User:Darkwind/sandbox

This is the user sandbox of Darkwind. A user sandbox is a subpage of the user's user page. It serves as a testing spot and page development space for the user and is not an encyclopedia article. Create or edit your own sandbox here.

Other sandboxes: Main sandbox | Template sandbox

Finished writing a draft article? Are you ready to request review of it by an experienced editor for possible inclusion in Wikipedia? Submit your draft for review!

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Obvious vandalism is a term used in several policies, such as the three-revert rule exceptions, limited ban exceptions, and in the instructions for pages like Administrator intervention against vandalism.

Definition

Both the 3RR exceptions and the ban exceptions give a basic definition of obvious vandalism. BANEX says "The key word is 'obvious', that is, cases in which no reasonable person could possibly disagree." 3RRNO says obvious vandalism consists of "edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language."

Another way to define obvious vandalism is by exclusion:

If you had to think about whether to click "rollback" or "undo", it's not obvious vandalism.

or:

If another editor has to think about whether they would have performed the same revert, it's not obvious vandalism.

Examples

Edits that are obvious vandalism

Adding profanity or nonsense characters

Ex: "pen15", "eat shit", "owieugoiuoweririofodiwueuw"

Adding statements directed at an individual, especially (but not always) someone other than the article's subject

Ex: "Mrs. Johnson is a witch", "john smith is gay", "Obama sucks", "Brad Pitt is soooo hot", "Janie has big b00bs"

Other clearly non-constructive additions

Ex: "Wikepidea sux", "if u r reading this u are stoopid", "haha i can change this website", "I love u"

Unexplained page blanking, section blanking, or other significant content removal
Adding categories that clearly do not apply to the article in question:

Ex: adding [[Category:Elephants]] to [[George Washington]]

Edits that are vandalism but are not obvious

The following are not considered "obvious vandalism" because they require investigation to detect or resolve:

Deliberately introducing factual errors or what appear to be errors

Ex: changing height/weight/age in a biography, changing sports statistics, climate data, etc.

Adding plausible sounding hoaxes, such as a celebrity pregnancy
Signing an edit to a talk page with another editor's username or IP

This does not include using an {{unsigned}} template to mark another editor's contribution for identification purposes

Deliberately reverting other users' good edits in an effort to hinder the improvement of an article
Adding or changing internal or external links on a page to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate targets while disguising them with mislabeling
Repeated uploading of copyrighted material
Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on pages that do not meet the tag criteria
Genre warring

Edits that are not vandalism

Page blanking or content removal with a plausible explanation provided
Adding categories that plausibly apply to the article, or removing those that clearly do not
Disruptive editing
Edit warring
Everything else listed at WP:NOT VANDALISM

Application and proper reports

Making this distinction is often necessary when deciding where to report a user who is editing disruptively. There are several specialized noticeboards for taking action to stop disruptive editing. These include Administrator intervention against vandalism, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Administrator's noticeboard/Edit warring, and Sockpuppet investigations.

Only cases of obvious vandalism or obvious spam should be reported at AIV. That noticeboard is not set up to allow community discussion or input on the cases reported there, and thus each case depends solely on the judgement of the investigating admin. Community consensus is to allow discussion for cases that are not clear-cut abuse of editing privileges, so any case that isn't obvious vandalism or spam is not appropriate for AIV.

You can report cases of edit warring to ANEW (some people call it AN3), but please be aware that your own contributions will also be scrutinized and if you were also edit warring, you may also end up blocked.

Cases where you believe an editor is abusing multiple accounts should be reported to SPI. Editors are allowed to have more than one account, but are not allowed to abuse them. Please do not post to AIV saying "X is a sock of Y", that's what SPI is for. However, if X is clearly vandalizing or spamming, a report at AIV is appropriate so an admin can intervene quickly and stop the vandalism.

Anything else that requires administrator intervention, but isn't clear-cut vandalism, edit warring, or sockpuppetry, should be reported to ANI, so the community can weigh in on whether the behavior is acceptable and what remedy should be taken, if any.