Wikipedia talk:Vandalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

This is not the page for reporting vandalism. This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Vandalism page and its associated official policy. Report obvious vandals at Administrator intervention against vandalism. Report any other incidents at the Administrators' incidents noticeboard. For common cases of vandalism, just revert them.

	This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vandalism page.
	Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Werdnabot automatically archives sections on this page that are older than 90 days. The age of a section is determined by its most recent timestamp (sections without a timestamp will not be archived). All archived sections are listed here, by size. When an archive reaches 256 kB, a new one is created. The current archive is Archive 7. A list of all archives is here.

Archives
Past discussion prior to these archives is available in the page history. Dec 2005 Jan–Apr 2006 Apr–Jun 2006 Jul–Sep 2006 Oct 2006–February 2007 February 2007-October 2007 October 2007-Current

Contents 1 Specify reverts of BLP violations NOT vandalism? 2 2nd paragraph, definition of vandalism 3 IP "vandals" using different IP addresses 4 Sneaky vandalism 5 WP:RTED 6 I corrected incorrectly plural language to singular; please do not undo it. 7 IP addresses 8 Vandilism 9 Vandalism reverted before it even appears? 10 Vandal template 2a? 11 Domaintools lookup

[edit] Specify reverts of BLP violations NOT vandalism?

A number of times over last couple year people who want to write nasty unsourced or poorly sourced attacks in WP:BLPs will claim that repeated deletions are vandalism. Therefore it might be helpful to list that in the NOT vandalism chart. OK if I do it? If someone else knows better how, and any correct links to use, go for it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

that's a good point. I went ahead and added a section (covering BLP and removal of unencyclopedic material). If you can think of a better way to put it, though... --Ludwigs2 19:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. And thanks for reminder on Encyclopedic/What Wiki is not page! WOw, it's actually a policy. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I just removed an editprotect request template that was here because I don't see any actual request to change anything. Just posting to let whomever know that I removed it. Killiondude (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd paragraph, definition of vandalism

I have a question surrounding this line: For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is. I think the second part of this sentence is open to a bit more lenient interpretation than should be desired. I made that mistake earlier myself in a previous issue. The current wording makes it too close to the edit-warring definition, which is never considered vandalism. I would like to see a slightly different phrasing for this second part of the sentence to eliminate any ambiguity of interpretation. I took a stab at this just now in a parenthetical statement. Comments/thoughts are please welcome. Thanks! Chaldor (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] IP "vandals" using different IP addresses

Sorry if I am inquiring about this in the wrong place. I know of a persistent vandal who insists on adding nonsense to many of the same BLP articles. I've seen it with at least 3 IP addresses and I suspect it is the same person. But they space it out well enough that I can't get him/her blocked for vandalism. They will make nonsense edits to 5 articles, someone will undo them, then a day or two later, the other IP address will undo the revert, then the cycle repeats itself. Looking at their edit histories, they make similar nonsense edits to the same articles; they are the type of edits that can easily go unnoticed if someone isn't watching the article, not obsenities or anything, just stupid nonsense that I wouldn't even necessarily consider vandalism if they weren't continually re-inserting the same ridiculous statements with no sources. (And after ignoring attempts to discuss it on one of the article talk pages and one of the IP address talk pages). What can be done about this? --Susan118 (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You could request page protection if the disruption is confined to a set of articles, or you could recruit an admin to do some duck-blocking. Rangeblocks may also be an option, depending on the activity in the range. –xeno ^talk 05:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try those things. I tried and failed to get page protection on one of the articles awhile back, but that was before I realized the scope of the whole thing. --Susan118 (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

One thing about rangeblocks - they don't address mobile phone users. One mobile devices, each edit made comes out with a different IP address, all within a common range. On the one I use, the first three numbers are the same, and the fourth one different each time (same.same.same.different). It is impossible to sign in using this device, so all the edits I have made from it use this range. But when I have made back-to-back edits of the same article, a different IP is assigned to each one.

I have looked over some of the edit histories of various IPs that my mobile phone edits have been assigned. They vary completely, and are obviously many different people. Occasionally, I will find one of my edits from months ago in one I am assigned again. But most edits I know I didn't make them myself, and they appear to be from a wide array of interests. At least 95% are good, but a small percentage of them are vandalism.

