Wikipedia talk:Vandalism/Archive 2

Punishing of Vandals
Andeee 07:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC) As of lately, I've seen it where some vandals keep getting warned, yet nothing is done. One instance, I've seen someone get 7 warnings over a space of 5 months (with 6 of those happening in a 2 month span), each threatening to block them from Wikipedia if further vandalizations happened, yet nothing has been done. One note on his page said "THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING!" and he proceded to get further warnings from other staffers. Its very difficult at times to see someone repeatedly get away with something that is clearly wrong. What can someone, like me, in the general wiki public do to stop these repeat offenders?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hellmark (talk • contribs)
 * Yah. I hate When Vandals get lat warnings multiple times.  The anoying thing is that we can't do anyting about it becose we only block the Worst Of the vandals.  Casual Vandls are not blocked. Read the rules on WP:AIV Do not list here if: They have not vandalized very recently (past 2 hours), nor since the last warning ( or ) .  I was Disapointed the Only time I tried to get a Vandal Blocked and they werent't--E-Bod 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * In tracing the vandalism of one page, I've found a user which has been blocked 3 times in 3 days, with 4 Final warnings in the last 2 months, 2 of them in the last week. And the user apparently has changed his id and doing it again. This user is quite prolific in putting up personal insults and obscenities. How do I report this? CFLeon 00:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As a relatively new Wikipedian with a couple of hundred good edits, I must say I don't understand the current approach to dealing with vandalism, spanning many many warnings, then short-term blocks, then more warnings.... (Case in point: User_talk:64.88.15.5.) If you're a store owner, you don't let a thief steal from you twice, and assume he's going to be any different the third time he enters the store. I see no point in repeatedly warning vandals, or in fact, warning them at all. Short-term and then long-term blocks should immediately occur in obvious cases of vandalism. I realize this has probably been debated at great length, and the existing policy is there for good reason, but I have to add my two cents here. Regards, Outriggr 22:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Vandalism comes in many forms. It is important to make a distinction between the truly malicious (who wish to damage Wikipedia, and use vandalism as a tool to that end), the angry (who have an axe to grind, and express their frustration through vandalism), and the clueless (who experiment via vandalism). The latter two types of vandals can often be quite easily redeemed. There have been many, many examples of vandals coming to see the light and becoming productive editors.
 * Comparing vandalism to theft is a bad analogy; reverting vandalism is trivial. The current system is perhaps a little untidy, but it is not broken. You will find that truly disruptive vandals who damage a large number of pages are swiftly blocked.
 * Finally, don't forget that a lot of IP addresses are proxies or dynamic IPs. Blocking them for an extended amount of time leads to an unacceptable amount of collateral damage. Blocking persistent vandals is important. But allowing good editors to be able to edit Wikipedia is a thousand times more important.
 * (Case in point: Outriggr's own example, 64.88.15.5 actually appears to be the Richmond Community School District's proxy. Would you really have us block the entire school for the actions of a few?) --Ashenai 22:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Points taken. To answer your question, obviously not; I'm aware of the IP issue and would have preferred to use a registered-user example. We are probably dealing with different concepts of "vandalism", yours being more refined. I would be genuinely interested and surprised to know that the majority of people (and yes, not IPs) who type dirty humor into a Wiki page are later "redeemed". Thanks for the comments. Outriggr 22:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been vandalfighting for a while now; you become very, very familiar with the various types after a while. I have no idea if the majority of vandals are ever redeemed, though, because the ones that are usually get a username. I just know that lots of them do.
 * Basically, we're very far from helpless. We (well, not me, admins) have several tools to protect articles from vandalism; blocking offending users or IPs is just one of them. Unfortunately, the more powerful the tool used, the more it inconveniences legitimate editors. Basically, we're kind and forgiving with vandals because we can afford to be. When a vandal threatens the wiki, we can and do fight back. We just try to use the minimal necessary force at all times. :)
 * If you're interested in this, I suggest checking out (and perhaps joining, if you feel like it) our Counter-Vandalism Unit. You'll find much more information about vandalism and counter-vandalism methods than I could hope to tell you about here. --Ashenai 23:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets sort out talk page policy once and for all
I see frequent inquiries regading vandalism on talk pages. And I see general consensus that removing parts of talk pages is vandalism if the content removed was not personal attack. Do I see that right? If I do, lets add this to list:. I propose this paragraph to be added:
 * Talk page vandalism: Deleting other user's comment or deleting the whole section of talk page. Exceptions are deleting the section to put it to archive and removing a personal attacks.


 * User:talk should be excepted. A user should be able to modify their own talk pages in any way they wish. Wjhonson 16:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Another acceptable way of including this policy is just to modify this paragraph: into this:
 * Changing people's comments: Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. e.g. (unsigned comment from user)
 * Changing or deleting people's comments: Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around) or even deleting the comment completely, except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. e.g. (unsigned comment from user)

Comments? Anybody think's this is a bad idea? --Dijxtra 11:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have removed the "Talk page vandalism" section since it does not accord with Wikipedia consensus or practice. Many users, including admins and at least two arbitrators, routinely remove comments from their Talk pages, and advertise this. See User talk:Neutrality for an example: "I archive when I feel like it. Depending on my whim, your comments may or may not be archived. The odds of not being archived are inversely proportional to the amount you annoy me. Please do not annoy me." Until now, no one has ever suggested that this was improper. If you would like to change that policy, I suggest you seek a broader consensus first. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 13:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I think we should keep a section on vandalizing Talk pages in general, but make it clear that this only applies to article talk, not to the user's own Talk page. I have rewritten as below:


 * Talk page vandalism: Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, or deleting entire sections thereof, is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove outside comments at their discretion.

Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 13:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I am being warned by KillerChihuahua against modifying my OWN user talk page! This is ridiculous. People modify their own user talk pages all the time. At least in my opinion they do. Now I'm being harassed by Baha'is and they are using the vandalism section to attack me because I'm fixing their articles to be npov. This is getting out-of-hand, I need intervention to stop this. What can I do? Wjhonson 16:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I replied to you with several options and an offer of help on my talk page. 2) Removing warnings is vandalism per current policy. Feel free to attempt to change policy if you wish: that is usually a long and winding road, especially for this. It is to prevent vandals from removing warnings with the subsequent result that other editors and Admins AGF looong after it is reasonable to do so. On the other hand, if the warnings are without merit, Admins generally ignore them and watch the warners rather than the warned, so either way it helps. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The warnings are without merit in the sense that people make mistakes. I don't feel like I should carry around these warnings for the rest of my life.  And it doesn't appear that everyone is in agreement on the ability to blank user talk pages.  Those things you reposted are mostly due to attacks by Baha'is because I'm adding details to their propaganda articles to make them npov.  But at any rate, even arbitrators remove things from their own user talk pages. Wjhonson 16:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Improper removing of Dispute tags
I believe that is a common practice that removing Disputes tags without an agreement with the other side of the dispute or a proper RfC process is a vandalism but it does not explicitly said here.

