m JS: Reverted edits by Azer Red to last version by John254 |
I'm just being bold. I haven't changed the policy at all. Just because this is policy doesn't mean that anyone can't edit it |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
'''Vandalism''' is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a ''deliberate'' attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. |
'''Vandalism''' is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a ''deliberate'' attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. |
||
The most common |
The most common types of vandalism include the addition or obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of [[Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense|bad jokes or other nonsense]]. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot. |
||
Any [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|good-faith]] effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. |
Any [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|good-faith]] effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. |
||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations: |
Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations: |
||
;Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of |
;Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus constitute vandalism. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually ''not'' considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, [[template:test1a]] or [[template:blank]], as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings. |
||
;[[Wikipedia:Spam|Spam]]: |
;[[Wikipedia:Spam|Spam]]: Continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism. |
||
;[[m:Vandalbot| |
;[[m:Vandalbot|Vandalbots]]: A [[Wikipedia:Bots|script or "robot"]] that attempts to vandalize or spam ''massive'' numbers of articles (hundreds or thousands). |
||
;Silly vandalism; graffiti: Adding profanity, random characters, etc. to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages, etc. Please note that the addition of random characters to pages is a common way that new users test edit and may not be intentionally malicious. |
|||
;Childish vandalism: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dog&diff=9829910&oldid=9829151 Adding graffiti] or [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenland&diff=7172688&oldid=7172681 blanking pages]. |
|||
⚫ | ;Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism which is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g altering dates minorly), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. |
||
;Silly vandalism: Creating joke or hoax articles, replacing existing articles with plausible-sounding nonsense, or adding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Bank_Group&diff=19098621&oldid=19098470 silly jokes] to existing articles is considered vandalism. |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
;Image vandalism: Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explict images on pages, or simply using any image in ways that are disruptive. Please note though that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors and that explicit images may be uploaded or placed on pages for legitimate reasons. |
|||
;Attention-seeking vandalism: Adding insults, using offensive usernames, replacing articles with jokes etc (see also [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]). |
|||
⚫ | |||
;Revert vandalism: Reverting articles to prevent vandalism is considered a genuine use of the revert function. [[WP:POINT#Gaming_the_system|Gaming the system]] to circumvent the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]] is disruptive and considered to be vandalism. |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
;Link vandalism: Modifying internal or external links within a page so that they appear the same but link to a page/site that they are not intended to (e.g an explicit image; a shock site). |
|||
;Image vandalism: Uploading provocative images, inserting political messages, making malicious animated GIFs, ''etc.'' Repeatedly uploading images with no source and/or license information after notification that such information is required may also constitute vandalism. |
|||
⚫ | ;Avoidant vandalism: Removing {{tl|afd}}, {{tl|copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content. Note that this is often mistakenly done by new users who are unfamiliar with AfD procedures and such users should be given the benefit of the doubt and pointed to the proper page to discuss the issue. |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | ;Modifying users' comments: Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when [[WP:RPA|removing a personal attack]] (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged. |
||
;Template vandalism: Any vandalism to templates. Examples include blanking the template, adding an image to the template which is unrelated to its use, et cetera. Edits which cause a template to display improperly are not vandalism if the mistake was unintentional. |
|||
⚫ | |||
;Redirect vandalism: Redirecting articles or talk pages to offensive articles or images. One example is the autofellatio redirect vandal. Some vandals will try to redirect pages to nonsense titles they create this way. This variation is usually performed by vandals whose accounts are too new to move pages. It is also often done on pages that are protected from moves. |
|||
;Link vandalism: Rewriting links within an article so that they appear the same, but point to something completely different or ridiculous (e.g. [[Archie Jackson|France]]). |
|||
⚫ | ;Avoidant vandalism: Removing |
||
;Random character vandalism: Replacing topical information with random characters, or just adding random characters to a page. "aslkdjnsdagkljhasdlkh," for example. Be careful: only in extended cases is this vandalism; it could also potentially be a new user test. |
|||
⚫ | ; |
||
<div id="tags"> |
<div id="tags"> |
||
;Improper use of dispute tags: [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes|Dispute]] tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow [[WP:CON]] and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does ''not'' count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]]. |
;Improper use of dispute tags: [[Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes|Dispute]] tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow [[WP:CON]] and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does ''not'' count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]]. |
||
;Talk page vandalism: Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing [[WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming|internal spam]], vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. [[Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks|Removing personal attacks]] is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion. |
;Talk page vandalism: Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing [[WP:SPAM#Internal_spamming|internal spam]], vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. [[Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks|Removing personal attacks]] is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion. |
||
⚫ | ;Repeated uploading of copyrighted material: Uploading or using material on Wikipedia in ways which violate [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems|Wikipedia's copyright policies]] after having been warned is vandalism. Because users may be unaware that the information is copyrighted, or of Wikipedia policies on how such material may and may not be used, such action ''only'' becomes vandalism if it continues after the copyrighted nature of the material and relevant policy restricting its use have been communicated to the user. |
||
;Official policy vandalism: Deleting or altering part of a Wikipedia official policy with which the vandal disagrees, without any attempt to seek consensus or recognize an existing consensus. Improving or clarifying policy wording in line with the clear existing consensus is not vandalism. |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | ; |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
== What vandalism is not == |
== What vandalism is not == |
Revision as of 04:44, 18 January 2007
Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
The most common types of vandalism include the addition or obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot.
Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated.
Committing vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia policy; it needs to be spotted, and then dealt with — if you cannot deal with it yourself, you can seek help from others.
Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether the new data or information is right, or false but well-intentioned, or outright vandalism.
Dealing with vandalism
Edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person may not be vandalism, but instead an effort by the subject of the article to remove inaccurate or biased material.
If you see vandalism (as defined below), revert it and leave a warning message on the user's talk page. Check the page history after reverting to make sure you have removed all the vandalism; there may be multiple vandal edits, sometimes from several different IPs. If it is obvious that all versions of the page are pure vandalism, nominate the page for deletion. Also, check the vandal's other contributions -- you will often find more malicious edits.
Warnings
Warning templates
|
Note: Do not use these templates in content disputes; instead, write a clear message explaining your disagreement.
There are several templates used to warn vandals. They are listed at right in order of severity, but need not be used in succession. Though some people vandalizing are incorrigible returning vandals and may be blocked quickly, it is common for jokesters or experimenters to make non-encyclopedic edits; these people are usually stopped by a simple warning and often become productive contributors. If you are not sure that an edit is vandalism, always start with {{test}}.
The ~~~~ in the templates above causes the time and your signature to be added to the warning. The "subst" causes the template text to be pasted into the talk page as if you had typed it out, instead of leaving {{test}} visible when editing the page, because it is a comment in a talk page. You may also write your own message to the user.
If the vandal continues, list them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The blocking admin may leave {{subst:test5}} ~~~~ to notify that they have been blocked.
Trace IP address
Also, consider tracing the IP address. Find owners by using:
- ARIN (North America)
- RIPE (Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia)
- APNIC (Asia Pacific)
- LACNIC (Latin American and Caribbean)
- AfriNIC (Africa)
(If an address is not in one, it will probably be in another registry.) Then add {{vandalip|Name of owner}} to the talk pages of users who vandalize.
If an IP address continues to vandalize and is registered to a school or other kind of responsive ISP, consider listing it on Wikipedia:Abuse reports. Follow the instructions there and read the guide to see if it applies. If it does, list it.
Types of vandalism
Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:
- Blanking
- Removing all or significant parts of pages or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus constitute vandalism. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, template:test1a or template:blank, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.
- Spam
- Continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism.
- Vandalbots
- A script or "robot" that attempts to vandalize or spam massive numbers of articles (hundreds or thousands).
- Silly vandalism; graffiti
- Adding profanity, random characters, etc. to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages, etc. Please note that the addition of random characters to pages is a common way that new users test edit and may not be intentionally malicious.
- Sneaky vandalism
- Vandalism which is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g altering dates minorly), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages.
- Userspace vandalism
- Adding insults, profanity, etc. to User pages or user talk pages (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks).
- Image vandalism
- Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explict images on pages, or simply using any image in ways that are disruptive. Please note though that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors and that explicit images may be uploaded or placed on pages for legitimate reasons.
- Abuse of tags
- Bad-faith placing of {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on articles that do not meet such criteria.
- Page-move vandalism
- Changing the names of pages (referred to as "page-moving") to disruptive or otherwise inappropriate terms. Wikipedia now only allows registered users active for at least four days to move pages.
- Link vandalism
- Modifying internal or external links within a page so that they appear the same but link to a page/site that they are not intended to (e.g an explicit image; a shock site).
- Avoidant vandalism
- Removing {{afd}}, {{copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content. Note that this is often mistakenly done by new users who are unfamiliar with AfD procedures and such users should be given the benefit of the doubt and pointed to the proper page to discuss the issue.
- Modifying users' comments
- Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged.