Wikipedia talk:Vandalism

Idea to eliminate most vandalism

Here is an idea. All IP edits and edits from accounts with fewer than 100 or 200 edits or so would not be visible immediately. Instead, they would head to another page, where editors with 200 edits or more would review the differences, and decided whether or not to approve them. If approved, the results of the edit would immediately take effect. If not, they wouldn't.

The reviewers' page would be in the format similar to New Page Patrol. Reviewers would be required to approve all edits that appear to be in good faith, even if they do not agree with them, and even if they lack sourcing, etc, or otherwise look lousy. The only edits that would be rejected would be blatant vandalism (such as obvious nonsense, illegitimate profanity, repeating characters, hateful attacks, or spam). Reviewers would be instructed to approve then revert all other edits they simply disagree with, and when in doubt to approve.

Hopefully, there would be enough reviewers so all good-faith edits would get approved within seconds. Hellno2 (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So basically thats WP:FLAGGEDREVS but a bit more complicated--Jac16888^Talk 01:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You do realize that a huge proportion of edits are made by IPs right? We can't even keep up with new pages now, forget every single edit by users with less than 1-200 edits.--Terrillja _talk 01:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Short answer: this is a well meaning but unworkable plan. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to detect Vandalism

I noticed recently a vandal was making changes to articles on specific beauty pageants, changing the country that contestants were associated with. Without some familiarity of the subject, I wouldn't have noticed the vandalism if not for the fact that they attempted to change multiple countries at the same time. It seems that pages like those, which have numerous tables with easily modified information, and are only moderately popular, are more susceptible to undetected vandalism. Many editors may not know what country a contestant was from in a pageant from decades ago. Is there a way to deal with less popular pages, especially with information that is generally difficult to verify? Becky Sayles (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There could be a new pair of wikicodes affixed to data deemed to be prone to difficult-to-detect vandalism (vandalism difficult to detect). "She was born in England in 1900" could be coded as "She was born in <van>England</van> in <van>1900</van>". Revisions to those data can be tagged in watchlists. There would need to be careful thought given to deciding where to use the wikicodes, so that the emphasis is not nullified by overuse. -- Wavelength (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Becky, Any such change that has no supporting citation can be reverted outright, unless you have some idea it might be correct. It's up to the editor changing information to support the fact per verifiability and reliable sourcing. If you're uncertain, check existing citations for correctness of the article. If it has none, tag it with {{cn}}. Otherwise revert. —EncMstr (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's awkward knowing when to revert, but I support the above advice. If there is not at least an indication of why the change is made in an edit summary or the talk page, and if the change is not accompanied with a believable reference, please undo the change with edit summary "unsourced". Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipediholism DENY issue

There is a humor page at WP:Wikipediholism test which asks if the reader knows what a certain long-term vandal did (search for "Willy"; occurs in Q6 and Q21). Perhaps I am being over sensitive, but does anyone here think those sections should be deleted per WP:DENY? I noticed this at WP:Help desk where someone asked about it. Johnuniq (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Page blanks are occurring slower than in the past?

I've had this question in my head for the last couple weeks or so. I think the answer to that is the tag filters. When a vandal wants to blank a page and remove all its content, a warning will pop up, and maybe they decide to not blank it. Anyone feel free to comment about why it's been so slower recently, please! :-) Schfifty3 20:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What if...

...Somebody vandalized this page as an ironic joke? Would the wikipeople bitch at them? Q̬̲̜̲͔̤̓̈́̿̿͑̄́͜W̉ͬͯ͗̄ͥͩ͑̎̚҉͡҉̨̯̰͚̰̩̹̗̳̪͎͈̲͖͕̀ͅE̸̵͓͖̳̠̤̣̞̠̤ͯ̓ͮ̄͋͂̃ͦ̈̓͊ͮṚ̛̣̘͇̩̘͚̯̞̤̮͍̥̰͇̻͔̯̾ͯ̒̑̾ͤ̏̑̋͠ͅT̴̛̗̥̺̠̖͙͓̟̙̞͙͇̳̖͈͊ͫͦ̔ͪ͑̏̊Y̢̛̫͚̘̪̅̇͐ͣ̈̈͋̕͜ 20:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC) QWERTY531 (talk · contribs)

No, we would block them. Vandalism is vandalism no matter where it occurs, and this actually has happened before. (hint:it's neither ironic nor funny) Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice unicode. -- œ^™ 16:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of warnings on talk page

Does the removal of legitimate warnings on one's talk page constitute vandalism? Is there any rule against this? And if it isn't considered vandalism, what is it? ForeverDusk (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, as far as I know, it is not considered vandalism. One can blank it's own talk page freely. If you need to report severe vandalism that needs admin action, you can do so in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Legion fi (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

For registered users, most types warnings can be deleted once they have been seen by the user. The exceptions (which immediately come to mind) are for ongoing investigations of sockpuppetry, etc.