Suppose there is a content dispute of five users against two. Of course, the five users would win using the 3RR, but I think the minority should have the right to put a or , etc. template. And the other side should not use their numbers to remove the tag without the agreement from the other side. abakharev 08:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I put the suggestion here and on the Village pump 10 days ago. Nobody seems to disagree, so I boldly put it into the policy. If you are disagree with the idea, please discuss it here, if you are disgree with the wording please feel free to fix abakharev 04:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Placing dispute tags when there is no dispute in actuality is the reverse of this: when one editor is unhappy that their suggestions fail to gain consensus or even support. I'd like to modify the segment to add this as well, but would appreciate input on phrasing.
 * Suggested phrasing: (additions and changes in bold:

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. '''Do not place dispute tags improperly. When there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. '''


 * Comments? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the problem that's brought us here. One editor with a very bad case of MPOV insisting against consensus that an article is POV because it does not match his [m:MPOV]] adding tags as a form of vandalism.  Secondly, if said tags can't be removed then adding going tags willy-nilly to articles is vandalism. NPOV tags need explanation, and they need reasonable basis and consensus that there is something wrong with the article. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 14:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Is it fair to allow an editor who, for what appear to personal reasons, disputes an NPOV section when the consensus is against his dispute to so thoroughly disrupt the article as to render real attempts to improve it futile?  Additionally, what shall we do when there is no possibility of reaching a logical dispute resolution with said editor, absent going through a long dispute resolution process?  In my opinion, allowing anyone and everyone to place tags willy-nilly resorts in the enormous expenditure of time that could be better spent elsewhere. Jim62sch 15:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Academic honesty
Discussion of possible interest to watchers of this page at Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In particular, as citation is being more and more encouraged, we may want to add another category of vandalism: deliberate insertion of faked or actively misleading citations. I realize that we already (sort of) cover this under "sneaky vandalism", but perhaps it should be called out explicitly. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fully agree, sensible addition abakharev 04:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are anonymous edits allowed?
Following the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, Wikipedia reacted by blocking anonymous users from creating new articles. The irony of this was that the vandal in question didn't create the article, he merely edited an existing article.

Indeed, I would venture that at least 90% of vandalism is done by an anonymous editor. As I'm going over my watchlist, or the "recent changes" page, chances are pretty good that if I see an edit by an anonymous editor, it's vandalism.

Registration is quick and easy, there's no reason why somebody acting in good faith wouldn't want to do it. If Wikipedia is serious about combating vandalism, blocking anonymous edits would be a quick and easy way to get rid of a big part of the problem. -- MisterHand 16:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "The irony of this was that the vandal in question didn't create the article, he merely edited an existing article.". Actually, this is not true. The vandal did indeed create the article; it was later copyedited by someone else (who appeared to have been editing in good faith) but that second editor did not realize that much of the article's contents were nonsense. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? I can't verify one way or another as the page history only goes back to September 2005.  But I find it hard to believe that this guy didn't have article about him until May 2005, especially since there's a John Seigenthaler disambig page that links to the article as early as April 2004. -- MisterHand 21:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The culture of Wikipedia is such that any restrictions on anonymous edits are going to be resisted by a substantial minority of editors, who see the right to anonymous editing as an ancient and honorable tradition. Suggestions to restrict the rights of anons are often condemned as "un-Wiki".  I would agree with restrictions on anonymous editing, or even with its elimination, but I am not making policy.  I think that anonymous editing was an honorable experiment that has been tried and failed.  That opinion is worth what you paid for it.  Robert McClenon 21:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If that is so, then why not have it to where any anonymous edit gets queued for review by a registered user or something. Anony editors can still do what they do with minimial problem, and vandalization is cut down. Personally, on the articles I read, minimum of 10 anonymous vandals to every one anonymous valid editor. As far as people who think that vandals will continue doing so if registration or something is required, some will, however most will find that its not worth the effort (that I've seen from first hand experience elsewhere). Hellmark 09:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Create a "Request to be an anonymous editor" page. Voila.  Ruby 14:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Y'know, that's a good idea. They would therefore be registered with Wiki which might very well cut down on vandalism.  Jim62sch 15:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. That idea is an excellent compromise. -- MisterHand 15:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Anonymous except to people with CheckUser privileges.  Robert McClenon 15:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder how many wikipedians made their first edit anonymously, liked the feel of it, and later created accounts? Pulling in our welcome mat will reduce the number of people of good will who edit here, not just vandals. I am one of Robert McClenon's "substantial minority" who think that allowing anonymous edits is a good thing -- and I'm not sure we're a minority. Also let me present a little piece of mathematical logic: Perhaps, as stated by MisterHand at the top of this section, 90% of vandalism is done by anonymous editors. It does not follow that disallowing anonymous editing will reduce vandalism by 90%. The vandals will then just create accounts and still vandalise. They don't do it now because they don't have to, but many would if they had to. . . .   The idea of creating a "Request to be an anonymous editor" page defeats the whole point of anaoymous editing, which is to be quick, easy, unintimidating. -- U go Boy February
 * I totally agree. I have personally talked to good anon editors who were reluctant about creating a username because they just edited an article here and there, when they felt like it. They didn't really feel like a Wikipedian, so they didn't want a username. And it's quite possible that their useful edits would not have been made if registration is mandatory.
 * As a matter of fact, this was exactly how I became a Wikipedian. I made some anon edits, got into the spirit of things, and then decided... hey, how about making a username?
 * I'm not saying this is a very logical way of doing things; I'm saying it's the way a significant number of people think. It is important that we make it as easy as possible to contribute. Yes, this will make it easier for vandals as well. A heavy price, that we should pay gladly. --Ashenai 23:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why the F%&! is it considered so important that anyone who has internet access can easily destroy the work of others, and waste the time of those who clean up the mess again? It's like letting anybody walk into a library, to tear out pages of books or write stupid things into them, just becauses these actions could be useful somehow. Those who do not bother to set up an account should not be allowed to change articles that aren't stubs anymore. --Matthead 22:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If Wikipedia was to ban anonymous edits, the vandals would simply create accounts, vandalise articles and then dump the acocunts when they were finished vandalising. Then we would have suggestions that account creation should be tightened up. One possibility would be to require email verification for accounts (similar to the current email-enabling method). However, everybody and their granny can setup a free hotmail or yahoo address with false details. So ultimately the only solution would be to require new accounts to be verified by sending an email to captain_jimbo@wikipolice.org from an email address provided by a registered ISP (where someone has paid with a credit/debit card), school, college or workplace. That would allow Wikimedia to use the data to track vandalism to specific individuals. However, it would be offputting to a large number of editors who make positive contributions but prefer to remain fairly anonymous. Breaking point would be reached when accounts would require us to send not just an email, but also our complete medical records, retina scans, DNA profile, 2 passport-size photographs etc. :P Green Giant 23:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

New US anti-annoyance internet law
Not sure if could apply to Wikipedia vandalism by Americans, but it says: "Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." From CNET: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail. Shawnc 18:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Throwing out everything with the bathwater
The definition of vandalism in the first section states: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." It seems pretty clear to me that anyone who reverts or deletes entire sections of articles based on an objection to a single piece of the whole, is deliberately compromising the integrity of the encyclopedia. This happens in four ways that are similar to all other forms of vandalism: --Leifern 21:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Content that is valuable and useful gets deleted outright
 * Content that may be wrong is deleted rather than edited for clarity or precision
 * Editors get discouraged
 * A loophole is created for POV-pushing, as the vandal can simply revert back to his/her version on any minor pretext.