A rangeblock may make it impossible for mobile phone users to edit. It'll penalize 95% of users over what the 5% of bad apples do. Given that most vandalism is reverted within a few minutes of when it occurs, rangeblocks are more of a penalty on the good than the bad. Hellno2 (talk) 19:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sneaky vandalism

I think the section on Sneaky Vandalism sorta sounds like it's actually teaching other vandals how to do sneaky vandalism. Any ideas on how to fix that? Supercoolguy147 (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is, as it gives useful advices on how to spot sneaky vandalism. We may teach a few vandals how to make sneaky vandalism (assuming it's possible to teach them anything), but on the other hand we teach just as many editors on how to detect vandalism. That's fair deal in my opinion. Laurent (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we give sneaky vandals tougher treatment - double-length blocks, and fewer free offences before they're blocked. --Philcha (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree: While one who simply adds nonsense to a page is probably a newbie who is just "playing around" and will learn proper use of Wikipedia one day, 'sneaky vandals' are more likely to be malicious people who know the system full will and are engaging in a planned attack. They know full well that what they are doing is wrong.

I support this not just for sneaky vandalism, but all forms of vandalism that appear planned. This includes page-move vandalism using a single-purpose account as well.

There should be tougher penalties too. For the first incident, there should be a warning that any future occurrences of sneaky or page-move vandalism in the next 30 days will result in a block. For the second incident, there should be a 7-day block. For the third, a 30-day block, and for any subsequent offenses, an indefinite block or ban.

Also, checkuser should be employed, because those who plan such vandalism are likely to know the system, and therefore will not use their main accounts with which they are productive, but will use a sock puppet SPA. Hellno2 (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

err... back to the point. I'll rewrite the section so it's not so much like advice, and I suggest the other conversation move over to the village pump.--Ludwigs2 05:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll be more explicit. Telling editors how to spot sneaky vandalism also tells vandals how to perpetrate it. Making WP:VANDAL less explicit will simply make it more likely that sneaky vandalism will pass unnoticed. So tinkering with the text of WP:VANDAL is a lose-lose approach. Other means are needed in order to reduce the frequencey of sneaky vandalism. A tougher blocking policy for sneaky vandals is the obvious remedy. --Philcha (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with that. I came across an IP recently that has been changing numbers by a small amount all over Wikipedia. Eventually, he gets blocked but start again as soon as the block expires (and probably does it through other accounts). He's also careful to remain below four warnings. I think this kind of IPs who know very well what they're doing should have a template on their page to warn recent change patrollers, so that we can give them a final warning at the first offense, or even block them. Laurent (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And I'll be more explicit as well. I don't disagree with you. However, arguing it out here is ineffective, because you're arguing against standard wikipedia policy and convention. you basically want to label a class of editors as 'obvious vandals' and exempt them from the normal Assume Good Faith principles that apply to everyone else so that you can punish them more quickly and harshly. That is something that will call for much broader discussion than you're likely to find on this relatively out-of-the-way talk page. As it is, I don't know whether you're just griping (in which case I would tend to gripe right along with you, because those immature little turds are a decided annoyance), or whether you're seriously proposing a change (in which case I'd start expressing my concerns about the damage it would be doing to WP core principles, good faith, and due process). --Ludwigs2 12:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Reading the discussion above I certainly do not see consensus in favour of the proposed rewrite, and I would say if anything it is closer to a consensus against, yet Ludwigs2 has gone ahead and rewritten the page. If there is some justification for this which I have missed, perhaps someone can point it out to me here. However, in the meanwhile I am reverting the change. if further discussion leads to a consensus for a change, then there can be a change. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RTED

A new noticeboard is awaiting creation. See User:IRP/ArticlesForCreation/Wikipedia:Requests for talk page editing disablement. -- IRP ☎ 20:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

comment moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:RTED, keep discussion in one place--Jac16888^Talk 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I corrected incorrectly plural language to singular; please do not undo it.

In this edit [1] someone undid my edit, even saying that my summary was false. (I summarized it as "correcting grammatical number.")

My version:

Remember that any editor may freely remove messages from his own talk page, so they might appear only in the talk history. If a user continues to cause disruption after being warned, report him at...

The version he undid it to:

Remember that any editor may freely remove messages from their own talk page, so they might only appear in the talk history. If a user continues to cause disruption after being warned, report them at...

"Any editor" is singular, as is "own talk page." "Their" and "they" are incorrect here. In the next sentence, "a user" is singular, so "report them" is incorrect.

