Talk:Vandalism on Wikipedia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Consequences of vandalism

Hello hello hello Are these dates mixed up or was this joke made after Sarah palin made the comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidit1 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it was a reference to the Sarah Palin comment, but I don't remember for sure. wintermute (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

2006 and 2007

It seems that these were the years when vandals were most active. Do statistics support it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.186.3.59 (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A message for anyone who might want to get rid of the vandalism template

I realize that since this is an article in namespace zero, and it does concern Wikipedia itself, and is able to exist with out being a wp:cross-namespace redirect, it's gone pretty far down the line that most articles about Wikipedia haven't. I'm guessing that any simple reader reading this article who is not an editor will come along and read this article (although the odds are slim) and be able to know perfectly well what "vandalism" means in the Wikipedia department. I mean, take a look at vandalism. You see a tag to WP:VANDALISM but you don't see one yo this article. And don't get me wrong: I wouldn't point out that this article should be deleted because it is a sort of "clone" of WP:VANDALISM, because I believe that it is important to tell the difference between an article and a policy or guideline.

Walex03. Talking, working, friending. 11:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Geographical nature

Vandalism in Wikipedia is a function of the region. You can see lot of vandalism in developing-country-related-articles, whereas less in other nation related articles...

Can I get citations for this from anywhere? (Pepper Black (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC))

And articles of current importance. extra999 (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

How does it affect Wikipedia?

This article should state how quickly vandalism is reverted, an estimate of how many articles it affects, and so on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please change "and/ore" to "and/or." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.116.140 (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Irony

Anyone else find it ironic that this article is semi-protected? (won't be true after April 3, 2013) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.179.20 (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The vandals apparently do. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 19:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No. You don't understand the meaning of irony. How ironic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:903:180:454:7851:1974:f77f:6726 (talk • contribs) 21:37, October 4, 2018 (UTC)

ISBN

ISBN 10:0-596-51616-2 is incorrect, please remove "10:" from it as it means ISBN-10.

Done. There was also a typo in the ISBN (changed to 51516). --ElHef (Meep?) 18:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Image

Right now, the article uses an image (File:Wikipedia vandalism.svg) of a page being edited. This is not what is relevant to most readers (I presume most readers to not edit the wiki), so I wonder if it would be better to use an image of an article that has been vandalized (i.e., not an image of a diff). There are ways this could be done innocuously--take a screenshot of a preview, take a screenshot of the permalink of that same diff, do it on an article copy in userspace. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded a screenshot of the same edit with the vandalized text highlighted, if anyone else agrees. It might need to be cropped, so that the vandalized text is more noticeable.

--SamX‧☎‧✎ 22:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done --SamX‧☎‧✎ 00:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarkeesian

Well, if it's really necessary to keep the exact number of people who vandalized her page, let's at least try to remove needless speculation about the vandalizing of her page being somehow misogynistic (or, for that matter, a "campaign"), shall we? Haltendehand (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if you don't see hateful, misogynist trolling as a big deal, but the reliable sources used in this section say otherwise. Tarc (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Source 21 (which is the only "reliable source" used for any of the content I edited) is a blog (a.k.a. not a particularly reliable source), which contains such POV gems as, among others: "Even if you don't like the idea - or don't believe that women are poorly represented in games (in which case, you would be wrong)". Instead, I suggest we take an actual reliable source (such as this Wired article, and delete the POV stuff about the vandalism being a "campaign" and "misogynist".

Typo

"Locking articles so only established users, or in some cases only administrators, can edit them.[4] Semi-protectedarticles are those that..." There is a missing space after semi-protected.

fixed, thanks for bringing it to our attention. GB fan 17:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Anita Sarkesian and The Oatmeal

Two suggestions:

1. Remove or rework the section on Anita Sarkesian. It's written like an advertisement for her purpose and her blog and seems to insult the vandals by calling them misogynists, implying that the issue was sexism and not that Anita's project had faults which Wikipedia ended up being used as a conduit for expression.
2. Add in a section for Douchebag, more specifically, The Oatmeal's encouragement of vandalizing the article to disparage Thomas Edison.

