Martial Law ? Martial Law 07:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
"Is this page official policy? Should it have the {{ policy}} template on it? the wub "?/!" 09:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)" This question was ignored completely, so I'm forced to bring it up again. Are we somehow afraid to strongly forbid one of the greatest harms to this encyclopedia? I hope not. If there is no objection, I will add the template in two weeks. Superm401 | Talk 03:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Like the Andy Milonakis article, this page itself is now prone to presistent vandalism. Will somebody lock this page from editing? (unsigned comment from anon).
If you are somebody who works on vandal on WP, please take a look at my userpage since I take time to look into every user creation log to be sure they are not vandal. The real vandalists have a vandal associated to their name and the ones that should be blocked have the mention soll block. Lincher 23:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyone got any ideas on implementing a "contributions" counter and putting that digit on the RC list? Might be a bit of computing overhead, but hey, what are computers for? Profiling based on the appearance of an IP address rather than a username is somewhat prejudicial, IMO, and having people looking at users of all kinds with very few edits would be more profitable. More effective as a mentoring process as well.
Or maybe the fix should be that edits made by people with some small number of edits are noted in a "New User Edit" list separate from the RC list.
I think I'll go mention this idea on the feature request page.
-- 216.237.179.238 17:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Honestly some of these vandalisms are funny.... the sound like they were written by a teenager cussing for the first time- Reid A. 11:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I've cut out the test templates as they're not really the tool for the job for vandalism - they're for newbie users making mistakes, not people adding "u sux cock" to articles. True vandals don't need four warnings - a polite "please contribute usefully, we're watching" message followed up by a "stop or be blocked" is all that is needed, hence the new templates. There's no point giving vandals such a long leash - they know what they are doing. Dan100 ( Talk) 11:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
I think the current 4 warning system is fine. The first test warning seems to work well on first time offenders. It calmly conveys the message that their edits will not go unchecked. The following 3 show a good progression and seem effective enough. Based on what I've seen, most vandals quiet down after they receive a test3. PJM 14:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
"objecting to offering both is inexplicable - please explain on talk".
Dan100.
Perhaps you should have proposed this here first, instead of just rushing in, once again like last time, when you know this is an issue a lot of people have a say in, and that will have objections.
Seen as my viewpoint didn't seem to sink in last time, I will say it once more in Mickey Mouse form:
This is just the tip of the iceberg, and I would implore you not to make any more changes to templates without pre-discussing......your subtle attempts at changing the templates against consensus and using the Straw man technique are becoming tiresome. Agent Blightsoot 18:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
First I must remind you of the rule of no personal attacks.
Second, if what you say about the behaviour of RC patrollers is true, then edit the page to reflect that. In the mean time... Dan100 ( Talk) 10:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I opposing your views in a slightly heightened manner because you completely ignored what I said (Which incidentally you've done again) is a method of debate. We're not getting anywhere by you refusing to discuss this and flaunting your nupedia badge. I also didn't mention RC patrollers once,
I pointed out the obvious downsides to your proposed system, with the old one, and the old one clearly is better.
You seem to ignore my points though, having not bothering to argue a point of view for a new system, but instead have decided to go around changing the system willy-nilly despite the opposition of everyone who has discussed this issue, and the support of no one.
You seem to think you can hide behind you "being here since Nupedia" (not the only one) and your adminship.....
how about setting down here in bullet point form, the need for such radical changes? I think you should listen to other people's views and take note, whether you deem them "experienced" or not.
It's up to you really....I've made a compelling case, along with PJM, on keeping the status quo, but you seem bent on getting your own way without cause for anyone elses viewpoint, by using either underhand tactics or completely ignoring everyone.
If you don't wish to take part in step one of the resolving disputes outline (Which so far you have avoided), then I'll happily seek other avenues.
Agent Blightsoot 13:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Concluding Points
Blightsoot, if you believe people are using the existing templates differently to how this page desscribes, then why don't you update this page accordingly? But I must emphasise this one point again: it is not hard to differentiate newbie tests and vandalism - that's what the bulk of this page explains! Dan100 ( Talk) 09:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I entered this on the list a while ago - someone (can't remember who) simply deleted it without any justification or explanation. I suppose he/she figures that such stuff is an unnecessary formality. In any event, rather than reinstate it I'll explain it first, wait for a discussion, and then reinstate it.
The practice here is when an editor (for reasons that are irrelevant) reverts a whole set of edits because he/she disagrees with one point in it. To illustrate the point, let's imagine editor A rewrites an entire paragraph for purposes that are also irrelevant. In doing so, let's imagine that editor A confuses "its" and "it's." The vandal reverts the entire edit, blaming the single mistake. In all likelihood, the single mistake is just a pretext for other motivations that the vandal either doesn't want to, or can't be bothered to, explain.
In my mind, this is vandalism - it destroys good faith edits by others, does nothing to further the quality of the articles, and only serves to discourage editors from trying to improve articles. -- Leifern 02:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there a way to find the IP addresses of registered users? I've been asked a few odd questions by a registered user and then my user page was blanked out by a non-registered user. Both happened within a week and I'd never had any problem in the months before. I want to find out if the registered user and the non-registered user are the same. Thanks! :) wknight94 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's define an "edit" simply as a modification to a wikipedia page. There are basically two kinds of edits - those that would enable someone to know more about the article subject, and those that would hinder someone from learning about the article subject. Edits in the first class are constructive, so that will be called "good" edits, edits in the second class will be called "bad" edits. I submit that bad edits (vandalism and good-faith mistakes) should not be applied in the first place, since they run counter to the fundamental purpose of wikipedia - to help people learn more about stuff.
The classification of edits into "good" and "bad" is analagous to normal and spam email. A "bad" edit hinders information and wastes time - similarly, a "bad" email hinders information (e.g. a phishing scheme) and wastes tons of time. Letting vandalism into articles and applying a fix after the fact is analagous to leaving spam in your inbox, and rather than deleting it, inserting another message saying "that was spam". Today, we have become conditioned to not even treating spam in the same category as legitimate e-mail - so it should be with "bad" edits, which includes all vandalism.
Fortuntately, there is a large band of people willing to root out vandalism. Unfortunately, their effors are applied sub-optimally. A simple scheme to allow users to classify edits and help identify vandals could be:
Changes should be given a vandalism score based on content (say from 1 to 10, with 10 being likely vandalism). Users can have only one change in the queue at a time. The vandalism score drops over time, perhaps scaled by the score (score = number of minutes before dropping). People on patrol can either increase or decrease the vandalism score of a given change. Once it goes above 10, the message is discarded and the user is blocked. Once it hits 0, the change is applied. Most legitimate changes (e.g. the change does contain the word PENIZZ or does not remove the entire article) will be scored low (1 or 2) and applied quickly (1 or 3 minutes). Users on vandalism patrol can see all recent changes sorted by vandalism score in order to focus efforts. Rather then spend time looking at changes that have already been reverted, all people need to do is validate the conclusions of the builtin vandalism detector and those of other users. As part of this scheme, the system would develop a huge database of confirmed vandalism attempts. This can be utilized by techniques such as bayesian filtering to further improve vandalism detection.
Tiki2099 19:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I wanted to do some anti-vandalism after school, and Lupins tool only seemed to refresh only every minute(may be lag or something else), so I got the IRC server details, and put them onto CGIIRC on my website [1]. If anyone likes the idea, say so Sceptre ( Talk) 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Probably is my browser - it's Opera. I'll spread the link around a bit if you don't mind Dan100 ( Talk) 09:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Guys, you should probably have Sean Black re-read the vandalism policies, or stop going by his own personal policy. I just presented a case involving user page vandalism, link vandalism, and abuse of tags (a trifecta), and he dismissed the entire thing as a content dispute. Alternatively, this might be a good reason to stop giving pubescent 15-year olds administrative powers over encyclopedias involving hundreds of thousands of people. Tommstein 10:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
This policy page works great for articles, but it doesn't say anything about talk pages. What constitutes vandalism of a talk page, and how should we respond to it? -- Smack ( talk) 19:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I came across what looked like vandalism to me, and I was wondering if I should notify the admins about it. Having read this article made me want to ask you guys first, because I'm still not sure, and I don't want to take up precious admins' time, lest more serious cases are longer left unhandled. The thing is, user User:82.230.109.93 has repeatedly been editing the November 30 and December 28 articles, and changing the short description of mr. Guy Debord to "human being, enemy". What made me question whether or not to alarm the admins are the facts that:
On the minus side, all of this user's edits (except for the two they made to the Guy Debord article) are vandalous! What do you think I should do? Should I report it? Toon 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I am trying to nominate this page for deletion for obvious reasons. how am i suppose to tag it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Parys ( talk • contribs)
What is it in Wikipedia, and who decides if a external link is inappropriate ? Can the answer be moved to my Talk page ? Martial Law 05:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
A vandal is a person who deliberately damages property, information etc. Vandalism is the act of damaging the property, information etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rage1750 ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 September 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia it seems does not delineate between freedom of expression and the right to protest and vandalism. Wikipedia is supposed to be a viable source of information. In my mind it must also be an "appropriate" source of information. But if we can't conduct peaceful, nonviolent protests on the texts of actual articles which people find disturbing (i.e. queef) what kind of message are we sending across to people who wish to protest but find themselves being blocked as a result of what editors consider "vandalism". I agree with the sentiments expressed by some that a template that has been termed as "nonsense" (Wiki-Protest) should be allowed in order for editors, WPs, and contributors to protest what they consider as harsh, racist, or inappropriate wikipedia articles in a manner outside of the normal spectrum for wikipedia. What do you all think about this? A friend of mine was blocked recently for participating in this kind of protest.
