User:Grizzly1110/Vandalism

Thanks to Riley Huntley For Letting Me Copy This Text into my own kind of page so I can Educate Users About vandalism. Thanks Again Riley.

If you see vandalism in an article, the simplest thing to do is just to remove it. But take care! Sometimes vandalism takes place on top of older, undetected vandalism. With undetected vandalism, editors may make edits without realizing the vandalism occurred. This can make it harder to detect and delete the vandalism, which is now hidden amongst other edits. Sometimes bots try to fix collateral damage and accidentally make things worse. Check the edit history to make sure you're reverting to a "clean" version of the page. Alternatively, if you can't tell where the best place is, take your best guess and leave a note on the article's talk page so that someone more familiar with the page can address the issue—or you can manually remove the vandalism without reverting the page back.

If you see vandalism on a list of changes (such as your watchlist), then revert it immediately. You may use the "undo" button (and the automatic edit summary it generates), and mark the change as minor. It may be helpful to check the page history to determine whether other recent edits by the same or other editors also represent vandalism. Repair all vandalism you can identify.

For a new article, if all versions of the article are pure vandalism, mark it for speedy deletion by tagging it with.

To make vandalism reverts easier you can ask for the rollback feature to be enabled for your registered Wikipedia account. This feature is only for reverting vandalism and other obvious disruption, and lets you revert several recent edits with a single click. See Requests for permissions.

If you see that a user has added vandalism you may also check the user's other contributions (click "User contributions" on the left sidebar of the screen). If most or all of these are obvious vandalism you may report the user immediately at Administrator intervention against vandalism, though even in this case you may consider issuing a warning first, unless there is an urgent need to block the user. Otherwise you can leave an appropriate warning message on the user's talk page. Remember that any editor may freely remove messages from their own talk page, so they might appear only in the talk history. If a user continues to cause disruption after being warned, report them at Administrator intervention against vandalism. An administrator will then decide whether to block the user.

For repeated vandalism by an IP user it is helpful to take the following additional steps:
 * 1) Trace the IP address (e.g. http://www.domaintools.com/) and add  to the user talk page of the address. If it appears to be a shared IP address, add  or . The OrgName on the IP trace result should be used as the Name of owner parameter in the above three templates.
 * 2) Particularly if the IP address is registered to a school or other kind of responsive ISP, consider listing it on Abuse response.

For beginners
For relatively inexperienced Wikipedians, use these simple steps to quickly respond to what you consider vandalism. This is essentially an abridged version of Vandalism. For a detailed guide, see Arnon Chaffin's Anti-Vandalism Center.


 * 1) Assess whether the edit was made in good faith or bad faith. If it is in good faith, it is not technically vandalism, so question the accuracy of information on the talk page and/or add a "dubious" tag to the disputed edit. If it is in bad faith, then it is vandalism and you may take the appropriate steps to remove it.
 * 2) Revert the vandalism by viewing the page's history and selecting the most recent version of the page prior to the vandalism. Use an edit summary such as 'rv/v' or 'reverted vandalism' and click on 'Save page'.
 * 3) Warn the vandal. Access the vandal's talk page and warn them by posting an appropriate warning template from the following list. It is not necessary to start with the level one warning, particularly when faced with especially egregious or offensive vandalism, when the vandal has damaged multiple articles, or when the vandal has created an account with no positive contributions across more than one editing session.
 * 4) * Level one: This is a gentle caution regarding unconstructive edits; it encourages new editors to use a sandbox for test edits. This is the mildest warning.
 * 5) * Level two: This warning is also fairly mild, though it explicitly uses the word 'vandalism' and links to the Wikipedia policy.
 * 6) * Level three: This warning is sterner. It is the first to warn that further disruptive editing or vandalism may lead to a block.
 * 7) * Level four: This is the sharpest vandalism warning template, and indicates that any further disruptive editing may lead to a block without warning.
 * 8) Watch for future vandalism from the vandal by checking the user's contributions. If bad faith edits continue, revert them and use higher level warning tags on their talk page. An example of warning a repeat offender can be found at User talk:201.21.233.202/Archive 1. Note that it is not necessary to use all four warning templates in succession, nor is it necessary to incrementally step through the warnings.
 * 9) Report vandals that continue their behavior after being warned to 'Administrator intervention against vandalism'. While not strictly required, administrators there are most likely to respond rapidly to requests which include at least two warnings, culminating in the level four 'last chance' template.

How not to respond to vandalism

 * Do not nominate an article for deletion because it is being vandalized.
 * Do not feed the trolls. Fanning the fire will make the situation worse. Similarly, do not insult the vandals. If someone is doing something they know is wrong, insulting them over it is likely to make them vandalize more, just to get that reaction. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not the place for personal attacks, it is not a battleground, and two wrongs don't make a right. Instead, report them to the administrators if they continue.


 * Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself—instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with them. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal comments.

Warning users
The purpose of warning a user who has vandalized is to inform the user that the user's conduct is abusive and prohibited, and seek the user's compliance. Not all that appears to be vandalism is in bad faith, and a warning can politely advise and correct users unaware of the nature of their actions. A warning may even dissuade a user acting in bad faith from continuing, particularly as the warnings escalate and the user is informed of the consequences of continuing.

Warning a user for vandalism is generally a prerequisite to administrator intervention. Because of this, users should be warned for each and every instance of vandalism (see the guidance below on what constitutes a single instance).

Assume good faith (such as that the user is simply unaware of the policies and guidelines), but only if plausible. Circumstances may warrant no assumption of good faith, or indicate bad faith; respond accordingly.

Users should be warned for each instance of vandalism for which the user has not been warned previously. For purposes of warning, multiple edits should be considered a single instance, and only one warning given, if:
 * the edits are of the same page;
 * the user received no intervening warning between the edits; and
 * the same user warning template series would be used to warn for each edit.

A new warning generally should not escalate from a previous warning unless a user received the previous warning and failed to heed it. So, if a user vandalizes, and, before a responding user can warn the vandalizing user, the vandalizing user vandalizes again, the responding user should not yet escalate the warning (for example, give a final warning) or report the user for administrator intervention yet.