Thanks, 68.1.76.211 (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding #1...In other words, she was "asking for it" ? No, I think we'll pass on your decidedly misogynist spin on the affair. Tarc (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Who's "we"? Are you a mental collective or something? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Cut it out with persecution complexes, I just want dumb shit removed from the article. 68.1.76.211 (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It is an accurate and sourced description of what actually happened. It will not be removed. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

My missing link

I posted an external link twice and have been reverted twice by user Zzuuzz. I don't have time to get into an edit war (and to be honest, I don't have patience to wade through all the external-link-Wiki-regulations), so I'm just going to post it here and let the chips fall where they may.

• Experiment concludes: Most misinformation inserted into Wikipedia may persist (from Wikipediocracy) Costatitanica (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

  There is not much to distinguish this from a blog post by a banned user with an axe to grind. The link falls well into Links normally to be avoided. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed tag needed

The line "This is currently unlikely to be the case, considering the reliability and speed of anti-vandal bots and recent changes patrollers" definitely needs a citation needed tag. I came to this article because recently I am constantly finding little bits of surreptitious vandalism and reverting/undoing it, and it's usually not the old-style blatant vandalism, but damages to an article's formatting or sneaking in very small (i.e., a word or two), but very wrong, science. I know this wouldn't be at first assumed to be vandalism, but it's very frequently accompanied with a misleading edit summary (e.g., "fixing typo"). I know "AGF" and all, but the frequency of these problems in science articles seems in my sampling (very unscientific sampling, that is) to be increasing. Hence I really think this line needs a cite, or something to justify it. It almost seems like there's a small army of anons and single-edit users now that have figured out blatant vandalism won't stand and so want to degrade the quality of the encyclopedia with a thousand needles. 142.25.33.107 (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, "Blocking is not considered to be a punitive action on Wikipedia" needs a rephrase to be more objective. I don't know for sure but maybe, "The consensus position of Wikipedia editors is that blocking is not a punitive action." Anyone could "consider" it however they wish; if someone is blocked and they feel it's punitive, then it's considered a punitive action by someone (and I'm sure a lot of people have felt that way). 142.25.33.107 (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the statement needs a citation tag, since it doesn't ring true to me, either. I also consider that it may become outdated as "vandalism technology" evolves in the anti-vandalism arms race. As well as the "fiddle vandalism" you note, I've recently seen evidence (from sources outside of Wikipedia) of crowd sourced vandalism (see "dank meme" [1], and "hypothetical" vandalism [2], [3], [4]). Much like "media sourced" vandalism (see Stephen Colbert: here, and here), instead of a concentrated effort by a small cabal of meat-puppets, the vandalism arises through social media among a loose group of people where it becomes a "thing" within their community. Willondon (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah; the more I look into this vandalism, the more complicated I realize it is. Stephen Colbert was one part I knew about long ago, but it just seems to get worse....

70.67.150.101 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I've amended both sentences mentioned by the OP to take account of the concerns expressed here.  —SMALLJIM  17:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Add the Jontron dispute!

Jonathan Jafari or Jontron was shown in his 2016 Christmas Special editing the page for The Santa Clause 3: The Escape Clause to show the plot as "Tim Allen and Martin Short get some serious $$$$$$$$$$$$ for XMAS." Many people followed suit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingasopera (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

This should be called Internet Vandalism

Anyone can vandalize any Wiki page, even off Wikipedia, including Wikia. So why not rename the title to Internet Vandalism? UpsandDowns1234 21:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The article would need a fundamental rewrite if it was retitled "Internet vandalism". The article as it is written is specifically about vandalism on Wikipedia. It does not discuss any vandalism outside of Wikipedia. ~ GB fan 21:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Shouldn't we merge this page with Wikipedia:Vandalism? They're practically both the same! RullRatbwan (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Oppose They're different namespaces, different intended audiences and thus slightly different content. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Strong oppose, and I'm fairly certain it's prohibited by policy. Any similarity is just a coincidence. This page is an encyclopedia article, the other is a project management page. Murph9000 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge

I have merged ClueBot NG into this article, following consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groiglery1217 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2017 on ClueBot NG

I have found a couple of errors in the newly-created section named "ClueBot NG". After saying the words "Cobi Carter in 2010", there should be a space between the comma and the opening bracket. After that, the word 'Cluebot' should be changed to 'ClueBot', the proper name of the old ClueBot before the NG version took over. At refs 18 and 19, the full stop should be before the two tags not after them.
That's the mistakes I have found. Cheers, 86.169.53.193 (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I will never vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmMakers20330 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia - what about full protection?