Does this read correctly? If the vandal has been properly warned yet continues, do not report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Admins can't block vandals as per the blocking policy. I would have just changed it but it seems to read that way even in much much older versions of the article. What gives?
Template:WikipediaSister, including on the Main Page, was recently editted to include a Christmas message/advert for a project. While the person that did it could claim the be bold rule I think that the lack of discussion and repeated reversion could be seen as a kind of vandalism. Yes, it was quite appropriate but, at least in it's rather ugly form, it should not have been done. I can see both sides of the argument - anyone got any views? violet/riga (t) 14:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I find that dates of birth and death are particularly vulnerable to sneaky vandalism.
I have a question. The vandalism policy says "Bad Jokes" are an example of vandalism. How is it determinted if a joke is bad? For example, if I were to replace the entire article on "vandalism" with ["This"], I would find that hillarious, and I suspsect many others would as well. Doesn't the vandalism policy contradict the NPOV policy when it talks about bad jokes?
Also, as you can tell from my font, I am following the policy of "being bold" LOL!!
I think that it should be considered vandalism when someone eviscerates an article by deleting large quantities of factual, relevant reference material. NCdave 19:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I created another shortcut: wp:vand
I disagree with the apparent blanket statement that POV edits are not vandalism. There are some cases - particularly where a user continues to restore POV rants that have repeatedly been deleted and go against clearly established consensus - where introduction of POV is indeed vandalism. -- BD2412 talk 15:11, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
Is this page official policy? Should it have the {{policy}} template on it? the wub "?/!" 09:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see Hoaxes being described as vanadalism, and "Hoax from known vandal" as a reason for a speedy delete. But "Hoax" is not included in the list of types of vandalism. Should it be? DES 18:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
If it was meant to trick somebody on purpose, then yes. But if it is reporting a hoax (like debunking urban legends or the Report from Iron Mountain article, then it is acceptable. Davidizer13 17:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
There is an RfC currently in progress against a user who has, among other violations of Wikiquette, deleted other Wikipedians' comments from talk pages. The allegations against the user include vandalism because of the deletion of comments from talk pages. My question is: Is this considered vandalism?
In reading the definitions of vandalism, that appears to me to be a gray area of definition. I see that the blanking of pages, whether talk pages or articles, is vandalism. The blanking of sections from an article is not necessarily vandalism. It may be a bold (or reckless) edit.
It is clear enough that the deletion of posts by other users on talk pages is a serious breach of Wikiquette. It interferes with the function of the talk page to be a cumulative archive of comments. It has been my understanding that the only edits one could perform on material already in talk pages would be minor edits to one's own posts, e.g., to correct typos.
If it isn't vandalism, there should be another policy forbidding it. If it is vandalism, I would suggest that this official policy be modified slightly to include improper alteration of talk pages as a form of vandalism. Robert McClenon 00:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I will not correct typos in the comment of others, by the way. That is not up to me. Robert McClenon 01:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Twice now I've had people delete my comments from discussion sections of a page and after I point out that is vandalism they point to wiki policy and state its vandalism and they can remove other peoples comments all they like. As far as I am concerned deletion of peoples posts in discussion (and I am talking selective discussion, not removal of old information) is vandalism and I will always call people on it. Alyeska 22:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I've added this to the page: "However, Wikipedia now only allows users with 25 edits or above to make page moves". I wonder if it's exactly 25 edits, or is it 20 edits? Those who have fewer than 20/25 edits should post at Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Stevey7788 ( talk) 00:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I have added "Official policy vandalism" to the list of types of vandalism. It consists of deleting or altering portions of an official policy with which the vandal disagrees. A recent example is Dot-Six. Robert McClenon 15:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
If somebody thinks that something is included to the official policy (i.e. agreeing to the policy), that should be considered as non-vandalism. Not to mention, new forms of vandalism on Wikipedia may be discovered. -- SuperDude 20:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
What I was referring to was deleting paragraphs from official policies. Attempting to improve the wording of a policy is not vandalism. It should be done cautiously, but is not vandalism. Deleting paragraphs from a policy, or changing the meaning of the policy, should be considered a form of vandalism.