For anonymous (ip address) users, they should not be removed. Since IPs are often shared addresses, warnings should remain for the actual perpetrator to see. —EncMstr (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As per WP:BLANKING, editors -both registered and anonymous- may remove messages from their own talk pages at will. — Kralizec! (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

When you've discovered a vandal, and the talk page is blank, then you check in the talk page history and the whole saga is in there.

Varlaam (talk) 03:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Most?

"Often, Wikipedians make sweeping changes to pages in order to improve them — most of us aim to be bold when updating articles."

This doesn't really reflect the WP I know, where changes tend to be modest and incremental.
Varlaam (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That is bizarre. I don't think it needs to be nearly that specific. More broadly, all good faith efforts to improve a page are not vandalism, right? --Bsherr (talk) 04:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The use of the Term Vandalism, to characterise useless distruction, from an Educational Institution, Organisation, Web Site or Encyclopedia, is inapropriate

The Vandals are not a lost tribe somewwhere in ancient History .

Even if it was it, would be inapropriate. But it wouldn't be insulting, as there would be noone to recieve the insult.

But the Vandals are not.

We learn that from around 1540, the Swedish king had been styled, Suecorum, Gothorum et Vandalorum Rex: King of the Swedes, Goths and Vendes. So we see that the name is not a name that the Romans used to call that specific tribe, but a name that they themselves were using.

So isn't it insulting to adopt the name of a tribe, an ethnic group, or a nation, to describe a negative act or behaviour ? Surely it is . Imagine how would you fell if we would oficialy adopt in Wikipedia the terms : brittons the Brutals , french or galls the hypocrites, hellenes the thieves, or germans the selfish.

So I would suugest to ask from the Wikipedia, to quit using this term to define something negative . Henri Grégoire had his reasons. I do not know to say If he was rigjht or not. I know to say however that "labeling" , an ethnic group , as thoughtless distructors, is NOT AT ALL a simple, and safe thing to do.

Offcourse some will say that it is not the Ethnic Group labeled negatively, it is the act taking the name of the group, however i suppose that you all know by now, that it might be more than half of those that heard or even use, the word to describe the destruction, that they do not have an Idea about the Vandals Homeland, History, and not an Idea that until Today the name is used by an Ethnic ,Group in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitas.palojannides (talk • contribs) 14:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is using the term vandalism in its modern sense (an act of destruction). I'd suggest you first change the English language and then we might consider changing our use of the term. –xeno^talk 14:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, this is the not first time this request has come up: Are there any versions of this warning which do not include an ethnic slur?. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Entry for user space vandalism

I've been working on updating and making more concise the vandalism page. Only one edit was reverted. I suggest deleting the entry describing user space vandalism, because I believe it is redundant with the other entries. Right now, it states: "Adding insults, profanity, etc. to user pages or user talk pages (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks)." There's nothing in the entry that wouldn't apply to any namespace. For example, "Adding insults, profanity, etc. to article pages or article talk pages", "Adding insults, profanity, etc. to category pages or category talk pages". The page already covers the addition of "insults, profanity, etc." under silly vandalism. Is there a reason to repeat it for each namespace? --Bsherr (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It is extremely important to repeat the same for each namespace. Because the policies/guidelines that guide user talk page behaviour are not expected to be the same for other spaces. Kindly do not delete such important details, like you did (and I reverted), without gaining consensus on this page. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. If a policy is said to apply to all pages, that includes user space pages, does it not? --Bsherr (talk) 03:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, could you explain which of my changes you take issue with and why? --Bsherr (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bsherr, could you list down all the changes you wish to make to the vandalism page? As it is a policy page of Wikipedia, and you seem to be wishing to make large changes, it'll be great for you to list all the changes out. Let's get comments from other editors in the next few days on each and every page change you wish to make. I'll comment tomorrow or day after. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 04:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, it would be more efficient if you could tell me which changes you take issue with. You've seen them all because you reverted them. Let me know which ones you object to, and I'll explain them. If it turns out you don't object to any of them, that's fine, and I'll restore my edits. --Bsherr (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

