Wikipedia:Vandalism

This page is about vandalism to Wikipedia. For vandalism outside Wikipedia, see vandalism.

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

The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is 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 vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy; it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with — if you cannot deal with it yourself, you can seek help from others.

A 2002 study by IBM found that most vandalism on the English Wikipedia is reverted within five minutes (see official results); however, vandals persist as a problem for all users, and it is a good idea when editing an article to check its recent history to see if recent vandalism has gone unnoticed. In addition, the popularity and readership of Wikipedia has skyrocketed since the 2002 study, and there is no recent data corroborating the "five minute" expectation.

Not all vandalism is blatant, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether the new data or information is right or whether it is vandalism.

Dealing with vandalism

Edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person may not be vandalism, but instead an effort by the subject of the article to remove inaccurate or biased material. Even when such edits are inappropriate, they should be treated as content disputes, not vandalism. In particular, vandalism warning messages should not be left on the talk page of the editor.

If you see vandalism (as defined below), revert it and leave a warning message on the vandal's talk page using the system below. 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. If it is obvious that all versions of the page are pure vandalism, nominate the page for deletion. Also, check the vandal's other contributions — you will often find more malicious edits.

Warning templates

Note that these templates need not be used sequentially. If the edit is clearly vandalism, consider using {{blatantvandal}} or starting with {{test2}}. For continuing severe vandalism, {{test3}} may be skipped and a {{test4}} given straight after a test2. If, however, you are not sure that the edit is vandalism, always start with {{test}}. For extreme or extensive cases of vandalism committed by users with who have received no prior warnings, {{test4im}} may be used. The ~~~~ in the templates below cause the time and your signature to be added to the warning.

{{subst:test}} ~~~~ (use if an edit appears to have possibly not been an intentional act of vandalism)

Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thanks!

{{subst:blatantvandal}} or {{subst:testblatant}} or {{subst:bv}} ~~~~ (use if an edit is clearly vandalism)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

{{subst:test2}} ~~~~

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

{{subst:test2a}} ~~~~ (a variant suitable for vandalism that consists of blanking text)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you.

{{subst:test3}} ~~~~

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.

{{subst:test4}} ~~~~

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

{{subst:test4im}} ~~~~ (used as a first warning for extreme cases of vandalism)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Alternatively, you can use:

{{subst:test-n|PageName}} ~~~~

{{subst:blatantvandal-n|PageName}} ~~~~

{{subst:test2-n|PageName}} ~~~~

{{subst:test2a-n|PageName}} ~~~~

{{subst:test3-n|PageName}} ~~~~

{{subst:test4-n|PageName}} ~~~~

{{subst:test4im-n|PageName}} ~~~~

to explicitly state which articles were vandalized (suffix -n stands for named) and to add your signature. For example:

{{subst:test-n|France}} ~~~~

Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. An edit that you recently made to France seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thanks!

Additional warning templates are listed here.

The "subst" causes the template text to be pasted into the talk page as if you had typed it out, instead of leaving {{subst:test}} visible when editing the page. This makes the messages more personal to the user, and thus, more friendly. Also, if someone vandalizes the template, then the vandalism will not affect every page that uses the text from the template.

If the vandal strikes again, list them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The blocking admin leaves this on the vandal's talk page:

{{subst:test5}} ~~~~

You may also write your own message to the user. Remember to sign and timestamp your warnings by leaving four tildes (like this: ~~~~).

Trace IP Address

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 the IP address continues to vandalise 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

These are the most common forms of vandalism on Wikipedia:

Blanking

Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit.

Spam

Adding inappropriate external links for advertisement and/or self-promotion. Note that this applies only to placing links on numerous and/or unrelated pages. Adding self-promotional links to a few related articles may be inappropriate, but is not vandalism.

VandalBot

A script or "robot" that attempts to vandalize or spam massive numbers of articles (hundreds or thousands), blanking, or adding commercial links. Another type of VandalBot appears to log on repeatedly with multiple random names to vandalize an article.

Childish vandalism

Adding graffiti or blanking pages. (The female cyclist vandal is an example of this type.)

Silly vandalism

Users will sometimes create joke articles or replace existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or add silly jokes to existing articles (this includes Mr Pelican Shit). A better place for content that is intentionally of a joking or nonsensical nature is the Uncyclopedia or WP:BJAODN (Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense).

Sneaky vandalism

Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos.

Attention-seeking vandalism

Adding insults, using offensive usernames, replacing articles with jokes etc. (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks)

User page vandalism

Replacing User pages with insults, profanity, or nonsense. A policy was proposed to prevent anonymous users from modifying user pages (see Wikipedia:Protected Userpage), but it has been rejected by the community (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks).

Image vandalism

Uploading provocative images, inserting political messages, making malicious animated GIFs, etc. Repeatedly uploading images with no source and/or license information after notification that such information is required may also constitute vandalism.

Abuse of tags

Bad-faith placing of {{afd}} or speedy-deletion tags on articles that do not meet such criteria, or deceptively placing protected-page tags on articles.

Template vandalism

Any vandalism to templates. Examples include blanking the template, adding an image to the template which is unrelated to its use, et cetera. Edits which cause a template to display improperly are not vandalism if the mistake was unintentional.