This article says that Wikipedia is an open encyclopeadia that anybody can edit and then goes on to say that this is with the exception of articles that are semi-protected. Surely, this exception also applies to articles that are fully protected, i.e. sections of Wikipedia that only administrators are allowed to edit. Vorbee (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Ajit Pai page vandalism

When the news about net neutrality was released, some people vandalized this page. Should we add this issue to the page, discuss it if you like.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ajit_Pai&diff=prev&oldid=790192200 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ajit_Pai&diff=next&oldid=811401847 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swaggum13 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC) Swaggum13 (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Could you provide a third-party source which discusses this vandalism? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 02:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Typo

There's a typo near the end of the current article. Dana Boente's name is misspelled as "Dana J. Botne". Could someone with editing permissions correct the typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.20.35.161 (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

More irony

It'd be great to fix this: "The challenge from vandalism in Wikipedia was once characterized by the Former Encyclopædia Britannica editor-in-chief Robert McHenry [...]". One of the citations is a bad link (which supports the point I'm making here), the other is certainly not about vandalism. McHenry was almost certainly talking about the crowd-sourced nature of Wikipedia, and not vandalism specifically. Wikipedia is a product of the normal distribution of its contributors. These are not the kind of professional, correctness-obsessed, writers of a reputable encyclopedia such as the Britannica. Wikipedia is not reputable; it's similar to a public restroom in exactly the ways McHenry describes it. Hence, it is to be expected that this topic (and every other one here) contains errors and omissions and as is evident it does (and they do). That's the point McHenry is making. Vandalism is malicious degradation of the Wikipedia corpus; errors introduced in the ordinary course of business are degradations resulting from incompetence. And, as a general rule of thumb, it's wise not to attribute to malice what can be feasibly attributed to incompetence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80e8:a:e917:3fb1:b310:e45a (talk • contribs)

Federal crime

I would like to propose that it be made a federal crime to vandalize Wikipedia and similar wikis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:903:180:454:7851:1974:f77f:6726 (talk • contribs) 21:37, October 4, 2018 (UTC)

WP:Village Pump. PrussianOwl (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Killer whales vandalism 14 years ago got picked up by media

See here. The information that this user added got removed from the no: wiki literally just now.  Nixinova  T  C  20:00, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment

Not sure if there is anywhere this is discussed but I never realised how easy it is to vandalise Wikipedia and how little the people running it seem to care about how accurate it is. I've been editing for over 13 years but have moved in with someone who likes to vandalise it (despite me asking him not to). It appears that there is nothing anyone can do to stop him as IP addresses just change. Why doesn't Wikipedia make it so you have to register? That would decrease damaging vandalism massively. People in charge must have thought the same thing and decided not to make that the case, ergo they don't really care if Wikipedia is accurate. Sad that due to their inaction I can't defend Wikipedia anymore in debates with friends :-( Cls14 (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Prohibit_anonymous_users_from_editing Benjamin (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I shall read! Cls14 (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, it's sad to hear that it is a Foundation Issue that they aren't bothered about trying to eliminate 97% of vandalism. I guess whilst I will still use and edit this site I won't be someone defending it's reputation or veracity to anyone else :-( Cls14 (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of vandalism is reverted right away, and Wikipedia is still pretty reliable overall. Benjamin (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm a 13 year veteran here. It's becoming clear that vandalism isn't an issue and accuracy isn't one either. I will continued to edit but it appears that a lot of actual good edits I do are deleted by people who ask for concrete proof when my friends daft, deliberate vandalism are let slide as they are ones from un-registered accounts. Sad to see this wonderful project go to pot due to it's insistence on some weird belief that people will be good. Best of luck with that. Cls14 (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 October 2019

Add {{R to section}} inside the redirect category shell and remove the redirect from Category:Wikipedia vandalism. The latter category is not meant for mainspace content. Geolodus (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

How do I unblock my account as editor of Wikipedia?

I did not really commit any offense of vandalism that warranted my account to be blocked as editor.