The statement that new forms of vandalism may be discovered and will have to be dealt with is true. Robert McClenon 22:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't think adding articles in foreign language should count as vandalism. It's more likely to be a newbie not realizing the different wikipedias, or realizing that there are other langs but thinking en: is THE only wikipedia. These usually are tagged {{notenglish}} and sent to WP:PNT. Usually a gentle warning and a point to the right place works better. On the other hand, 100% copy texts from other wikis, even after being asking not to would classify, but I htink that could be included into some other vand type. < drini ☎> 19:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
It should be a candidate for movement, not vandalism, since it is now obvious (from the Wikipedia front @ wikipedia.org) that there are many languages of Wikipedia over about 50K articles. Davidizer13 17:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Why was an NPOV tag put on the vandalism article page? I will remove it if a statement is not added on this talk page as to what the neutrality dispute is. Robert McClenon 23:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Subtantially changing other people's comments (and in particular, their votes on anything) is, to my knowledge, strongly frowned upon by the community as a whole, and can easily get the offender blocked. As such I thought it was best to add it here. R adiant _>|< 18:17, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
I enjoy wikipedia vandalism very much and have absolutely no intention of stopping whatsoever. However, I don't see why it should be only me taking pleasure from it, and thus I propose that you guys recommend articles that you would like me to vandalise, perhaps by sending me a message on my talk page. Perhaps there's a user you don't like? Don't worry, I'll sort them out...
Alternatively, I will have to continue random blanking, long, stupid articles, predjudiced statements, or (my personal favourite) page move vandalism. -- Hardcoregaybuggery 21:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
If I understand this, hoaxes, although they may be removed through Afd, are not considered to be vandalism. I would recommend rethinking that. - WCFrancis 01:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there a process for dealing with an IP which is clearly being used by a range of people possibly sharing a PC resource somewhere. eg User:213.18.248.24 . The range of different types of attack show this is not a single person so warning messages are pointless. Lumos3 13:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The following text was posted on the Wikipedia:Vandalism article page (in place of the now-reverted content). It would have been a valid statement except that it was an example of what it condemned. -+ Robert McClenon 16:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism is bad. Plz stop it everyone! How will u feel if somebody destroys a piece of work u hav spent a lot of time doing?
Plz stop.
Thank you.
Let us make the Internet a better place to live, play and work in.
Originally read, "Despite being severely disabled by Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), a form of Motor Neurone Disease, he is highly active in physics, writing, and public life."
I decided to settle a bet with my professor that wikipedia is not credible by creating an account and noting that he was also an avid bicyclist. Within 5 minutes a moderator came and corrected my error. Thank you for demonstrating that you are indeed credible
A change was just made to the definition of vandalism that seems overly expansive. Vandalism has previously defined as any unquestionably bad-faith change to the encyclopedia. The change made by {User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] now appears to redefine vandalism as any change that compromises the content of the encylopedia, whether intended or unintended. I disagree. That change would appear to include reckless edits. I don't want to start an edit war, so I won't revert it immediately. However, can someone justify this change? It would appear to give admins the right to block anybody for any change with which they disagree. Robert McClenon 17:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I've come across a problem, especially at pop-music articles, which seems to me to be low-level vandalism, but which isn't covered in the article's definitions (so far as I can see). Typically, I'll go through a set of articles, perhaps on the albums or singles of a certain performer, bringing it into line with the MoS (removing multiply duplicated links, removing irrelevant links (such as months, seasons, etc.), correcting links that need piping, changing hyphens to dashes, changing Christian names to surnames, correcting titles in line with the naming conventions, expanding abbreviations, and so on. The main editors then revert all my changes wholesale (often dubbing them "vandalism", and continue to revert them, no matter how often I explain what I'm doing, point them in the direction of the MoS and other documents, etc. The intervention of other editors usually does no good either; most of the editors want the articles to look like what they find in fanzines, the music press, etc., and are quite open about not giving a damn for Wikipedia policies and styles.
To make the mistakes in the first place clearly isn't vandalism; to revert my changes is also not vandalism (though it's irritating and poor editing), but to do it repeatedly is low-level vandalism, I think.
Any opinions on this? If there's general agreement with me, could something be added to the definitions? If there's general disagreement, could people suggest ways of dealing with this — it's a huge problem, and has caused many editors to give up in frustration (the most recent being User:FuriousFreddy). The editors involved are extremely stubborn, and often aggressive to the point of hysteria. Most experienced editors avoid this area of Wikipedia, and to be honest I don't blame them — but I don't feel that I can walk away now. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 10:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I must admit that my previous experience with this editor (concerning his unexplained blanking of another User and Talk page), in which he simply ignored and deleted my comments on his Talk page, and his edit-summary descriptions of my editing in accordance with the MoS as "vandalism", probably influenced my attitude to his actions. If it hadn't been for that, I'd have explained earlier. Note, though, that when my edits were carefully explained to him, it had no effect whatsoever on his behaviour.
Note also that my question, though prompted by this set of articles, is much wider, and doesn't hang on what happened with BGC. To repeat: I'm not saying that "edits contrary to the Manual of Style qualify as vandalism", but that persistent reverting of edits that bring an article in line with the MoS and with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, after those edits have been explained, should count as low-level vandalism. If a certain editor or group of editors disagree with the MoS, then it's of course open to them to propose that it be changed — but until then, surely, the MoS should be followed, and those bringing articles into line with it shouldn't be harrassed and resisted.