You failed to notice the word "deliberate". Others may do things that *you* think are harmful, but that's not vandalism. Somebody may remove a whole section, that you think is essential, but that's not vandalism. As long as they do it in good faith (thinking it's unencyclopedic), it's not vandalism. Even if they make a mistake, its not vandalism, if it's an honest mistake. Vandalism has a narrow definition, and offending the wishes of another editor is not one. Sadly, I regularly see "Content that is valuable and useful gets deleted outright" all the time, but I don't call it vandalism, and I don't call those editors "vandals", because while I think its valuable, others may not. --Rob 21:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you may misunderstand the point. If an editor deletes an entire section, explaining why the entire section is wrong, then that clearly isn't vandalism and possibly only a difference of opinion. But if an editor deletes an entire section citing only one objectionable element that should simply have been edited, then it is hard to argue that the deletion serves any constructive purpose. The next question, then, is whether it is "deliberate," in other words whether the editor is motivated by a wish to compromise the integrity, etc. I think we all agree that since we can't read the minds of the editors, we judge the actions by its effects. One could argue for virtually every class of vandalism that an editor is merely misguided, or even deranged, to commit vandalism - which is why vandals aren't summarily blocked, their edits merely reverted. Clearly, experienced editors should start by pointing out that throwing out everything with the bathwater is a destructive practice at the outset, but when it is repeated behavior, the editor has clearly lost the benefit of the doubt. --Leifern 21:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that many articles are bloated and sometimes a severe edit is appropriate. That does not mean it is vandalism. David D. (Talk) 21:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I think we should be able to judge the edit by the effect it had. Should I take from Daycd's opinion that I have license to simply cut out paragraphs and sections that I tend to think make the articles "bloated?" I wouldn't do that to make a point, but if someone did, I'm fairly confident they'd run into sanctions pretty quickly, unless such deletions were well-reasoned and replaced with something that at least was arguably better.\
 * First your stance is not assuming good faith. Second it goes against the be bold editing policy and third blanking of good content is already covered on this page as  Blanking: Removing all or large parts of articles (commonly replacing the text with profanities) is a common vandal edit and Childish vandalism: Adding graffiti or blanking pages. (The female cyclist vandal is an example of this type.) Note that this page, itself, has been repeatedly blank page vandalized since June 11, 2005.  Assuming vandalism in the scenario you suggest is not a case of vandalism it is a case of content dispute. It may well need an RfC to solve the problem but it does not seem to warrant the vandalism label. David D. (Talk) 22:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not a content dispute if the editor that throws out everything with the bathwater provides an explanation only related to a detail in it. What is the substantive difference between blanking - as you describe it - and deleting a whole paragraph based on a trival matter, let's say confusing "it's" and "its?" If there is no difference, then I am happy to concede that blanking describes this, and we can all move on, happy that we have fewer rather than more types of vandalism. --Leifern 00:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What you describe above I would call blanking. It sounds like we are in basic agreement although our use of terminology is a little different. David D. (Talk) 00:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur. Unless it is clear that an edit was not made in good faith, it should not be considered vandalism, despite the fact that the edit may in fact be harmful. --BostonMA 22:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So it appears that at least some of us agree that throwing out everything but the bathwater does amount to vandalism if it is clear that it was not made in good faith? --Leifern 00:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your attempted change said nothing about good faith. That's the entire basis of dispute here.  Nobody here is defending bad-faith edits.  If you wish to propose some alternate wording, that considers motivation, and doesn't stigmitize good-faith contributions, please write it out, and we'll discuss it.  --Rob 00:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ironic, isn't it? I simply assumed that the word "deliberate" in the definition counted for something. I guess I was victim of an assumption of bad faith here myself. Having said that, motivation is hard to discern - it seems to me that if someone is warned about the effects of his/her edits and continues to do things that are clearly destructive, some kind of line is crossed at some point. --Leifern 17:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Propose to list Hoax as example of vandalism
The following was first listed (in the last few months) as what vandalism was not (weirdly). I then moved it to what vandalism was. Somebody suggested this was done without consensus. Fair point. I propose adding this to the list of type of vandalism. Please indicate if you support, oppose, or wish to reword it. Thanks. --Rob 22:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hoaxes:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point with Hoaxes. This has been done before, with varying results. Some Wikipedians suspect that the majority of hoaxes here are attempts to test the system. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a less destructive test method is to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia, and then to check to see how long they have been in place (and if possible, do correct them). Note that writing verifiable information about a hoax, is obviously not itself a hoax, and is often appropriate.