@Bsherr: It is far too early to know how other editors will react to your proposed changes, and I suggest waiting a few days before worrying about this issue. In particular, it does not seem worth raising on user talk pages. There are several points on this page that may be worth removing (per WP:BEANS, I feel some of the items are just obviously vandalism and do not need to be listed). However, it is important to spell out that putting nonsense in userspace is vandalism to clarify that "I was just playing" is not a valid reason to vandalize a user talk page, for example. Johnuniq (talk) 04:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The page already says, "Adding profanity, graffiti, random characters (gibberish), or other nonsense to pages". I thought it would be clear that pages meant all pages. If not, would it not be simpler to state "Adding profanity, graffiti, random characters (gibberish), or other nonsense to pages, including user and user talk pages"? --Bsherr (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I've made changes based on your comments. --Bsherr (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

To make it more convenient to see the proposed changes, I've placed them in the sandbox. I've labeled in the edit summary the revision constituting the old, and the revision constituting the new, for easy comparison. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --Bsherr (talk) 05:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• As promised, here're my views:

• I strongly oppose the reformatting of the sections (moving up/moving down of sections arbitrarily). They've been placed in that format there after many years of discussion. Unless you bring forth policy/logic/reason for changing the structure, I oppose it completely.
• I strongly oppose the deletion of even one line without logic. Just as an example, user space vandalism is a terminology which has been used considerably in the past, being used now, and will be in the future to bring about specific subsequent actions by editors/administrators. Therefore, it needs to be itemized separately. Same with concepts like, say, copyright violation. On another front is the fact that not every editor goes through all policies and guidelines everywhere; therefore, it becomes excruciatingly importantly that for such editors, we cross-reference and double up as much of the policies/guidelines as possible. Therefore, like I mentioned at the start of this paragraph, I strongly oppose all deletions.
• How do we go on from here? I strongly (and very strongly) recommend that instead of the sandbox approach - which will be not conducive to get consensus or discussions - take one major change at a time. If you wish to delete some major points, list one major change out here, eke out discussion, reach consensus, then move on to the other major change. Given that, and hoping you've read my answer, which other change would you wish to make? Thanks Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

We can go on from here first by discussing the issues you brought up.

• I also strongly oppose the deletion of even one line without logic! We agree! Hopefully, where anything has been outright deleted (and I don't believe anything was), I can offer my logic for doing so.
• Bowing to your request, I have not deleted the user space vandalism type, but I have added more information and made it more specific. It was there in the sandbox before you commented. Did you not see it? What do you think of it now?
• I haven't reordered the vandalism types arbitrarily. I've alphebetized them to make it easier for users to locate relevant information. As far as I can tell, the existing order has no logic, but if I'm wrong, I'd love to know what it is.
• Copyright violations are discussed under an entirely different policy in much greater depth (WP:COPYVIO). Is there a reason it also needs to be defined as vandalism? I am interested in the answer. I'm not opposed to cross-referencing, of course; I'm very supportive of it, as you've said you are. But notice that the entry for copyright violations does not include a cross-reference to the main policy! At the very least, that should be fixed.

Before you decide that you strongly oppose something, why don't we discuss it? Maybe you can help me understand your perspective, and maybe you'll allow me to explain mine? --Bsherr (talk) 05:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, any further objections? --Bsherr (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Objections to what? The fact that no one has commented may mean that no one has noticed, or it may mean that people are satisfied with the current page. What problem do you want to fix? What changes do you want? Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

A summary may be viewed by comparing the marked diffs in the sandbox. --Bsherr (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What problem do you want to fix? (There is no point improving something if there is no actual reason to do so.) Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The absence of several links to important, relevant policies; the reference to the test templates now deprecated for three years, several areas where language could be made clearer and more concise, absence of mention of confirmed users versus autoconfirmed users, and the arbitrary and confusing order in which the items are listed. --Bsherr (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

Some major changes by Bsherr have been implemented. The previous section highlights some issues that may mean some of the changes are undesirable, nevertheless many of the cleanups performed are good. Because it is a bit hard to follow exactly what was changed, I am posting the following points which might need attention. At WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism:

• Abuse of tags has been changed as follows (underline = new text):

  Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes removal of extremely-long-standing bad-faith removal of {{policy}} and related tags without forming consensus on such a change first.

  I am concerned that "bad-faith" is undefinable, and so provides a wikilawyer's defense leading to unproductive arguments. OTOH the issue is only whether the reverting editor is able to describe the removal as vandalism.

