Jump to content

Wikipedia:Vandalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Persian Poet Gal (talk | contribs) at 23:42, 8 February 2007 (Reverted 1 edit by Robotchicken1886 identified as vandalism to last revision made by AuburnPilot.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WP:VAN redirects here. For vanity, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI).
Vandalism
Dealing with vandalism
Resources and assistance
Further information

    Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

    The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot.

    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. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.

    Committing blatant vandalism, however, is a violation of Wikipedia policy; once it is spotted it should be dealt with accordingly — if you cannot deal with it yourself, you can seek help from others.

    Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism.

    Dealing with vandalism

    If you see vandalism (as defined below), revert it and leave a warning message on the user's talk page. Check the page history after reverting to make sure you have removed all the vandalism; there may be multiple vandal edits, sometimes from several different IPs/accounts; and that you have not unintentionally reverted any legitimate edits. If it is obvious that all versions of the page are pure vandalism, then the page is a nonsense page and you should nominate it for deletion. Also remember to check the vandal's (or vandals') other contributions -- you will often find more malicious edits to revert.

    Warnings

    Warning templates
    PageName is optional

    See additional templates and examples of output

    Note: Do not use these templates in content disputes; instead, write a clear message explaining your disagreement.

    There are several templates used to warn vandals. They are listed at right in order of severity, but need not be used in succession. Though some people vandalizing are incorrigible returning vandals and may be blocked quickly, it is common for jokesters or experimenters to make non-encyclopedic edits; these people are usually stopped by a simple warning and often become productive contributors. If you are not sure that an edit is vandalism, always start with {{uw-test1}}.

    The "subst" causes the template text to be pasted into the talk page as if you had typed it out, instead of leaving {{uw-vandalism1}} visible when editing the page, because it is a comment in a talk page. You may also write your own message to the user.

    If the vandal continues, list them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The blocking admin may leave {{subst:uw-block1}} to notify that they have been blocked.

    Tracing IP addresses

    Also, consider tracing the IP address. Find owners by using:

    • ARIN (North America)
    • RIPE (Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia)
    • APNIC (Asia Pacific)
    • LACNIC (Latin American and Caribbean)
    • AfriNIC (Africa)

    (If an address is not in one, it will probably be in another registry.) Then add {{vandalip|Name of owner}} to the talk pages of users who vandalize.

    If an IP address continues to vandalize and is registered to a school or other kind of responsive ISP, consider listing it on Wikipedia:Abuse reports. Follow the instructions there and read the guide to see if it applies. If it does, list it.

    Types of vandalism

    Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:

    Blanking
    Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus both constitute vandalism. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this may be effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, template:test1a or template:blank, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.
    Spam
    Continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism.
    Vandalbots
    A script or "robot" that attempts to vandalize or spam massive numbers of articles (hundreds or thousands).
    Silly vandalism
    Adding profanity, graffiti, random characters, or other nonsense to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages, etc. Please note that the addition of random characters to pages is a common way that new users test edit and may not be intentionally malicious.
    Sneaky vandalism
    Vandalism which is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages.
    Userspace vandalism
    Adding insults, profanity, etc. to user pages or user talk pages (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks). While editing other users' user pages in itself (e.g to correct typos) is not vandalism, it is generally better to ask the user's permission before doing it.
    Image vandalism
    Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explicit images on pages, or simply using any image in ways that are disruptive. Please note though that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors and that explicit images may be uploaded and/or placed on pages for legitimate reasons.
    Abuse of tags
    Bad-faith placing of {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on articles that do not meet such criteria.
    Revert vandalism
    Reverting articles to prevent vandalism is considered a genuine use of the revert function, but gaming the system to circumvent the three-revert rule is disruptive and considered to be vandalism.
    Page-move vandalism
    Changing the names of pages (referred to as "page-moving") to disruptive or otherwise inappropriate terms. Wikipedia now only allows registered users active for at least four days to move pages.
    Link vandalism
    Modifying internal or external links within a page so that they appear the same but link to a page/site that they are not intended to (e.g an explicit image; a shock site).
    Avoidant vandalism
    Removing {{afd}}, {{copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content. Note that this is often mistakenly done by new users who are unfamiliar with AfD procedures and such users should be given the benefit of the doubt and pointed to the proper page to discuss the issue.
    Modifying users' comments
    Editing other users' comments 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. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged.
    Improper use of dispute tags
    Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are 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, as in 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. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.
    Talk page vandalism
    Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon.
    Repeated uploading of copyrighted material
    Uploading or using material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies after having been warned is vandalism. Because users may be unaware that the information is copyrighted, or of Wikipedia policies on how such material may and may not be used, such action only becomes vandalism if it continues after the copyrighted nature of the material and relevant policy restricting its use have been communicated to the user.
    Malicious account creation
    Creating accounts with usernames that contain deliberately offensive or disruptive terms is considered vandalism, whether the account is used or not. For Wikipedia's policy on what is considered inappropriate for a username, see Wikipedia:Username. See also Wikipedia:Sock puppet.
    Deleted page re-creation
    Repeated re-creation of pages that have been legitimately deleted via process pages, or speedy deletion. Re-creating a page once may be an understandable mistake - repeated re-creation after the user has been warned not to do so may constitute vandalism.
    Hidden vandalism
    Any form of vandalism that makes use of embedded text, which is not visible to the final rendering of the article but visible during editing.