Incidentally, one or two other editors have mentioned the use of rollback. I can't find any account of restrictions on its use (and no-one else has been able to help). I take it that there are two main problems with it: first, it labels the edit as minor, and secondly, it generates an edit summary that merely says who was reverted, and back to whom. Edits that only change style are minor, and once the edits have been explained there's nothing more to be said in the edit summary. I'm not sure, then, what the objection is to the use of rollback in this sort of case. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 16:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I've had my share of problems with Mel, though it wasn't about music articles. The problem with Mel is that he treats the work of other people with maximum disrespect. He makes you feel like a dumbass. If one makes a few errors, or if their language skill doesn't live up to his standards, he will not hessitate in saying that your English is bad. Another user, who was Asian, and whose English wasn't very fluently, was constantly insulted by Mel to the point that he stopped editing (see my talk-page).
Mel even rolled back my own talk-page. To be honest, he only did it once and I got over it; but what still bothers me is the way he treated my article on Battle of Vaslui. Again, if I have to be honest, I will admit that he fixed a few things - a few things which would have taken me more time to fix. However, I don't agree with his edits on the Suleyman dispute and I also don't agree with him on the Danube argument (see my talk-page). When Mel cannot revert the articles (because of the third-revert rule), he will bring back-up. That back-up reverted the Vaslui article and my user-page.
Mel also managed to upset Bryan Adams. Yes, the artist himself. His assistant tried to fix a few things, only to have her edits reverted - over and over again. She tried to explain that she's Bryan's assistant and she tried to prove it by posting the email to the official site. I emailed her and, true enough, she confirmed her identity to me. Mel refused to verify her claims and he persisted on asking for sources. She is his assistant and she proved it quite clearly! The email was authentic! She is the ultimate axiom when it comes to factual accuracy on Bryan Adams! (see the discussion talk-page)
Mel does contribute to Wiki, but he also works against it and its users. All people, of all backgrounds and education skills, should feel welcome in contributing to this Free Encyclopedia. I'm more cautious now. Since our conflict started, my number of edits have dropped, and since then, I have only written one stub article. My activity used to be higher. I asked other people for assistance, but only those who had problems with Mel symphatized with me. True enough, I lost my temper and I insulted Mel. I still think he deserved it. -- Anittas 20:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I asked you to leave me alone, but you kept following me around. I reverted my own talk-page one or two times. I believe I have that right. The rest of your insults are still there, as are mine. What things distort the truth about the Bryan Adams incident? Are you saying that I'm manipulating the truth or that the person in question is not Bryan's assistant? I encourage everyone to go there and see for them selves. Click on 'history', if you will, and have everything checked up. Seriously, tho: how does it feel to upset a celebrity? In a rather bizzare way, I'm jealous. :D -- Anittas 22:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I got here via a link from the Village pump. Aren't we talking about whether or not edits contrary to the Manual of Style are vandalism, not the actions of one particular admin? Let's get back on track people.
I think that because style changes can be both good faith and mixed with content edits, we should not extend the definition of vandalism to extend to style violations. There's a sort of de facto standard that flagrant style violations are vandalism: if I were to take the first sentence of an article, and make the letter big, I'd probably get reverted. Maybe even by rollback (even though it's not really mass vandalism). This is further exacerbated by the fact that admins often use rollback in more iffy cases, and this is tolerated by the community.
So, I say the way things are right now are fine. Style disputes go in with content disputes, if the prevailing editor won't budge, file a request for comment or mediation or whatever, because the problem is probably an indicator of a deeper misunderstanding between the two parties. It may be difficult to develop consensus over all articles in Wikipedia, but it can be done. This is a user problem, whether it be good-faithed misunderstunding or bad-faithed disruption, and diplomatic conversation should occur rathering the labeling of "vandalism" to these editors. — Ambush Commander( Talk) 23:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I started several articles on Wiki, in which other people contributed to. Many of those people fixed my grammar errors. I never had a problem with that. I'm not insane, you know. This isn't about Mel doing honest editing. It's about something else. I'm tired of repeating my self. I know you've read what has been said, Ann. You know what transpired and I'm sure you understand that the problems doesn't lie in Mel's grammar corrections. I still believe he is wrong on the Danube argument. That article, in my opinion, remains awkward in that section. If Mel wanted to make peace with us all, he could have done so. Instead, he persists on treating us like mere objects - with a cold and disrespectful approach. I'm sure that all people, here, would like to go back to status quo with Mel. -- Anittas 00:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
