Wikipedia talk:Vandalism

Template:Werdnabot

See also: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings

Vandal tagging

I've been using Huggle, and I realized that I had mistagged many pages. (For example, marking edasfgffgsg as spam). Could someone give me an example of each of these tags?:
Vandalism
Spam
Personal attacks
Editing Tests
Removal of content
Blanking pages
Biased content
Factual errors
Inappropriate biographical content
Failing to cite a verifiable resource

Also, could someone tell me what each one of these should be tagged (Out of the ones given on top)?
Adding random text like fdgsxcbvadv
Writing ABCD is a ***
Replacing words with inappropriate words
making pages 'funny' by replacing words (Example: The Packers are a toilet)
On a page of an actor/actress writing "I love him/her!!!"
Removal of AfD tags

Thanks, ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk}

Although this is certainly relevant to vandalism, it is not a discussion of how to improve the project page, which is what the talk page is for. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Where should I go? ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 08:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Should this be made to make sense?

I just removed the following subsection from Help:Reverting:

Bot rollback
In cases of flood vandalism, administrators may choose to hide vandalism from recent changes. To do this, add &bot=1 to the end of the url used to access a user's contributions. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=SomePersistentVandal&bot=1.
When the rollback links on the contributions list are clicked, the revert and the original edit that you are reverting will both be hidden from recent changes, unless you click the "bots" link to set hidebots=0. The edits are not hidden from contributions lists, page histories or watchlists. The edits remain in the database and are not removed, but they no longer flood "Recent changes". The aim of this feature is to reduce the annoyance factor of a flood vandal, with relatively little effort. This should not be used for reverting a change you just don't like, but is meant only for massive floods of simple vandalism.

This is incomprehensible in this form, but is there truth behind it? Can it be reworded to say something meaningful? Or is it something someone made up one day?--Kotniski (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Unclear instructions

The page says:

If you see that a user has added vandalism, you may also check the user's other contributions (click "User contributions" on the left sidebar of the screen). If most or all of these are obvious vandalism, you may report the user immediately. Otherwise you can leave an appropriate warning message on the user's talk page. ... If a user continues to cause disruption after being warned, report them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

This tells when and how to issue a vandalism warning, and what to do if the warning is ignored. But in the case where a user's only contributions are vandalism and there has not yet been a warning, it says "you may report the user immediately" and does not say how to do it. Or not that I could figure out, anyway. --208.76.104.133 (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the same place as you'd report them after warnings. I've changed it to make it clear - I also added that we would only report vandals immediately if there's an urgent need for them to be blocked. (Personally I would do without these warnings - the vandal knows what he's doing, we should either block him or ignore him - but people seem to see some value in wagging the finger.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

hi

poop.

is that vandaism?