Wikipedia talk:Vandalism

A vandal is a person who deliberately damages property, information etc. Vandalism is the act of damaging the property, information etc.

For sections 1-50, see Wikipedia talk:Vandalism/Archive/1-50

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: [1]. 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:

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)

into this:

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 {{NPOV}} or {{disputed}} , 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 m: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. — Dunc|☺ 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#Academic honesty. -- 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)

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

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:

• 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.

--Leifern 21:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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 {{db|hoax}} 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 (UTC)

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.[2] She used the word vandalism about my edit. I have looked through the edit history for that article, and that edit summary[3] 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: Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia: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: Template:Uncyclopedia {{uncyclopedia|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@rēino 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@rēino 21:49, 31 January 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)

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)

Wikipedia:Defense of content

Hi All - I request your attention to Wikipedia:Defense of content - proposing some new ways to fight vandalism. Rama'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)

A three warnings rules

Can I get a clarification if there are to be three warnings before a block can take place?