 * Testing the system is vandalism. David D. (Talk) 22:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with listing hoaxed as a form of vandalism, is that vandaism is subject to speedy deletion, as per WP:CSD, but there are good reason for not allowing people to speedy delte things thy thing are hoaxes -- specifically that there have been too many false positives in the past, things people honestly belived were hoaxes but turned out to be "strange but true". Includign the above commetn with a sentance that "Technically Hoaxes are not considered vandalism, but we strongly disapprove of them nonetheless" might do the trick. DES (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't already say so, the CSD criteria should specifically state "simple vandalism", which excludes sneaky vandalism (including hoaxes). --Rob 22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But the reason it can't be speedied is not because it's allowed or ok, it's because it needs to be verified. hoaxes are nonsense, pure and simple; adding nonsense is considered vandalism, i don't think that that is a subject of debate.  It should be a)considered vandalism (technically or otherwise) and b)carry a clear warning that it is not speediable due to the necessity of verification.  i don't see a conflict there.  just because it needs some research put into it to verify its nature as a hoax doesn't mean that it isn't vandalism; in fact, it's even more disruptive to wikipedia due to that, taking more time from editors, and being a more insiduous threat to intellectual standards here.  just my two cents.  --Heah talk 22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The real problem is the wordign of WP:CSD G3, which now reads "Pure vandalism, including redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism." If we include Hoaxes as a kind of vandalism, we must change G3 to say "Except haoxes" or else soem people will tag things as and others will delte things so tagged, or just delted apparent hoaxes on sight -- people have tried in the current state of things. Ig the two changes are considerd as a package deal, I could support this. Note that PoV edits and unsorced facts are disruptive, soemtiems highly disruptive, but are NOT considered vandalism. DES (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with DES, it should be a package deal. i support that. Heah talk 22:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hoaxes should not be referred to as vandalism. The term vandalism is effective only because it has a close analogy with the real-world concept of vandalism, the purpose of which is to attract attention, give a person a sense of power, or stake out territory. Hoaxes do none of these - vandals aren't interested in making Wikipedia look bad, and overextension of this term will lead inevitably to further misapplication of it to people of good intentions. Deco 23:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good points. So what is the term for calculated edits to add misinformation? David D. (Talk) 00:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I humbly disagree. In my (somewhat limited) experience, the majority of hoaxes are somewhere along the lines of WP:NFT- except the hoax was made up in school one day rather than the subject of the article- rather than coming from editors with good intentions that are misapplied; they are made precisely to attract attention, give someone a sense of power, etc.  It seems to me to be like "look what i did to wikipedia, isn't that cool, those guys don't even know this isn't real."  Hoaxes are not remotely similar to simply making pov edits or not sourcing an otherwise valid addition, and i don't see how labeling hoaxes- the addition of nonsense to wikipedia, even if it is well written nonsense- would lead to an overextension of this term that would be misapplied to valuable and/or good intentioned editors and/or edits.  how do you see this happening?  Perhpas i'm missing something.  --Heah talk 00:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it seems I was thinking of something else. A hoax in the sense you describe is not vandalism because vandalism involves the defacing or destruction of something existing. Adding new articles or new content simply can't be considered vandalism for this reason. Replacing content with a hoax is vandalism. Deco 03:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As GTBacchus says below, a hoax is an attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. is that not (attempting to) deface and destroy something existent?  imho its just done on a different scale, affecting the macrocosmic rather than the microcosmic . . . It just seems to me that purposefully adding nonsense to wikipedia, (with of course the exception of newbie tests,) is vandalism, whether it replaces something already extent or not.  It is vandalization of the encyclopedia itself; it changes the content of the encyclopedia, defaces the project as a whole . . .  or at least, that's how i see it.  --Heah talk 07:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A hoax is, quite explicitly, by definition, a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. If I write a detailed article about the Wild Fresnarus, knowing full well that there is no such animal, then I'm deliberately attempting to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism. How is that different from going to The Beatles and chaning release dates of their albums by one or two years each, or altering chart positions, which we regularly encounter, and call "subtle vandalism", (or "edits calculated to add misinformation", as User:Daycd put it)? If calling hoaxes vandalism is a slippery slope of some kind, I'm not seeing it. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Though we assume good faith (which is a good yardstick for differentiating vandalism and newbie tests), hoaxes are made specifically to misinform and mislead. The only way a hoax should not be considered vandalism is if a hoax is so widespread that it becomes urban legend; however, I imagine this accounts for only a very small percentage of hoax articles. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 03:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * An article that reepats an urban legand as true is clearly undesireable (whether we call it vandalism or not). An articel that reports on an urban legand or other common hoax is clearly a good thing TM provided that the subject is notable. See Ice-9 for an example whwere one was trasformed into anotehr. if you are worried about "vandalism" meaning "defacing something" than a hoax argably defaces the entire project -- and besides the original meaning of "vandalism" included the destruction of entire cities, so i'm not worried about that. I agree that changes that introduce incorrect information are ungood and should be altered or removed. For the matter of that, if an editor belives a hoax and in good faith inserts an artilce which reports it as fact that can't be vandfalism, because it was done in good faith, but it is also incorrect and misleading content and should be fixed. My only concern was that the use of the term "vandalism" could lead people to belive that Hoaxes were speedy delelete targets -- this would IMO be a bad idea as I have explained above. Whether we call hoaxes "vandalism" or use soem other term, we clearly don't want them. That is far more improtant that the exact term we use IMO. DES (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that:
 * A hoax presented as a hoax may be a legitimate entry provided it is notable for some other reason than the sensationalism of the hoax itself - the best reason possibly being to dispell the hoax if it is widespread
 * A hoax "innocently" presented as something truthful needs to be edited, but isn't necessarily vandalism if the editor acted in good faith, i.e., believed the hoax
 * A hoax introduced with the purpose of disrupting the encyclopedia or discrediting it is vandalism. It may be difficult to discern intent, but a good indicator is if the hoax is accompanied by deletion of truthful information or if the context is telling (e.g., slanderous allegations against politicians or ethnic groups). --Leifern 18:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think Leifern has it very well summarized. Obviously the major problem is determining intent. However, if we decide to define hoaxes as vandalism, I think the three bullet points above would serve people well and should be included in the definition. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for vandalism
Perhaps there should be added a section discussing possible reasons for vandalism? I've read once that it is conjectured that vandalism is most commonly conducted as a test of Wikipedia's stabilty. I believe such information is interesting, and potentially useful. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to agree that such a section might be useful if it could be sourced. I think that there are several types of vandalism, and that vandalism that is a test of Wikipedia's stability does happen, but is less disruptive than vandalism that is done for angry or hateful reasons.  I would suggest that the Wikipedia article on Internet trolling would be the place to start, since I consider vandalism to be a form of trolling.  Like other types of Internet trolling, some is almost harmless, and some is malicious.  Robert McClenon 20:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Help !
Could someone give me some advice?

Suppose that a small group of fanatics decide to take over an article. They are blatently not NPOV, but are very careful to give the impression of good faith, to follow the letter, if not the spirit, of the rules. They manipulate the rules to make it impossible for anything but their own PoV to be represented. They are pretty dedicated and seem to have lots of time at their disposal, so over many months they see off a whole series of informed and objective contributors who simply give up and stop contributing to the article in question.

I can see that this is a difficult area, and it would be difficult to prove bad faith - even though the offenders have been informed numberous times about their obvious bias. No amount of rational argument and no quality or quality of citations has any effect.

My own inclination would be to regard these people as vandals, but I can see that this is only going to invite accusations of non NPOV on my part. (The article in question is already flagged as disputed)

Is there some sort of arbitration process ? Or should I make an accusation of vandalism openly ? Or what?

I have to say that unless there is some way of resolving this issue, I'll be joining a long list of editors and going off elsewhere, since it seems unacceptable that this cabal should effectively "own" an article.

168.224.1.14 15:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Sphynques

This is a good question. I'm wondering the same thing. Specifically, for Early Christianity An organized group that follows me over there to supress all my contributions by reverts the section back to that of an empty stub. Nothing is offered instead, and false claims are not supported on talk page. Now it just gets reverted with no discussions to work out a compromise or address points of contention. Just a supression of sourced material. Ironically the stubs asks for contributions, but when any editor makes contributions, even when other editors support it, even when the case is made on the talk page; it continues to get reverted by this this group, under false pretexts, such as "no consensus," or "rv vandalism," etc. Yet, how do I get a consensus if they remain silent on the talk page and do not respond to requests that they provide support for their claim? The claim, interstingly enough is that it's a "minority view." But this claims is not supported when chanllenged. Even if it were true, my understanding is that this would not be grounds for supressing the content, esp. when its just reverything back to an empty Stub. The views are not minority but if they are, its a signifiant minority view and should be worked with, not simply reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovanni33 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 25 January 2006


 * I'll answer this for you, Giovanni. The people in the "organized group" are well-respected Wikipedians who had been editing articles about Christianity for months before you ever appeared at Wikipedia. To say that they "follow" you over there is incredible.


 * You have been in gross violation of the 3RR rule. In fact, I cannot recall ever seeing a new user revert as frequently as you do, despite several gentle warnings. If I am not mistaken, you recently reverted ten times in the Christianity article in a space of 24 hours. And you made your fifth revert in a 24-hour period at Early Christianity about three hours ago. Have you wondered why the "organized group that follows you to suppress your edits" hasn't reported you? It's because we don't like biting newcomers. If you had been editing at another page, you would almost certainly have been blocked by now. You have also breached civility a few times.


 * People have responded on the talk page of Early Christianity, though not in such detail as at Christianity. Indeed, it's hardly necessary, since it's the same material that you're trying to insert into both articles, and since it's the same people who object. It would be rather a waste of server space to post the same objections in equal detail on both pages. The problem is that regardless of their objections, you revert again, referring in your edit summary to what was discussed at talk, regardless of the fact that you have not got consensus.


