Wikipedia talk:Vandalism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is not the page for reporting vandalism.
This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Vandalism page and the associated policy.
|
See also: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings.
|
Past discussion prior to these archives is available in the page history. |
[edit] Vandal warnings
Should I sign warning posts to vandal talk pages? It seems that this would be an invitation for vandals to vandalize my user/talk page. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 01:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, vandalism warnings should be signed, just like all talk page posts. It provides accountability and makes it easier for other editors to know who was doing the warning - the information is there in the history for the vandal to find it if they really want to, anyway. —Krellis (Talk) 02:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Userpage vandalism is reverted rather quickly most of the time anyway (as I should know...) Hut 8.5 09:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unclear language
The following sentence in the section "Unintentional Misinformation" is unclear: "Sometimes a user will add content to an article that is factually inaccurate, but in the belief that it is." In the belief that it is . . . misinformation?
The sentence should be rewritten thusly: "Sometimes a user will add to an article content that she believes to be factually accurate, but is not," or something along those lines. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 8.6.1.127 (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Blanking vandalism in policy
The "blanking section" reads:
- Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism.
This strikes me as inconsistent with
- Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. … Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.
I suggest rewriting the blanking section by adding a clause so it reads "both constitute vandalism if their motive is malicious". semper fictilis 14:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit summaries
I have often found that people reverting vandalism will put what they removed in the edit summary. This can merely move the obscenities. Can we ask for people to not perpetuate the vandalism in the history? Goldfritha 01:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have seen this myself and I agree. The summary "vandalism" suffices plenty. I might even go so far as t o suggest that a message to this efect be automatically placed on the edit page where editors will see it when they make reverts. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 02:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Protection/Semi-protection
Any reason for page protection or semi-protection not being discussed or at least linked from in this article? (That is, described as an anti-vandalism tool with links to WP:RFPP provided). If there is no objection, I will add something. --Blainster 07:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Added a quick link at the bottom. --Sigma 7 02:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Stubbornness" and 3RR
In the entry on "stubbornness" I added a pointer to 3RR. This change is meant to be useful and non-controversial, but am posting here in case anyone disagrees. Raymond Arritt 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism History
A page should be created to analyze the history of wikipedia vandalism, and more specifically, hoaxes. Notably, the Satchel Cohen hoaxer from about a year ago. This a real subculture and deserves attention in this encyclopedia.
- There already is one anyway – Qxz 17:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Handling Returning IP Vandals
I've seen cases of IP users who have a history of vandalism, including multiple warnings and possibly one or more blocks, returning to commit more vandalism. Of course, an IP user may be a different person, so going straight to block at the first offense after a period of inactivity doesn't make sense. But do warnings need to reset all the way back to {{uw-vandalism1}} before escalating if the user continues to vandalize? I wonder about this especially in cases where an IP user stopped vandalizing after a {{uw-vandalism4}} and returns after taking a break for a few weeks. I tend to give them a {{uw-vandalism2}} or {{uw-vandalism3}} in these cases, especially if I see several cases of blatant vandalism in the past hour and I'm the first to issue a warning -- a {{uw-vandalism1}} in these cases just seems pointless. Rickterp 21:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- In cases like this, I simply decide how bad the vandalism was and then go off that. If it's minor, I'll issue a vandalism2. If it's slightly worse, I'll go with vandalism3. If it's bad, I'll go with vandalism4. And if it's very bad, I'll go with vandalism4im. That's just my personal policy for return vandals. - Century0 00:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've been wondering the same thing. I usually go to level 3 when the vandal comes back from blocking and hits the road with another vandalization. I figure, it's not like the vandal doesn't realize our policy and needs to be educated, as with a new vandal. On the other hand, I've not gone straight to level 4, and my previous reasoning suggests that sometimes it would be logical, so I came here to see what the consensus was and found this discussion. I think I will start using level 4 when it's warranted. As you said, severity is one factor; another one, though, is whether the IP has an unbroken history of vandalization, or whether it's interspersed with good edits. That, to me, indicates more likely actual multiple users so that a more "educational" approach might be warranted. Gzuckier 15:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I find that I rarely issue {{uw-vandalism1}} even on first time editors, as choosing that template usually implies that you aren't assuming good faith to begin with (in the same way there isn't really a uw-test4 or uw-test4im.) Basically, you can treat it as a new user if there wasn't vandalism for a while as long as there isn't a long-term pattern of abuse. A good check list involves the following questions to help your decision:
- Is it an isolated incident, or is it spread across multiple pages from that user?
- Is it a single event on a page, or part of a series of edits from that user?
- Was the page recently vandalised by other users?
- Can you assume the edit was made in good faith? (e.g. random text or generic nonsense instead of cuss words)
This is a simple checklist, but it does help me gague which warning level to choose, whether it's a new or returning user. While this is meant for first-time editors, it applies equally well for those that return after a hiatus. --Sigma 7 01:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Retalitory Vandalism
Should we add retalitory vandalism to the types of possible vandalism, or is this assumed under User page vandalism? --Sigma 7 18:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism policy & editing permissions
Perhaps this topic has been taken up before, I don't know. But I have come to wonder why it is that anonymous edits without registration is allowed at all on Wikipedia. One of the pages on my watch list is Alaska. Over that last two days (so far!), between several of us who have this page on our watch list, we've reverted or otherwise undid edits by eight separate vandals, all but one of whom were unregistered anonymous editors working from different IP addresses. This has been going on for a really really long time -- just see that article's history.
Although of course registered users have the ability to vandalize, it takes more effort for a casual vandal to register before vandalizing; and a registered vandal can at least be tracked. Is there some overriding policy concern that leads Wikipedia to retain a policy that makes it so easy for people to vandalize anonymously? I'm honestly asking. And if there is -- is there still some way that articles that are chronically vandalized -- & I'm sure Alaska isn't the only one -- can be given some kind of additional protection so that we can spend more time doing constructive editing in Wikipedia, instead of so much time correcting the destructive editing of the various disaffected souls who so badly a life? --Yksin 22:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unregistered/anonymous editing has the advantage where anyone can fix issues without having to register for yet another website. If such a feature is abused, you could post a message on WP:RFPP to semi-protect the page. --Sigma 7 23:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thank you! I see you've already made a request for semiprotection on that article, & an admin has already acted on it. Thanks again. --Yksin 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Contributions page as tool to find vandalism
I propose adding the following tool to the See also / Tools section. Comments? --Jdlh | Talk 19:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- [[Special:Contributions/IP address or Username]] lists all the edits made by a particular anonymous editor at an IP address, or by a logged-in user if a Username is supplied. You can use this to find out other articles a vandal may have attacked. For instance, [[Special:Contributions/71.231.38.152]] lists all the contributions of the anonymous editor with IP address 71.231.38.152.