I can no longer edit anymore. I need help on what can be done to unblock my account and continue my job as editor

Someone should help Oakinrinlola (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

If you left this message, your account is not blocked. --Jayron32 14:54, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

NB the editor has asked the same question here Wikipedia:Teahouse#Need_to_know_my_offence_on_why_my_account_was_blocked_from_editing. @Oakinrinlola: please do not ask the same question in multiple places without even waiting for a reply. This wastes the time of the volunteers who assist at these message boards. Hug^syrup 15:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Vandals should not exist, they should-

Title --Esaïe Prickett (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Esaïe Prickett--Esaïe Prickett (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"Vandalpedia" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Vandalpedia. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 02:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:DENY

proposing the deletion of the section notable acts of vandalism par WP:DENY. The creeper2007^Talk! 02:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"The Gibby Gibson" update

The article should be updated with information about the vandalism of this article ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gibby#/editor/all ), the first instance of this kind of that troll that i have found lays here ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/929568756 )

I apologise for my poor knowledge of English language and any spelling mistakes, have a good night/day fellow Wikipedia users!

PS: also my apologies for my lack of "professional speaking skills", I'm still learning this language. Malkallam333 (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

"ClueBot NG" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ClueBot NG. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 29#ClueBot NG until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sysages (talk | contribs) 02:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Reporting vandal

Why do you make it so hard to report vandals like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:9445:2900:4C80:4912:1DEF:45CD I've just spent 10 minutes reading this page to work it out and still have no clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.188.53 (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Also trying to figure out how to report vandals. There's a user deleting an article I created without giving any reasons. Went to her talk page to ask why and she deleted my talk comment. On her talk page there are other posters asking the same question about pages they've done that she deleted. These are established pages (not drafts) with multiple sources, several editors having already weighed in, etc. Seem to all be about women, but I may be wrong? Sure would love to report this in the proper fashion -- it takes a lot of work to constantly have to go in and revert! Kentuckian in NY (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)KentuckianinNY

• Go to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Keep in mind, however, that there's no guarantee she will be blocked, especially if she hasn't been warned adequately and/or has not generated enough recent disruption. ChromaNebula (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021

Add Category:Criticism of Wikipedia --37.43.1.137 (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's a valid category for this article. Can you explain your rationale? Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 11:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 16:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vandalism on Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110119215141/http://www.tvsquad.com:80/2006/08/01/did-colbert-hack-wikipedia-video/ to http://www.tvsquad.com/2006/08/01/did-colbert-hack-wikipedia-video/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Can we add something related to the vandalism on Aaron Burr?

On March 14th, 2021. The Wikipedia article for Aaron Burr was vandalized by adding a reference to a piece of fan art depicting Thomas Jefferson wearing a chest binder depicting Hatsune Miku? — Preceding unsigned comment added by D0nk m3m3s (talk • contribs) 09:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Should meta:No_open_proxies be mentioned as a prevention measure?

When on VPN I get the meta:No open proxies message which blocks me from editing. Should this be added to the list of prevention measures?

--Frdp (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Contingency plan for Established User or Administrator vandalism?

Should the article mention if there is any sort of contingnecy plan for "rogue" trusted users or administrators? I'm relatively new here but imagine the damage that could be caused by an administrator with full privileges vandalizing protected articles.

• No automated bot reversal.
• No ability for ordinary users to revert.
• No flagging by watchdog programs.

Is there some sort of protocol that would be followed in the case of administrator malfeasance or vandalism? If so this should be mentioned in the article. It might seem like an unlikely outcome but as we've seen on other platforms such as Reddit, admin meltdowns can happen and when they do it can become a very messy situation. I hope Wikipedia as thought this sort of thing through and has some sort of plan in place for it.

Add All Dogs Go to Heaven 2 to the miscellaneous section.

Due to people editing Gordon Freeman's death into the article in response to the web series Half Life VR but the AI is Self-Aware, it might get people to stop.

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2022

[in miscellaneous]

In 2017, Buzzfeed Unsolved paranormal investigators visited Old Alton Bridge in Texas and claimed ownership of it over the mythical Goatman said to inhabit the bridge. This led to a number of fans attempting to change the Wikipedia article to reflect their self-purported ownership.

Sorry if it is a bit trivial for the article, it just feels like quite a prominent example of vandalism that could be worth including. Mr Blumenthal (talk) 10:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Not done, it isn't a significant enough example to include. --Mvqr (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

References

On Svante Pääbo's Article

There was an incident not long after the announcement of the Nobel Prize winner where someone had edited a person's full personal info onto the beginning of his article. The edit has since been purged from the edit log. Perhaps this should be included in the "Miscellaneous" section. TheOneTEM (definitely a human) (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"WikiVandal" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WikiVandal has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 17 § WikiVandal until a consensus is reached. Voxl (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)