 * A historian and a theologian have both explained that what you are inserting is not part of mainstream scholarship, and that you are presenting it as if it is. There are also numerous other problems with your edits. I have explained, as a linguist, that you cannot get round the POV problem of asserting something that is just a theory by simply saying, "As X says". Yet you continue to do it.


 * After various objections had been made to your edits, a string of newly-registered editors (with red links) began to appear, saying that they agreed with you. I do not claim that these are your sockpuppets, but I am far from convinced that they are all different people. And that's not to mention the anonymous IP addresses that suddenly show up to agree with you.


 * Yes, a stub is meant to be filled. But it is better that a stub should be left temporarily as a stub than that it should be expanded into something that violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If there were a stub on Hamlet, and someone came along and filled it with minority views about how Hamlet was really a woman in disguise, and being in love with Horatio, could hardly help seeming unkind to Ophelia, it would get reverted back to stub status. Hopefully Early Christianity will not remain as a stub for too long, but it's very preferable to the controversial stuff you're posting.


 * I agree that "vandalism" should not have been used in an edit summary. However, you may be a bit confused. It was not one of the "organized group that follows around" who made that edit summary. It was User:38.114.145.148, who appeared shortly after you asked the newly-registered User:BelindaGong to come to that page, as you were out of reverts, and who, based on the IP address, is almost certainly Belinda herself. She used the word vandalism about my edit. I have looked through the edit history for that article, and that edit summary was the only one to use that word after you appeared on Wikipedia.


 * Could you please try to follow Wikipedia policy about consensus and reverting, and please stop the insinuations you make about other editors on the talk page. There were several editors working civilly together for consensus before you arrived with your massive number of reverts, your major edits, and your highly dubious claims of consensus. Thanks. AnnH (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

AnnH, Perhaps you can help me. Suppose you firmy believed that a group of exreme atheists were making a concerted and successful effort to impose their own views on the "Christianity" article. You have seen well intentioned objective contributors argue with them for months, but to no avail. As a result the article is absurdly one-sided and appeals to no one except other extreme atheists. You can't revert their material successfully because they are constantly on watch and will reverse your changes immediately. They know the rules by heart and use them to justify their every action. It is not clear to you whether they genuinely believe the position they represent as it is so one sided, but in any case they are unwilling to accept any other position, however well justified by hard facts or by the concensus of all non-atheists. Your patience is exhausted. You are no longer prepared to waste time arguing with them. They have have forfeited all right to have their contributions assessed in good faith. What do you do? Please let me know. I would value your advice.

168.224.1.14 15:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Sphynques


 * Hi Sphynques. I think I can answer your question. The answer is you must persevere, you must also know the rules and be very patient and never give up, either. Fight it out, but be civil (remember the rules!), assume good faith (even when its hard to) and most of all be tenacious, be bold since the truth is on your side. Also, get like-minded editors to join you in the uphill battle. Who ever said it’s supposed to be easy? This is part of the class struggle in the arena of ideas. To dislodge a firmly entrenched cabal that dominates and enforced one POV, one must be prepared to go the distance in a war of attrition. If you are patient, give it the time and energy and show no indication of ever giving up, then the other side will be forced to make some accommodations, some compromises, esp. when you get others on your side. Its power politics. Be prepared to face nonsesical accusations and many half-truths but don't be distracted by that and remember the rules can be used on your favor too.  Focus on what is important. Argue the case. Have lots of supporting documentation and hold the other party to the same stanards (but be prepared to be above and beyond). Soon enough your suppressed POV will be included. Maybe not what you were pushing for (always push for more than you want so the compromise will come out with what you really wanted in the first place).  The result is that the one-sided article is now more balanced in keeping with NPOV policy. I know it’s a lot of hard work--a full time now (trust me I know), but if it’s a labor of love, then it makes it easier to endure. I hope my thoughts have been helpful. Ciao. Giovanni33 00:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Unspotted vandalism
Transmitter Muehlacker was vandalised two weeks ago - I just reverted it. Not very impressive - what went wrong?

208.48.58.195 09:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering
Can I add myself to wikipedia? Would that be considered vandalism?
 * I believe it would be unless you happen to be a famous person.
 * Actually, it depends whether it was done in good faith or not. But I would suggest against adding yourself in any case; wait to be famous enough that someone else adds you. ;-)  -- SCZenz 23:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For more information, please read: Autobiography and Notability (people). Shawnc 09:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is an ArbCom case in voting in which a professor is in the process of being banned from editing his own biography and those of any of his students. Robert McClenon 15:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

New idea for how to gently convince pranksters to stay off of Wikipedia
I created a new template: Uncyclopedia has more about this subject: name

This way, when you tell someone "please don't post your jokes here, there are other sites for that stuff," you can also give them a shiny box to click on so that they know where to go to post their nonsense in peace. --M @ r ē ino 20:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Where are you going to put that template? I don't think we ought to put it in the article space. -- SCZenz 21:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of putting it on the vandal's talk page, along with a message saying something like, "if you click on the link in this box, you can move your article here, where it should get a more receptive audience." I also think there would be a handful of Wikipedia articles that should have a transwiki link to uncyclopedia (maybe in the talk section instead of on the article itself).  Namely, on those articles that cover topics that are the subject of constant satire (politics, religion, etc.), the uncyclopedia link could be a good way to subtly say, "if you have a website making fun of this group but not furthering social or scholarly purposes, don't list your link here, list it on this site." --M @ r ē ino 21:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I Totally Agree. we should direct all vandals to uncyclopedia. Who wants to move this into all the vandal templates.  If we send them there the vandels will be able to express themselves while contributing.  We should so link here--E-Bod 02:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actualy i took a second look. I'm infavor of having the timplate for user talk pages not for articles.  As far as FSM is consered why didn't sombody just subst: the template for the relevent articles.
 * On the collection of user talk warning templates we already have a set for jokes. Might it make sense to add this link to those templates? JoshuaZ 20:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

sprotect
I sprotected the page a while back, but it was removed along with a lot of other pages during a routine cleaning of protected pages. It was mentioned that perhaps this page could do with a permanent or semi-permanent sprotecting; what do others think? Most of the edits to this page (recently) are vandalism by IPs/new users and reversions of the vandalism. Essjay Talk •  Contact 14:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a permanent sprotect is a good idea. It's plain to see that this page is a desirable target for vandals. PJM 14:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree; if you look at the edit history, a large percentage of the edits are reversions of vandalism. Except for long-term users who choose not to create accounts, it's hard to imagine what random anons would contribute to this policy page anyway (other than simple typo fixes). EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've sprotected the page on a trial basis; let's leave it for a week, and look at the eidt pattern then to decide if leaving it sprotected is a good idea or not. Essjay  Talk •  Contact 00:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

When is removing of links allowed?
If somebody claims that the link in External links is a link to a site that he maintains and that he doesn't want his site to be linked from Wikipedia, in which cases is that person allowed to remove the link? I mean, if somebody just pops out of the blue and claims that's his site, it's vandalism and I revert it. But, if it seems that the guy removing the link might be the webmaster, shoud I revert him until he proves he's the webmaster or what? --Dijxtra 12:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

