|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vandalism page.
This is NOT the page for reporting vandalism.
This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Vandalism page and its associated official policy.
|This Wikipedia page is written in American English (labor, traveled, realize, defense), and some terms used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|Wikipedia Help Project||(Rated NA-class, Top-importance)|
|Threads older than 180 days may be archived by.|
|This page has been mentioned by a media organization:|
- 1 Vandalism in 2012
- 2 Blanking pages versus blanking content
- 3 Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material section
- 4 Reference desk trolling - remove or mark?
- 5 Grammar
- 6 Trolling and offensive vandalism on Alicia Vikander's page
- 7 What exactly is "vandalism"?
- 8 2016 Community Wishlist Survey proposal to make finding vandalism faster in watchlists and RC pages
Vandalism in 2012
To let you know that not all vandalism is reverted. I just found vandalism with the tag section blanking from 9 November 2012 (3.5 years ago!!), that was never reverted. See here. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 19:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Blanking pages versus blanking content
Should the ur-example in the lead be just about blanking pages, rather than blanking content? Were I to blank the page on, say, William Shakespeare, that would, obviously, be considered vandalism. But per the current wording of the policy, if I merely blanked everything that comes after William Shakespeare (26 April 1564 – 23 April 1616) was an English poet, playwright, and actor could that not also be considered vandalism? I know that the wording in this policy, as written, has been around for a good while, and I hold it in the highest regard. But I also know that, in the meantime, vandals have gotten much more clever than we had it back in the good old days. I believe that the current wording of this policy no longer holds up to the spirit of the original ideal.
Truth be told, I'm very invested with maintaining WP:PRESERVE, which is a "velvet glove" policy. Try to not blank content, please don't remove content, and our project would prefer that if you do remove content, then you also should consider doing this, that, or the other thing. WP:VAND needs to be the "iron fist" which resides within the velvet glove of WP:PRESERVE, and that can only occur if both policies are on the same page. -- Kendrick7talk 08:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material section
- We do not need a copy of WP:BLP text here. We need to explain why these BLP removals are not vandalism. --NeilN talk to me 18:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Kendrick7, you're seriously tagging a policy because your bold edit was reverted? --NeilN talk to me 18:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Reference desk trolling - remove or mark?
This year, a reference desk Nazi troll got the entire section removed, including all constructive contributions. I was told that this is consensus, based on WP:Deny. Now another Nazi troll got the section hidden and marked as vandalism with Template:Hidden archive top. I prefer this second method, even though possibly in a way that also hides the headline. Is there really consensus that deletion of all contributions is appropriate? --KnightMove (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Trolling and offensive vandalism on Alicia Vikander's page
Did you notice the continuous offensive vandalism on Alicia Vikander's page? They keep editing her personal life details claiming she's been sleeping with several men, that she's bisexual (??? she's NEVER said so!) and she's not really with fassbender, only to diffamate her while they're relationship has been and keep being confirmed by the two actors.We know who hides behind these posts. They are few people running hate blogs against actors on the net, they are internet trolls pretty jealous of Vikander and so they find amusement in creating lies. Can you please do something not to make it happen again? What I read this morning was incredibly offensive. Her partner is Michael fassbender , met on the set of The Light Between Oceans and they've been dating since autumn 2014 (http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/celebrity-news/alicia-vikander-michael-fassbender-and-i-have-never-hidden-the-fact-we-re-a-couple-a3353831.html - http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/michael-fassbender-home-support-takes-my-breath-away-424782.html - http://www.vogue.com/13374233/alicia-vikander-january-2016-cover/ - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8HUetP9sHT8 - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aIXaXBJRhqA )
and she's never admitted that "she had sex relationships with other men" during the years nor that she's bisexual (which wouldn't be a problem but it's not true). Please, protect her personal details, its awful and offensive. Also, in the main part of the bio, there are many inaccurancies, fake accusations and offensive sentences towards here, clearly written by someone who hates Vikander and changed her page to make her look an unpleasant person. I've re-edited it but vandals may change it again as they apparently did and keep doing several times.
- Someone has requested semi-protection at WP:RFPP. In the future, the place to request help regarding an article on a living person is WP:BLPN (which can be found by clicking "Help" in the left sidebar). Johnuniq (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
What exactly is "vandalism"?
So I've been dating a seemingly sweet girl for a few months now, and we were talking about politics, Wikileaks, and Wikipedia. We were talking about the reliability of Wikipedia, Wikileaks, etc (because someone had told me I shouldn't believe what I read on Wikipedia), and she said it is reliable because Wikipedia removes "vandalism" real fast, and not knowing what "vandalism" is I asked her about it and how she knew, and she showed me a link to a page (see below) and said she had done this when she was in high school and Wikipedia fixed it right away. She said that she was writing about one of her high school teammates (cause she was involved in various sports in high school), and that she regretted doing it. So what exactly is "vandalism"? Is it some sort of hacking? Should I trust this girl, is she a hacker? Can she be arrested for what she did? Is this something I should break up with her over, or is this nothing? I'm not into dating the criminal type, so that's why I ask. Also, what exactly is Wikipedia's relationship to Wikileaks, and are the things they are reporting about Hillary Clinton reliable or can they be vandalized? This is what she showed me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casual_Friday&diff=prev&oldid=159160092 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casual_Friday&diff=next&oldid=159160092. StanTheMan34243 (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Vandalism is the act of causing damage to a work. It is not illegal (at present).
- The only relationship between Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) to WikiLeaks is that they both used wiki software to manage and display information. WikiLeaks stopped using wiki software around 2010.
- Please see Our Five Pillars for Wikipedia is and is not. —EncMstr (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
2016 Community Wishlist Survey proposal to make finding vandalism faster in watchlists and RC pages
In the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey, I have written a proposal to hide edits from editors you trust in Watchlists and RC pages to make our RC patrol and watchlists much more manageable, and thus help us winnow down to vandalizing edits in a quicker manner. Please consider supporting this proposal with your vote by December 12. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 04:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)