    What vandalism is not

    Although at times incorrectly referred to as such, the following things are not considered "vandalism" and are therefore treated differently:

    Tests by experimenting users
    New users who discover the "edit this page" button sometimes want to experience editing a page and may add something unhelpful to a page (e.g., a few random characters) as a test. Such edits are not done in bad faith and are therefore not vandalism! Rather than be warned for vandalism, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the sandbox (e.g., using the test template message) where they can continue to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive. If a user has made a test edit and then reverted it, consider placing the message {{test-self}} on their talk page.
    Using incorrect wiki markup and manual of style
    Inexperienced users often are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's formatting and grammatical standards (e.g. how to create internal and/or external links, when certain words should be bolded or italicized, etc.) Rather than label such users as vandals, just explain to them what our standard style is on the issue in hand - perhaps pointing them towards our documentation at Wikipedia:How to edit a page, and the like.
    NPOV violations
    The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. Though inappropriate, this is not vandalism in itself unless persisted in after being warned.
    Making bold edits
    Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to pages in order to improve them - most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written removed or substantially rewritten can be frustrating, simply making edits that noticeably alter the text or content of a pages should not be immediately labeled vandalism.
    Unintentional misinformation
    Sometimes a user will add content to an article that is factually inaccurate, but in the belief that it is. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and improve it rather than vandalize. If you believe inaccurate information has been added to an article in good faith, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it.
    Unintentional nonsense
    While intentionally adding nonsense to pages is a form of vandalism, sometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves correctly (there may be an error in the syntax, particularly for Wikipedians who use English as a second language). Also, sometimes connection errors or edit conflict unintentionally produce the appearance of nonsense or malicious edits. In either case, assume good faith.
    Stubbornness
    Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable - you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such.
    Harassment or personal attacks
    We have a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is not allowed. While some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as user page vandalism, or inserting a personal attack into an article, harassment in itself is not considered "vandalism" and should be handled differently.
    Unilateral official policy/guideline alteration
    While editors are encouraged to be bold, making edits to Wikipedia policy pages (such as this one), proposed policy pages, guideline pages, etc. which alter the intended meaning of the page or a section of the page without first making an effort to gain consensus is inappropriate, but in itself is not vandalism and should not be treated as such (consider using {{Policyalteration}} as a warning). Continuing in such behavior after having been warned, however, may warrant a block.

    If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.

    How to spot vandalism

    The best way to detect vandalism is through recent changes patrolling or keeping an eye on your watchlist. The what links here pages for Insert text, Link title, Headline text, Bold text, Image:Example.jpg and Media:Example.ogg are also good places to find many test edits and/or vandalism. Any vandalism found should be reverted to an earlier version of the page; remember to include any good edits that have happened since then! The auto-summary feature can help users detect vandalism.

    See also

    Tools
    Essays/guidelines
    Other
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism&oldid=106704008"