Page move vandalism

Moving pages to offensive or nonsense names. The most infamous example was Willy on Wheels. However, Wikipedia now only allows users with 25 edits or above to make page moves, and the reason must be stated.

Redirect vandalism

Redirecting articles or talk pages to offensive articles or images. One example is the autofellatio redirect vandal. Some vandals will try to redirect pages to nonsense titles they create this way. This variation is usually performed by vandals whose accounts are too new to move pages. It is also often done on pages that are protected from moves.

Link vandalism

Rewriting links within an article so that they appear the same, but point to something completely different or ridiculous (e.g. France).

Avoidant vandalism

Removing {{afd}}, {{copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such articles. Note that this is often mistakenly done by new users who are unfamiliar with *fD procedures and such users should be given the benefit of the doubt and pointed to the proper page to discuss the issue.

Random character vandalism

Replacing topical information with random characters, or just adding random characters to a page. "aslkdjnsdagkljhasdlkh," for example. Be careful: only in extended cases is this vandalism; it could also potentially be a new user test.

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)

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

Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, 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 and archive comments at their discretion. However, removing legitimate warnings, especially with the intention of misleading other editors, can be disruptive and inappropriate behavior even though it is not specifically a form of vandalism. Removing comments without responding may be considered uncivil or become an issue for arbitration.

Official policy vandalism

Deleting or altering part of a Wikipedia official policy with which the vandal disagrees, without any attempt to seek consensus or recognize an existing consensus. Improving or clarifying policy wording in line with the clear existing consensus is not vandalism.

Copyrighted material vandalism

Knowingly using copyrighted material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies 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.

Account creation vandalism

Creating accounts with deliberately offensive terms in the username is considered vandalism, whether the account is used or not. This also includes making accounts with nomenclature similar to usernames of known vandals; Willy on Wheels is the most infamous example, however more commonly seen today is a vandal who creates accounts similar to the sentence "I'm the motherfucking juggernaut bitch".

What vandalism is not

Although sometimes referred to as such, the following things are not vandalism and are therefore treated differently:

New User Test

New users who discover the "Edit this page" button sometimes want to know if they can really edit any page, so they write something inside just to test it. This is not vandalism! On the contrary, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the Sandbox (e.g. using the test template message) where they can keep making their tests. (Sometimes they will even revert their own changes; in that case, place the message {{selftest}} on their talk page.)

Learning Wiki Markup and Manual of Style

Some users require some time to learn the wiki-based markup, and will spend a little time experimenting with the different ways to make external links, internal links, and other special characters. Rather than condemning them 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.

Bold Edits

Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them — most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, moved to the talk page, or substantially rewritten can sometimes feel like vandalism, it should not be confused with vandalism.

Mistakes

Sometimes, users will insert content into an article that is not necessarily accurate, in the belief that it is. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and improve it. If you believe that there is inaccurate information in an article, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it.

Unintentional Nonsense

While nonsense can be 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). This is a type of mistake. Sometimes connection errors unintentionally produce the appearance of nonsense. In either case, Assume good faith.

Bullying or Stubbornness

Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.

Harassing or Making Personal Attacks

We have a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is not allowed. Some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as home page vandalism, or a personal attack on another editor inserted into an article. However, harassment in general is not vandalism.

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

How to spot vandalism

The best way to detect vandalism is through recent changes patrolling. Once you've found it, revert the page to an earlier version.

Related pages

• Wikipedia:RC patrol
• Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
• Anti-vandalism ideas
• Vandalbot
• Favorite pages of banned users

See also

• Wikipedia:The Motivation of a Vandal - essay on the motivation of a vandal
• Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism — for quick action in clear cases
• Wikipedia:Abuse reports — for reporting abusive IP addresses to ISPs
• Wikipedia:Requests for investigation — for more complex abuse, or to request a watch on a user/page.
• Template:TestTemplates — a grid of templates that may be used on user talk pages
• Wikipedia:Dealing with AOL vandals
• Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit
• Wikipedia:Speedy deletions
• Wikipedia:Edit war
• Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism
• Wikipedia:On assuming good faith - essay on the relationship between this policy and the Assume good faith policy.

External links

Attitudes and approaches to conflict

• Conflict paradox
• Angry cloud
• Assume good faith
• Principle of constant respect
• Forgive and forget
• Record keeping
• Fair process
• Open process
• Back room decisions
• No sudden movements

______

• Criticism is feedback
• Reward reputation (positive reinforcement)
• Dissuade reputation (negative reinforcement)
• Dissuade interaction
• Enforce responsibility

______

• Exit Strategy
• Pulling out
• Diminishing replies
• Wall of silence

• Barn raising
• Enabling creativity
• Content over community
• Limit damage
• Us and them
• Excess baggage
• Fighting is boring

People and roles

• Characters and roles
• Anti-Authoritarians
• Attention seekers
• Trolls
• Vested contributors
• Community members

Behaviors and actions

• Expanding the scope of the conflict
• Selective flattery
• The "good point" defense
• False repentance
• Sniping criticism
• The Wrong Version
• Departures and threatening to leave