Please do not undo this, especially if you don't understand grammatical number (which I assume since you thought my summary was false). Jeff Muscato (talk) 05:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

See Singular they. –xeno ^talk 05:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The recognition and explication of the singular "they" is useful, but I think that in encyclopedic writing we should strive for clearer and more formal grammar. The singular "they" is a casual workaround for people who think that it's unfair that the masculine gender is English's neutral, but it's not our place to introduce such informal language into an encyclopedia. Jeff Muscato (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this particular page isn't an article. As far as I know, singular they is widely used and accepted in policies and guidelines. –xeno ^talk 05:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

...specifically WP:GNL, which allows its use, even if it does point out that other ways round the problem are preferable. Hadrian89 (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it really so hard to say "his or her"? — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why, when we have a perfectly acceptable solution in the singular they? –xeno ^talk 05:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The singular "they" article is informational—that is, it's good to know that people use it informally—but that doesn't make it correct for formal, encyclopedic writing. There are many words and concepts that are worthwhile as subjects of study but aren't appropriate in an encyclopedia. ("Ain't" comes to mind.) Jeff Muscato (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't an article, however; it's a policy for the encyclopedia. Also, to answer CBM's question, the singular "they" is gender-neutral; he and she both carry gendered connotations. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 05:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the singular they is not "perfectly acceptable", based on the clear empirical fact that many people do not accept it. It is certainly not worth fighting over. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And this ain't an article =) I'm off to bed, you may wish to wait for further input before re-applying the formal grammar. Whatever the decision, consistency should be the goal. I believe most guidelines and policies presently employ the singular they. –xeno ^talk 05:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The notion that one form is "clearer" is clearly a subjective judgement, as is what is "casual". What is formal and what is informal in English usage is also by no means entirely agreed on. The singular use of "they" goes back several centuries, and has a long history of use by people who have shown no sign of thinking "that it's unfair that the masculine gender is English's neutral". In fact its commonest use is to refer indefinitely to an unspecified person, whether or not the sex of the person is known. Writing about an editor's contributions without having a specific editor in mind is an example of this, and would be even if all editors were of the same sex. For example, Jane Austen frequently used "they" in this sense, but was perfectly happy to use masculine gender as a generic non-sex-specific in other contexts. This use of "they" has never been universal in English, but it has an extensive and respectable history of use by substantial sections of educated English speakers. Because it is not universal there are people who come from backgrounds where they have not encountered the usage frequently enough to find it natural, but to many other people it is perfectly natural, and indeed much more so than alternatives which are sometimes used. For example, to such people repeated use of "his or hers" is likely to seem far more clumsy and artificial than the use of "their". Since English, unlike many languages, does not have an official Academy to give sanction to a particular form of the language as "correct", in situations such as this, where different usages are recognised by different groups of literate and intelligent native speakers of the language, it is futile to simply assert that one form is "correct" and "formal", and the other "incorrect", "casual", and "informal". English usage is defined by how English is used by informed people, and in this case there is a difference of usage: it is quite wrong for those who follow one usage to try to force it onto others. Thus, in the absence of specific reason to the contrary, there is no justification for changing the original editor's wording. In the particular case referred to here there is a further consideration too: there is now a strong body of opinion which finds offensive the use of masculine gender in a generic sex-unspecific way, so that "any editor may freely remove messages from his own talk page" will be objected to, and almost certainly will not last for long. Both "any editor may freely remove messages from his or her own talk page" and "any editor may freely remove messages from their own talk page" both deal with this isue, but the original edit, the reversion of which annoyed Jeff Muscato and led to this discussion, does not. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

A much briefer afterthought to the above comment: One of Jeff Muscato's edit summaries says: In English, masculine is neutral. "Their" and such are plural. A neat summary of what I have tried to express above is: There is no consensus on this: to many people masculine is male, while "their" and such are number-neutral. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] IP addresses

The vandalism page suggests different templates for handling vandlism from unregistered users. How can you tell if an IP address is for a single user, educational institution or organization? Can you simply apply all three templates and have wikipedia sort it out? I am asking this question because of vandalism to the Hashemite University page.TheLastShot (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The only way I've been able to ascertain it was to lookup the domain using one of the tools and see if it's an .edu or business. Does anyone have a different way to tell? Thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vandilism

IS it still considerd vandilism if you ask on what we are disagreeing about.Thanks--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism reverted before it even appears?

In the June 8, 2009, New York Times, an article by Noam Cohen, entitled "The War of Words On Wikipedia's Outskirts," states that on Wikipedia "automated tools .. can recognize crude writing before it ever appears." Is this true or is this just hyperbole (e.g., reverted within a few seconds of posting)? Ecphora (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably speaking of the Wikipedia:Abuse filter, which does indeed stop some vandalism before it is committed. –xeno^talk 19:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ecphora (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal template 2a?