User:talk pages
Users should be able to remove any comment from their user:talk pages that was not put there by an admin. If a cadre of crazy people decide to target you with a smear campaign, you should not have to meekly put up with it.Wjhonson 00:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Users should not be accused of vandalism for modifying their own user:talk pages for any reason whatsoever, short of an official warning from an admin. Wjhonson 00:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Removing warnings is currently vandalism. If someone makes a false accusation, that is also vandalism, and there are methods to deal with that. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * clarifying: I meant in a case of clear NPA, not a disputed warning. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a discussion. What is the current interpretation is not the issue.  Rather the issue is what should the policy be, not what it is or might be. To allow any group of users to tag another user for abuse simply because "that's the policy" isn't a sound argument.  A more workable solution would be that only admins can give warnings or that a user can remove a warning provided it's not from an admin. Wjhonson 00:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * An equally workable solution would be to make deletion of any comment vandalism, provided the comment wasn't vandalous to begin with. This would force users to keep a record of their past, which has several advantages.
 * And just so you know, Admins don't dictate policy; they are just editors with a few extra abilities. They are janitors, not infallible editors. -- Ec5618 00:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely right; there is not, nor should there be, a distinction between a warning placed by a non-admin and an admin. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Admins however have some exposure and reputation. Imagine that a group of anonymous persons have targeted you, and decide to post fifty warnings to your user:talk page?  You're going to argue that they should be allowed to and the user can't do anything about it?  A warning should be able to be removed in some fashion.  My proposal is by the user themselves.  But simply putting your head in the snd and saying this doesn't happen ignores the fact that it does. Wjhonson 01:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You are new here, and possibly don't realise that should a group of people start harassing you in such a fashion, there are a number of other policies and procedures which would rectify that situation. Please read the links in your Welcome message, and familiarize yourself with policies and guidelines, before criticising them wholesale (and inaccurately.) KillerChihuahua?!? 01:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not new. I have just not, before today, needed to learn all these new *policies*. And aren't we supposed to be reaching a consensus before we go editing the "official policy" page ? At least that's what I thought we were trying to do *here*. Wjhonson 01:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit and add, "policies that seem to fluctuate with whoever wants to try to interpret them". My interpretation doesn't match yours.  Does this mean you are correct and I'm wrong?  I'd like to hear from the original author, and I've posted to his User:talk page to ask him to join this conversation.Wjhonson 01:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My goodness, you're not new. You have 1363 edits. Why the heck are you being so disruptive? KillerChihuahua?!? 01:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Correcting errors is not disruptive. It is instructive.  This discussion is so that we can reach a consensus.  What is the point of revert wars ?  The policy should stay as it is *until* a consensus is reached. Wjhonson 01:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Reverting a policy page over and over again due to "lack of consensus" when there are only two people in the discussion is not only disruptive, but a violation of WP:3RR, as it appears you've already been blocked for. For the record, I side with KillerChihuahua on this one.  User warnings would have absolutely no teeth if people could just revert them and undo the warning. Mo0 [ talk ] 06:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I also agree with KillerChihuahua. --Ashenai 14:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate the support, I was merely stating policy. My opinion is that it is a good policy, true, but I wish it to be clear that this is indeed policy. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah my friend but what you failed to note, is that I was reverting *changes* that were made without a consensus, *back* to what the page said, *before* this discussion started. Therefore, the onus of change is on the person making the changes.  Let me quote "before changing this page make sure you have a consensus."  I suppose there is some argument now, that certain people can do this and other's cannot?  This is not a logical position.  If anyone can make changes without a consensus and face no *spank patrol* then what is the point of trying to arrive at a consensus?  Should not the burden of consensus-proof be on the person proposing the changes and not on the person removing the changes? Thanks. Wjhonson 00:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway I've never experienced this but this seems like an implied rule that doesn’t deserve being stated. If you are vandal and therefore worthy of somebody putting a warning on your page then you wouldn’t care if it was further vandalism to remove the warning. If the person deletes the comment then it is an acknowledgment that they read it. The only reason I can see that removing warnings is harmful is that it prevents others from seeing the warning and putting a stronger warning up. But I feel that argument is pointless because if they bother to vandalize I expect them to delete the comment. When I leave a warning I always check the history assuming a true vandal would delete the warning. Also what if the Person doesn’t want to leave the message on the talk page. I saw somebody on wikpidia revert a revert of vandalism but I felt the person was not a vandal and it is probably a glitch in the system so I left a message on their talk page asking them to delete the message after they read it. They deleted my message. The only problem with that is that i don't know how he would respond to me but I did specify to delete the message in the message so I’m OK with that.--E-Bod 00:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC) You don't tell a bank robber not to jaywalk.--E-Bod 00:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC) The policy should be to check the history of the talk page before leaving a warning. Not to elevate the warning because they removed it. If they are a vandal elevating the warning means nothing to them, if they aren’t a vandal and in good faith removed the warning then the initial warning made it’s point and is not longer needed.--E-Bod 00:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Don’t give Vandals ideas--E-Bod 00:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC) I forgot where but it is discouraged to list every possibly of what could be done because it gives the vandals idea when, never the less a vandal wouldn’t read this page. This page should be to tell people how to deal with vandals.--E-Bod 00:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I vote to remove this (self evident rule)/(shouldn’t be a rule) rule. --E-Bod 00:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Sory if my fomating is wrong. If it bothers you just bold it and get rid of the special formating and this line--E-Bod 00:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am actualy changing my mind now. If you are remving a warning for vandalism then i see calling that vandalism is pointless, however if you are removing a warning from a talk page that is about someting other than vandalism it could be a problem for long talk pages that have other stuff on them.  I think we shouldn't call it vandalism but their still should be a rule.  But for new talk pages it dosn;t matter if you remove a warning, for longer talk pages it would be a problem.  When i disagree with an edit i usualy chack their talk page to see if other peple had the same problem before.  If the page is short i wil check the history but for long extablised talk pages i now understand the problem.--E-Bod 04:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

For short talk pages removing warnings is not a problem but for long talk pages it is so the rule should stay but not mabe instad of calling it vandalism call it something else--E-Bod 04:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Warnings - how long to leave on user talk page?
Another issue is the age of warnings. If a warning must stay, then there must be a clear policy on how *long* it must stay. Forever, is not acceptable in my opinion. Wjhonson 01:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Concur. This is not even vague, its just not addressed. Of course one can always archive, but how long should it stay prior to archiving? KillerChihuahua?!? 01:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Suggest a time frame. Since you just complained that I deleted an archived warning from um... 16 months ago. Wjhonson 03:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * How about a week. I would think a week of looking at some warning would be a sufficient spanking.  I don't any need to archive warnings, but if you do, I don't think you really want them to live forever in the archive do you? Wjhonson 03:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Who complained? It was not I. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me retract "complained" in favor of "reverted". I'm going to go ahead and post "week" as a policy inless there is a "guideline but not policy" page for warning-archiving or whatever.  Since no one else seems to want to talk about this here, I suppose they are agnostic about the issue. Wjhonson 00:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