In my experience, the style of many music-related articles is way unencyclopedic. There are a very few exceptions which, although not MoS compliant are so brilliantly and rollickingly written it doesn't matter a wit but more wontedly they can be a dreadful read and yes, they do seem to be somewhat "owned." This may come down to consensus. Do WP editors and readers prefer a fanzine style for most pop music articles? Wyss 00:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, just my two cents but I think that the MoS should be followed no matter what or who is involved. If they don't stop and are stubborn, I would not be too adverse to blocking them for say, 15 minutes, leaving a note on the page talk and user talk about the MoS and just tell them not to revert you again. I also concur that you probably shouldn't use the admin rollback tool for this but rather use edit summaries that link to the manual of style somewhere. Anyways, that's just me and I can't say I've seen this happen before. Sasquatch t| c 01:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
There are instructions at Repeat-pattern vandalism for detecting a vandal making multiple vandalisms. I'd kind of like it to also be under Dealing with vandalism so people remember to check if the same person has made any other vandalisms, but that would be duplicated. What is opinion on making a note under dealing with vandalism to remind people to check other edits? RJFJR 15:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Example {{subst:User:Adam1213/tsandbox}}
<--To edit this template without stuffing this up you need to: goto Preferences turn on raw signatures Make your nickname -- ```` (with shift) Made by adam1213 -->
☺Adam1213☺| talk 05:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Four warnings seems like a lot. Does anyone continue vandalism after the third but stop after the fourth? I propose that the second and third warnings be replaced by one intermediate in strength. — ciphergoth 07:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Admins need to be CLEAR that they are admins when posting comments. I read a comment on my talk page and have no idea it's an admin then they say Ok this is your third warning. And that's fair? No. Wjhonson 16:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
For shared IPs, I think it might be a good idea to have an explanatory message to ensure that others using the IP don't get bitten. This could be an additional template to add at the top of the user talk page. I made a draft at Template talk:Test2. The idea is that this would be an extra template to add the top of a user talk page when adding the usual messages, ensuring that users sharing the IP with a vandal don't feel the messages are necessarily addressed to them. Rd232 21:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems that someone has vandalized the page about vandalism.
I think we need an alternative to the current test1. I don't think we should start out thanking vandals for vandalizing. Bubba73 (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe the featured page should be frozen because it is highly vandalized-- two days ago I watched it and everything popped up from BS to photographs of genetalia. Agreed?
I can understand what an offensive GIF might be, but malicious? What's that supposed to mean? -- Zetawoof 21:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Does anybody else think that WP:POINT should be added as another example of something which is not vandalism. I've been in a conflict where one user has accused another of vandalism based on something which, imo, comes more close to being a WP:POINT violation. I think the current gist of this page strongly suggests that WP:POINT violations wouldn't qualify as vandalism, but I think it might do us good to be more explicit on this front. john k 17:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
How is vandalism defined with regard to talk pages? For instance, Talk:P-block has comments similar to garden-variety article-namespace vandalism, but it's a talk page, so it should be subject to a different set of rules, no? -- Smack ( talk) 22:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I have noticed that most of the vandals I have encountered are those with no user accounts, just IP addresses. Why doesn't Wikipedia just make editing open to those with user accounts? Sure it wouldn't completely wipe out the vandalism problem, but it would help it at the very least. It is also still open to anybody to edit, but it will discourage those vandals who just vandalize it because they are on the site and are fascinated about being able to change a webpage for an internet encyclopedia. Croat Canuck 03:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Here is another thought don't change IP 'saves' immediately, instead redirect them to recent changes patrol for approval. Once approval they can be save them on the page. Also I think the wiki policy is too strict, all I did is make a joke edit and I got a warning to stop vandalising Wikipedia! It was a very funny joke!!!!(To me at least, administrators have not sense of humour!) I think a few light hearted jokes on wikipedia wouldn't or at least shouldn't hurt; don't you? Adding a few to a few articles could really losen up Wikipedia, or put a jokes related to that article section on each article like the 'also see' section. Heck, there could even be a jokes portal for jokes of all kind divided into articles. For the warning templates, a suggestion, instead of subst:test2, subst:test2a or subst:test3; how about subst:test3a/and or subst:test2b: Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you enjoy vandalising please try Uncyclopedia. Thank you. I think the aforementioned suggestions would serve to reduce vandalism on quite a bit on Wikipedia, without violating the anyone can edit policy :) by the way I am a IP/non member :D 24.43.51.199 01:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I have posted this idea on Anti-vandalism ideas in meta-wiki, but I thought I might post it here too...for your information. Since I have started to grow weary of vandalism (haven't we all?) I have come up with an idea. I am a programmer myself, and it is possible that this idea has been discussed before, and/or has too serious disadvantages, but I thought I might aswell share it with you.
Many vandalisms I have encountered concerns the removal of an entire page, replacing it with obscene and/or funny words.