Could there perhaps be an intermediate template between the "you probably didn't mean it, here's the sandbox" of uw-vandalism1 and the "Hey! Jerk! Knock it off!" of uw-vandalism3? The question occurs in response to this edit. The editor has probably been around long enough to know better than to make these kinds of edits and doesn't appear to have a history of vandalism, so neither level currently available seems strongly applicable (despite the abject incivility of the remark). Otto4711 (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The edit in that diff looks like a possible example of what might be considered m:trolling. Maybe they know better, maybe they don't. It's on a talk page, so (who knows), maybe they got away with it in the past. I kind of think uw-vandalism1 still gets the message across, if they know better, they may be marginally embarrased (as they should be). --Mysidia (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, there is uw-vandalism2 between uw-vandalism1 and uw-vandalism3: perhaps "uw-vandalism1" was meant to say "uw-vandalism2"? "uw-vandalism2a" in the section heading would suggest so. I don't see any need. If an edit is the sort of thing which reasonably may be a user doing something unsuitable without fully realising it then we give a friendly level 1 warning; if it can't reasonably be taken that way but is still minor, comes from someone without more than a few examples of unhelpful editing, and is basically just an irritation then we give a slightly sterner level 2; if the editing is either clearly intended to be seriously disruptive or is part of a string of several disruptive edits we get distinctly unfriendly, and suggest a possible block. I see no gap to fill. It is also worth mentioning that it is perfectly possible to give a custom message if you feel that none of the templates is ideal: I do this from time to time. A new template would be justified only if there were a major gap to fill.

This is not the place for a detailed discussion of the particular edit referred to above, but it does not look to me like vandalism: it just seems like an expression of opinion. I don't agree with the opinion, and I think expressing it indicates a narrow mind, but that is not at all the same as regarding it as vandalism. Nor do I see the link on trolling given above as relevant: it defines trolling as "deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia", but I don't see how a one sentence expression of opinion on a talk page is likely to disrupt usability, however much I may disagree with the opinion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The editor of that particular comment may not understand that talk pages are for discussing the article, not personal opinions about the subject of the article. Otherwise, the comment is much like posting Everyone should just use Brittanica instead to Talk:Wikipedia; it's a disruptive misuse of article talk pages, because it's a controversial statement, encourages further offtopic discussion, and does not help further the article. Warning with a vandalism template may not make sense in this case, it doesn't exactly meet WP:Vandalism. --Mysidia (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

After I had written my comment above it occurred to me that I might have mentioned also exactly the point that Mysidia has now made. Mysidia is quite right. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant 1 and 3. uw-vandalism2 still directs to the sandbox with a reference to experimentation and it's described as "suitable for nonsense" which also seems inappropriate in tone. Otto4711 (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now carefully reread the vandalism templates with Otto4711's comments in mind. It is true that uw-vandalism2, like uw-vandalism1, refers to experimentation and the sandbox, and compared to uw-vandalism3 it is much politer in tone in several ways, and does not mention the possibility of a block. However, on the other hand, like uw-vandalism3 and unlike uw-vandalism2 it does not welcome the editor, it uncompromisingly refers to "unconstructive edits", rather than tentatively to edits which "did not appear to be constructive", and it refers to "vandalism", whereas uw-vandalism1 deliberately avoids the use of any use of that word. I really do see this as achieving a good intermediate in tone between 1 and 3. Evidently Otto4711 sees it differently, and I wondered whether there any evidence that many Wikipedians share similar doubts, so I have spent a considerable time looking through archives of talk:Template messages/User talk namespace and elsewhere to see whether there is any history of a view that there is need for a further narrowing of the gaps, andI have found none. The archives are extensive, and if I have somehow missed such a suggestion, please let me know.

One further point: In referring to uw-vandalism2 Otto4711 says it's described as "suitable for nonsense". There is no such suggestion in Template:Uw-vandalism2, nor in Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace, which I regard as the authoritative documentation on the use of these templates. I find the quotation is from Wikipedia_vandalism. I think it is not appropriate, because nonsense can occur at any level of vandalism, and so can other disruptive actions, so "nonsense" in no way characterises level 2. I also find that the equivalent summary for uw-vandalism1 refers to "unintentional vandalism", which is complete nonsense, since anything unintentional is not vandalism. I think a revision of these summaries would be in order. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Domaintools lookup

Hi-It looks like the domaintools lookup link is back up and running, it sure wasn't yesterday, was getting no response except a blank pg all afternoon!! --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)