First: I didn't revert the removal of one warning two years old, I reverted wholesale blanking of several warnings. When you removed the two-year old warning alone, later, I did nothing. Second: Strongly object to addition to policy without strong support. Silence does not denote consent in this case: silence denotes lack of interest and support in rules creep. That said, I think a week is sufficient as a rule of thumb - and I don't know any Admin who would object to archiving after a week. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm you got strong support *before* you made your change? I don't seem to recall that happening. (See discussion above.) Wjhonson 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't make a change. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Vadalism using graphic pics, no apparent code seen
Recently I was using my fire fox browser to go to the "Math" page of wikipedia, and 3 grapic images appeared on the screen, they appeared there for 5 of the past entries. They were pretty big pictures at the very beggining of the article. I reverted to a version that was 6 edits ago. I would have just deleted the pictures, but when I went to edit the article there was no code for the pictures there!!! Has anyone else had this problem? Do you know what is going on? Any advice on this would help so we can maybe stop this problem from occuring again. Thanks. Masparasol 19:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have not had this problem, nor was I able to find any reason for it happening to you. Sorry - KillerChihuahua?!? 15:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for looking, I tried to recreate the problem on the same computer and nothing happened, it is very strange. The next time it happens I will save the html files and host them elsewhere so we can try see what happened. Masparasol 17:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

vandalism report link
I wanted to report vandalism, went to the vandalism article, clicked 'revert it or report it' and saw only simple instructions on how to revert it, but no means to report it. There's even a 'contact us' image, but that's no link for any sort of contact. Of course I realised there was another link to this page at the top of the 'vandalism' article, but beginners, who that other page is meant for will be very confused and might give up (even give up on Wikipedia alltogether - I remember when I was an internet novice). DirkvdM 08:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Defense of content
Hi All - I request your attention to Defense of content - proposing some new ways to fight vandalism. Rama&#39;s Arrow 17:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Types of Vandalism
I worked very hard on this article, to make it brilliant. It, as you can see, includes all the types of vandalism listed on this page. Also, I have orderized them all and written 9 entire sections by myself; there is no loss of content by, instead of including all the has-mash of types listed here, providing a link to a more useful page all about types rather than a small section. I have contributed to Wikipedia with all my soul, and what do I see? Rejection of my article, tags for deletion, and revertion of simplification. Why? I do not know, but please, please fix it soon.

Flameviper12 21:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "orderized" used below is not a word. it is wikipedia's policy to only use words. —This unsigned comment is by Eelevy (talk • contribs).

A three warnings rules
Can I get a clarification if there are to be three warnings before a block can take place? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masssiveego (talk • contribs) 05:05, 1 March 2006.
 * Please sign your messages. Thank You! -- S iva1979 Talk to me  19:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If somebody forgets to sign a comment just sign it for them using Template:Unsigned --E-Bod 21:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

How to spot vandalism section
The "how to spot vandalism section at present is quite short - patrolling RC and reverting. I suggest that encouraging users to are also good things to do as a second and third tiers to fighting vandalism.  The latter seems to be rarely done, but I have had some sucess with it (although it often means wading through a lot of ordinary, unvandalized pages).  Any thoughts on adding it to the page? --Hansnesse 17:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Watch pages
 * 2) Search for common vandalism terms (stuff like "penis" or "dumbass")

New type of vandalism to be added to the policy?
62.116.76.117 has invented a new type of vandalism, not exactly covered by this policy. Despite asking him not to do this, he keeps on writing his text in the talk page of articles, often without his IP, into my text so that what one reads changes meaning.

I suggest we add this type of vandalism to the policy.

''I am not going to say that he does this is obviously purposeful vandalism, just as the prior obvious vandalisms of different articles are not obviously purposeful vandalism. I think he simply feels all the articles would be better if he could delete anything he does not like, and add anything he likes.'' DanielDemaret 08:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

How about adding another type of vandalism, known as mocking vanadlism. It refers the vanadlism that mocks, e.g. a particular person or a group. E.g. changing the word 'about' to 'aboot' is mocking Northern Englanders, Scots and Canadians on their accents, does wikipedia have a policy on this?Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)(talk)


 * No, we just correct the spelling. Your suggestion is inherently subjective - perhaps a typo, perhaps a spelling error, could be mis-labeled vandalism. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

IP numbers
Does anyone think that people with only IP-numbers look at their talk pages to look at warnings?DanielDemaret 08:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If they ignore the large yellow "You have new messages" box at the top of their screen, well that's their problem. I also wonder how many of them read the warnings, but I still feel we need to. Raven4x4x 06:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Some do, and some reply. As Raven states, if they ignore it, that's their decision. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Enough of them do read the warnings to make leaving them worthwhile, although with dynamic IP addresses the warning may never be seen. (Look at the user contribution list, if there are more than a couple items on it it probably will be seen; if there are only one or two it might or might not.) ProhibitOnions 12:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Terminatorius bot blanks warnings
On March 15, 2006, the User:Terminatorius bot created by User:Audriusa blanked warnings from several user talk pages, specifically IP talk pages with a vandal warning template where no edit had been made within the last 48 hours. The bot was later stopped and the changes were reverted by the bot owner. Do you think this type of bot is a good idea? Please see discussion at WP:BRFA Wuzzy 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment
i can solve all your vandalism problems immediately.

it's called "don't immediately make enemies out of people."

people vandalize (tear down) what you are trying to build up because you have angered them.

their contributions, at first made in the best of faith, are very uncourteously flushed.

if you could be just a little friendly, you wouldn't make so many enemies.

before i ever got here, the fact that vandalism is such a huge and ongoing problem, means that you have pissed off a lot of people.

when their contributions are rudely flushed, since they can't contribute to wikipedia, the only other option is to uncontribute.

realize an old defense department adage - "friends are much cheaper than enemies."

if wikipedia did not have to spend all the time and energy and resources to combat vandalism, think of what glorious valuable creation could take its place.

"orderized" used below is not a word. it is wikipedia's policy to only use words. —This unsigned comment is by Eelevy (talk • contribs).


 * Troll alert Jtkiefer T   03:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

what the heckkk is this?? why would you just like let anyone on your site anddd let them edit it??? thats the strangest thing.

De-cat vandalism
I just fixed vandalism that was done on several articles in October of 2005 - the vandal removed all categories from three articles; one was reverted right away, the other two I just restored a few minutes ago. Can we set up the system that automatically reverts page blankings so that it automatically reverts removal of all categories from an article (or at least flags that article to be checked)? bd2412 T 19:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accounts of a vandal
I noticed that vandals may create numerous new accounts continuously while attacking a page. For example, Electrical engineering, the Featured Article for March 25, 2006, was vandalized in a consistent fashion by at least the following user names, which seem be sockpuppets: User:One-minus-ten User:MYCOAL User:*s IX s IX s IX* User:=LUKE= User:B.d. cane User:Braces anonymous User:Cant be prong User:Cats have this many lives ( User:Chaosguru User:Clear blue style User:Freepme User:Higher intellek User:Hittykitty User:Kokonuts User:Kslasher User:Mambo No. 9 User:Marsbound User:Mellow Dramamine User:MYCOAL User:Newformat User:No studying for you! User:No way nueve User:One-minus-ten User:Primedieval User:Pynisbird User:Raul654 is a good little lapdog User:Red-E 2 Roll User:RRRR User:Times9 User:Ugotsrvd User:Volupteer

If an account is both 1) created solely for the purpose of vandalism (all posts are acts of vandalism), and 2) a sockpuppet of a vandal (same IP), should the account be deleted from the userspace, like deleted articles? Shawnc 02:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think so; see WP:DENY. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 14:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