My idea is to re-program the edit-process (i.e when the user hits the "Save Page" button) so that (current page = presumed unvandalized page, new page = presumed vandalized page)
I know there is at least one problem with the idea; when a page needs to be deleted, removed, redirected...etc. One solution to deal with the redirection issue is to insert the following exception into the pseudo-code above:
To solve this, the idea must be put forward to developers. As I said, I don't know if the idea is good or bad, but I thought it would be of interest anyway. If it is bad, it might nevertheless give rise to better ideas. I'd be thankful for feedback and all kinds of opinions. If you wish to contact me, please use my talk page in Wikipedia: my talk page
Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 18:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Remember when Pope Benedict was getting all that vandalism is it still happening? -- Maoririder 21:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Yes. That is still a frequently vandalized and frequently restored article, as are a number of other prominent people. Robert McClenon 21:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
How can one tell vandalisim from a glitch, like what happened when the HTML Tidy program malfunctioned, taking this site down and may have caused some Vandal reports, due to this malfunction ? Can this be moved to User Talk:Martial Law ? Martial Law 07:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
"Is this page official policy? Should it have the {{ policy}} template on it? the wub "?/!" 09:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)" This question was ignored completely, so I'm forced to bring it up again. Are we somehow afraid to strongly forbid one of the greatest harms to this encyclopedia? I hope not. If there is no objection, I will add the template in two weeks. Superm401 | Talk 03:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Like the Andy Milonakis article, this page itself is now prone to presistent vandalism. Will somebody lock this page from editing? (unsigned comment from anon).
If you are somebody who works on vandal on WP, please take a look at my userpage since I take time to look into every user creation log to be sure they are not vandal. The real vandalists have a vandal associated to their name and the ones that should be blocked have the mention soll block. Lincher 23:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Anyone got any ideas on implementing a "contributions" counter and putting that digit on the RC list? Might be a bit of computing overhead, but hey, what are computers for? Profiling based on the appearance of an IP address rather than a username is somewhat prejudicial, IMO, and having people looking at users of all kinds with very few edits would be more profitable. More effective as a mentoring process as well.
Or maybe the fix should be that edits made by people with some small number of edits are noted in a "New User Edit" list separate from the RC list.
I think I'll go mention this idea on the feature request page.
-- 216.237.179.238 17:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Honestly some of these vandalisms are funny.... the sound like they were written by a teenager cussing for the first time- Reid A. 11:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I've cut out the test templates as they're not really the tool for the job for vandalism - they're for newbie users making mistakes, not people adding "u sux cock" to articles. True vandals don't need four warnings - a polite "please contribute usefully, we're watching" message followed up by a "stop or be blocked" is all that is needed, hence the new templates. There's no point giving vandals such a long leash - they know what they are doing. Dan100 ( Talk) 11:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
I think the current 4 warning system is fine. The first test warning seems to work well on first time offenders. It calmly conveys the message that their edits will not go unchecked. The following 3 show a good progression and seem effective enough. Based on what I've seen, most vandals quiet down after they receive a test3. PJM 14:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
"objecting to offering both is inexplicable - please explain on talk".
Dan100.
Perhaps you should have proposed this here first, instead of just rushing in, once again like last time, when you know this is an issue a lot of people have a say in, and that will have objections.
Seen as my viewpoint didn't seem to sink in last time, I will say it once more in Mickey Mouse form:
This is just the tip of the iceberg, and I would implore you not to make any more changes to templates without pre-discussing......your subtle attempts at changing the templates against consensus and using the Straw man technique are becoming tiresome. Agent Blightsoot 18:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
First I must remind you of the rule of no personal attacks.
Second, if what you say about the behaviour of RC patrollers is true, then edit the page to reflect that. In the mean time... Dan100 ( Talk) 10:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I opposing your views in a slightly heightened manner because you completely ignored what I said (Which incidentally you've done again) is a method of debate. We're not getting anywhere by you refusing to discuss this and flaunting your nupedia badge. I also didn't mention RC patrollers once,
I pointed out the obvious downsides to your proposed system, with the old one, and the old one clearly is better.
You seem to ignore my points though, having not bothering to argue a point of view for a new system, but instead have decided to go around changing the system willy-nilly despite the opposition of everyone who has discussed this issue, and the support of no one.
You seem to think you can hide behind you "being here since Nupedia" (not the only one) and your adminship.....
how about setting down here in bullet point form, the need for such radical changes? I think you should listen to other people's views and take note, whether you deem them "experienced" or not.
It's up to you really....I've made a compelling case, along with PJM, on keeping the status quo, but you seem bent on getting your own way without cause for anyone elses viewpoint, by using either underhand tactics or completely ignoring everyone.
If you don't wish to take part in step one of the resolving disputes outline (Which so far you have avoided), then I'll happily seek other avenues.
Agent Blightsoot 13:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Concluding Points
Blightsoot, if you believe people are using the existing templates differently to how this page desscribes, then why don't you update this page accordingly? But I must emphasise this one point again: it is not hard to differentiate newbie tests and vandalism - that's what the bulk of this page explains! Dan100 ( Talk) 09:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I entered this on the list a while ago - someone (can't remember who) simply deleted it without any justification or explanation. I suppose he/she figures that such stuff is an unnecessary formality. In any event, rather than reinstate it I'll explain it first, wait for a discussion, and then reinstate it.