• Silly vandalism has inserted "blatant" (is that word necessary?):

  Adding profanity, graffiti, random characters (gibberish), or other blatant nonsense to pages

• User and user talk page vandalism has inserted "within the control" which is too strong:

  Unwelcome, illegitimate edits to another person's user page may be considered vandalism. User pages are regarded as within the control of their respective users and, with certain exceptions, should not be edited without permission of the user to whom they belong. See WP:UP#OWN. Related is Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

I still wonder, per WP:BEANS, whether it is helpful to lovingly document all the things vandals can do, but I have made some minor changes to Bsherr's text along the lines of a general cleanup. I am not yet ready to express an opinion on whether the recent changes as a whole are desirable because, whereas many individual fixes are improvements, I am sympathetic to the view expressed in the previous section that it may not be helpful to totally reorganize this policy. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Johnuniq, thanks very much for the kind review of the changes, and for the feedback. The additional changes you made look great. Indeed, you've pointed out some good issues with my changes.

First, I did indeed misremember the phrase used in the guidelines for nonsense—it's patent, not blatant (they're synonyms, but it's preferable to be consistent, of course). I've tightened up the language in that row, and wikilinked to the nonsense guideline.

Next, the abuse of tags text. When I added "bad faith", I was trying to capture what I believe is an existing consensus that the definition actually is more expansive than indicated by the text, that removal of even recently added policy tags can be vandalism too. But I see now that even bad faith (though I disagree in that I do believe it is adequately able to be defined) is the wrong phrase, because we do recognize the concept of good faith vandalism. I think the better word is "baseless", so I'll change it to that.

Finally, user space vandalism. As you notice, I've completely rewritten this row, as I mentioned in the section above. The previous text there was so utterly unhelpful, that I originally suggested the row be deleted, but in response to Wifione's valid concerns, I instead set about to make the entry useful by adding relevant policy and guidelines. Correctly phrasing the relationship between users and their user pages is very challenging. When I find myself unable to articulate it, I sometimes resort to labeling it !ownership (like our !vote jargon). Wikipedia outright refutes that users own their user pages, of course, but, on the other hand, it's frowned upon, or discouraged, or in poor form, or whatever..., to edit other people's user pages. I attempted to define that relationship as one of "control" (short of ownership, but greater than the interest of the common), but maybe that's too strong, too. So I do need help with this. An alternative is just not labeling it at all: "Unwelcome, illegitimate edits to another person's user page may be considered vandalism. User pages usually should not be edited without permission of the user to whom they belong." I also notice now that I completely neglected to address user talk pages, which I'll remedy.

--Bsherr (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

VANDTYPES could be changed

The POV or BIAS tag could be changed. When placed on a page it says, among other things, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2009)." However, the WP:LAMEest thing happened when WP:CABALDEMONS worked together to continually remove the tag despite its clear language not to remove it. You see, between that language and WP:VANDTYPES, I assumed it was vandalism to remove the tag. So, since active and constructive conversation on the issue was occurring in Talk, and for the reasons stated above, I restored it 4 times and, as a result, got blocked under WP:3RR by an action started by one of the cabalists.

My suggestion to prevent such an occurrence in the future would be to remove the language "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2009)" from the message.

Alternatively, VANDTYPES could be edited to explicitly state removing the POV or BIAS tag is not vandalism.

Better yet, a decision could be made that removing the tag is indeed vandalism. Then the VANDTYPES page could be updated. I think that would be ideal given the purpose and usage guidelines for the POV/BIAS tag.

So, what do you think? I am going to paste this same message on the Template messages/Disputes page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this has been a problem for anyone but you. Calling other editors "CABALDEMONS" is a personal attack - please assume good faith.   Will Beback  talk  22:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You too, Will Beback, WP:AGF. I was unaware of the limitations of the CABALDEMONS page back then and now even agree with you about userfying the page. It is not a personal attack to have been victimized by a cabal than call the cabal what it is. Recently, something WP:LAME occurred precisely because people worked together to precipitate a 3RR action against me that was ultimately unblocked. This should not happen to anyone else. I am perfectly in my rights to raise this legitimate and even compelling issue here, and there is no need for you to be uncivil and say, "I don't think this has been a problem for anyone but you." While you may be right, the purpose of coming here is to prevent it from recurring. Please be civil. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"It is not a personal attack to have been victimized by a cabal than call the cabal what it is.". Calling editors, even if perceived as a cabal, demonic is indeed a personal attack and uncivil. Westbender (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)