User pages
I'm a bit worried by this: "Removing warnings, whether for vandalism or other forms of prohibited/discouraged behavior, from one's talk page is also considered vandalism." I agree that it's uncivil and usually a sign that an editor is the sort of person who engages in vandalism or other disruptive behaviour &mdash; but surely the notion of vandalism is meant to help with the protection of the encyclop&aelig;dia, not individuals' Talk pages. I'm not convinced that this should be a blockable offence in any case, but even if it is, surely it's not vandalism? --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Some abusive admin made that up. I removed it. --Candide, or Optimism 18:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, then you should remove the entire rule. Why should a warning about vandalism be a more serious offence than a warning about something else, which migh be much graver. Even if "some abusive admin" (would be good to present evidence, if you call somebody names) made that up (aren't all rules "made up"?), it might be sensible to keep it this way.--Fossa 18:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're right. I'll remove the entire rule. --Candide, or Optimism 18:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, don't! The reason this rule is in place is to deal with typical vandal behaviour who vandalises an article, gets a warning and then removes the warning before going on to more vandalism (mistakenly thinking that this will let them get away with it). For admins dealing with a lot of vandalism it is helpful to be sure that no warnings have been removed - it gives us a good idea of how persistent a vandal the person is, and threfore how long a block they deserve. Frankly no-one should be removing anything from their talk pages. In either case don't arbitrarily change policy. DJ Clayworth 18:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone can remove things from their talkpages. It's their right. Also, show me concesus for this rule. Who decided this? And you speak about vandalism, but the rule mention that any kind of warning that is removed is deemed as vandalism, but as Mel pointed out, it cannot be vandalism. --Candide, or Optimism 18:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The same logic would apply. It is exceptionally useful to have a record of what interactions there have been with a user regarding their behaviour. Removing things from talk pages is not someone's right. In my experience removing things from talk pages (except obscenity and attacks) is usually an attempt to cover up their behaviour. DJ Clayworth 19:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, and perhaps the opinion of others; but opinions are not rules. --Candide, or Optimism 19:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if we're not going to term it "vandalism," we should certainly have a section somewhere that talks about removing warnings from talk pages. Removing messages from talk pages without archiving is sometimes frowned upon, but if it's non-controversial, etc., then people generally don't make a big deal about it. However, when talking about vandalism warnings, removing these messages is at least highly discouraged, and users will often get another warning just for doing this. These warnings help us keep track of how many times people have been warned without sifting through the history. Any user acting in good faith has no reason to remove these warnings, and if they become a legitimate contributor they can archive them such that they practically disappear. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * In my expereience, warnings can be as abusive as the behavior they alledge to caution against. Having said that, for the sake of transparency, I'd suggest to not to remove warnings for a specified amount of time, say 6 weeks. But this should count for all warnings, not just vandalism. I think that's in the spirit of the original policy. --Fossa 20:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly; warnings can also be abusive. I don't think that a user should have to keep warnings on their talkpage just because admins find it more convenient. --Candide, or Optimism 22:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, by "abusive" do you mean warnings that were not made in good faith, warnings that are worded in some kind of hostile or uncivil manner, or something else? E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All of the things mentioned above and in addition to this, not all warnings are warranted. Also see Mel's example below. --Candide, or Optimism 10:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Warnings are often placed as retaliation by disgruntled users, as moves in edit wars, etc. I've recently been involved in a case in which an editor was blocked and his Talk page protected because he'd removed bad-faith and mischievous warnings placed there by opponents in a content discpute. That's how I came across this "rule", which I'd not seen before, and which I find dubious. I can't imagine a case in which an editor persistently removed genuine warnings in which she wouldn't face sanctions anyway. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is a logical argument that I can agree with. As much as we'd like to assume good faith, we have to accept that there are times when users may abuse the warning system. And you're probably right that if a typical vandal is removing warnings, they're probably doing other things (vandalizing pages) that will get them blocked anyway. However, I still feel that we should address this in some way. Perhaps something along the lines of, "Removing warnings, particularly for vandalism, is discouraged. However, if you feel that the warnings were not made in good faith, you may remove the warnings, stating your reasoning in the edit summary. On the other hand, for the sake of historical records, consider simply archiving or replying to these warnings in a civil manner, or requesting diffs that indicate edits against Wikipedia policy. If you have done nothing wrong, template warnings have no more weight than other false accusations on your talk page."
 * Just a rough draft there, though I worry that it may give too much leeway to true vandals than the previous "no removing warnings" instruction. Feel free to tweak/chop up/throw away that idea. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Folks it is very important that you don't edit a policy just because you think it should work a certain way. For policies we have to get universal buy-in. The way to get a policy changed is to suggest that the change is made. Then allow a reasonable amount of time for discussion - at least several weeks. For anything other than a very minor change there should be a widespread request for comments on the changes. Go and look at Policies and guidelines for a description of how policy is made. DJ Clayworth 19:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Just so you all know, I edited a very closely related section in complete ignorance of this discussion. The result is a cumbersome sentence, but one that actually says what it wants to say. Far too often one sees people using this "policy" as a method of attacking a good faith user who has made a couple of mistakes. I put that removing warnings is "generally discouraged", especially when the removal aims to deceive other users coming to that page. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. Removing a warning doesn't negate that the warning has been issued. It doesn't make it disappear from history. You can't make up rules because you think its rude. There is no reason to require people leave up warnings for any amount of time. The fact that they removed them proves that they saw them. That's all that needs to be known. --MateoP 21:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it makes it more difficult for editors and sysops to determine if previous warnings have been issued (recently) if they have to repeatedly go digging through the history (especially when the vandal only removes the warnings and not other messages). —Locke Cole • t • c 00:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Believe me guys when you're dealing with the twentieth person that day who thinks it's funny to insert the word PENIS into an article you don't want to have to go through the history of the offender's talk page to find out how many times he's been warned. You just want to read his talk page and apply an appropriate warning or block. DJ Clayworth 04:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I do revert and warn vandals, but not that manny a day, so i can understand why you may not want to put sometion on a talk pae but most the vandalsim i've come across are New talk pages so they couldn't have possible deleted their warnigs. if they are a new user who deleted a warg then on the histry the Help:Edit_summary should tell you all the warnings their are.  If somebody is Vandalizing like adding rude words to text then why would telling them it's vandalism do anyting.  They already Vandalized.  Then again i don't revert that many cases of vandalism.  so i'm not coming fromme the same place.  It is like ... This talk page is gettingn too long--E-Bod 13:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that this issue has caused me quite a bit of problems tonight. I happened to last review these policies while that rule was listed on the page. Since I happened to read the this rule while it was listed on a policy page, I was under the wrong impression and caused me to unfairly ban a user. Hopefully the situation will be considered resolved once the user has had a chance to review my statement to him and it won't leave any long term damage, but I just wanted to mention that there were consequences to this unfortunately situation. My statement to the user about the situation from my perspective is here. To anyone who is considering editing this page without a discussion first, just don't do it. Sorry for bring this issue up again, but I felt this was important enough to be mentioned.

However, templates like wr2 are really misleading and should not remain if there isn't a community consensus to enforce it. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)