The practice here is when an editor (for reasons that are irrelevant) reverts a whole set of edits because he/she disagrees with one point in it. To illustrate the point, let's imagine editor A rewrites an entire paragraph for purposes that are also irrelevant. In doing so, let's imagine that editor A confuses "its" and "it's." The vandal reverts the entire edit, blaming the single mistake. In all likelihood, the single mistake is just a pretext for other motivations that the vandal either doesn't want to, or can't be bothered to, explain.
In my mind, this is vandalism - it destroys good faith edits by others, does nothing to further the quality of the articles, and only serves to discourage editors from trying to improve articles. -- Leifern 02:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there a way to find the IP addresses of registered users? I've been asked a few odd questions by a registered user and then my user page was blanked out by a non-registered user. Both happened within a week and I'd never had any problem in the months before. I want to find out if the registered user and the non-registered user are the same. Thanks! :) wknight94 17:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's define an "edit" simply as a modification to a wikipedia page. There are basically two kinds of edits - those that would enable someone to know more about the article subject, and those that would hinder someone from learning about the article subject. Edits in the first class are constructive, so that will be called "good" edits, edits in the second class will be called "bad" edits. I submit that bad edits (vandalism and good-faith mistakes) should not be applied in the first place, since they run counter to the fundamental purpose of wikipedia - to help people learn more about stuff.
The classification of edits into "good" and "bad" is analagous to normal and spam email. A "bad" edit hinders information and wastes time - similarly, a "bad" email hinders information (e.g. a phishing scheme) and wastes tons of time. Letting vandalism into articles and applying a fix after the fact is analagous to leaving spam in your inbox, and rather than deleting it, inserting another message saying "that was spam". Today, we have become conditioned to not even treating spam in the same category as legitimate e-mail - so it should be with "bad" edits, which includes all vandalism.
Fortuntately, there is a large band of people willing to root out vandalism. Unfortunately, their effors are applied sub-optimally. A simple scheme to allow users to classify edits and help identify vandals could be:
Changes should be given a vandalism score based on content (say from 1 to 10, with 10 being likely vandalism). Users can have only one change in the queue at a time. The vandalism score drops over time, perhaps scaled by the score (score = number of minutes before dropping). People on patrol can either increase or decrease the vandalism score of a given change. Once it goes above 10, the message is discarded and the user is blocked. Once it hits 0, the change is applied. Most legitimate changes (e.g. the change does contain the word PENIZZ or does not remove the entire article) will be scored low (1 or 2) and applied quickly (1 or 3 minutes). Users on vandalism patrol can see all recent changes sorted by vandalism score in order to focus efforts. Rather then spend time looking at changes that have already been reverted, all people need to do is validate the conclusions of the builtin vandalism detector and those of other users. As part of this scheme, the system would develop a huge database of confirmed vandalism attempts. This can be utilized by techniques such as bayesian filtering to further improve vandalism detection.
Tiki2099 19:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I wanted to do some anti-vandalism after school, and Lupins tool only seemed to refresh only every minute(may be lag or something else), so I got the IRC server details, and put them onto CGIIRC on my website [1]. If anyone likes the idea, say so Sceptre ( Talk) 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Probably is my browser - it's Opera. I'll spread the link around a bit if you don't mind Dan100 ( Talk) 09:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Guys, you should probably have Sean Black re-read the vandalism policies, or stop going by his own personal policy. I just presented a case involving user page vandalism, link vandalism, and abuse of tags (a trifecta), and he dismissed the entire thing as a content dispute. Alternatively, this might be a good reason to stop giving pubescent 15-year olds administrative powers over encyclopedias involving hundreds of thousands of people. Tommstein 10:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
This policy page works great for articles, but it doesn't say anything about talk pages. What constitutes vandalism of a talk page, and how should we respond to it? -- Smack ( talk) 19:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I came across what looked like vandalism to me, and I was wondering if I should notify the admins about it. Having read this article made me want to ask you guys first, because I'm still not sure, and I don't want to take up precious admins' time, lest more serious cases are longer left unhandled. The thing is, user User:82.230.109.93 has repeatedly been editing the November 30 and December 28 articles, and changing the short description of mr. Guy Debord to "human being, enemy". What made me question whether or not to alarm the admins are the facts that:
On the minus side, all of this user's edits (except for the two they made to the Guy Debord article) are vandalous! What do you think I should do? Should I report it? Toon 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I am trying to nominate this page for deletion for obvious reasons. how am i suppose to tag it?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Parys ( talk • contribs)
What is it in Wikipedia, and who decides if a external link is inappropriate ? Can the answer be moved to my Talk page ? Martial Law 05:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)