User:Westogent/Vandalism

This page is currently undergoing construction and expansion. Any edits already made to the page are not neccessarily permanent.

Vandalism in a nutshell: Intentionally making repeated non-constructive edits to Wikipedia will result in a block or permanent ban.

Vandalism is one of the most despised things on Wikipedia.^[1] It hurts the encyclopedia, which is why a large number of the 48,243,903 users we have on Wikipedia, dedicate their time to fighting vandalism and stopping vandals, and, in turn, making the encyclopedia a better place. This page is a comprehensive guide to all things vandalism-related.

Determining whether an edit is vandalism

Before you can warn a user, notifying them that they have vandalised a certain article, you first, have to determine whether the edit you call "vandalism", is actually vandalism. Many users make the mistake of claiming that a certain edit is vandalism, that is in fact, not vandalism. Many users make the mistake of claiming that a certain edit isn't vandalism, that is in fact, vandalism. And many users assume correctly. However, there are many symptoms and different signs that really reveal if an edit is vandalism or not.

The first step to determining whether a certain edit is vandalism or not, is use your natural instinct. Look at the edit in question, and ask yourself the following questions:

Analyse the edit: does the edit contain profanity, "this person sukz", replacing certain bits in the infobox with rude comments, etc? Has the user, by making the edit, really intended to harm the subject or the article? Was the edit just intended as a joke?
Analyse the user: look at the user's talk page for past warnings (if any), user's contributions (if any) and block log. These things often give a clear idea of what type of user this user is: would they stop after receiving many warnings? are they out to harm the article, or to make a harmless (but causes harm, anyway) joke?

Warning a user for vandalism

As warning users for vandalism is a very tedious and repetitive process, so many templates have been created. There have been over 200 individual templates have been created and maintained by user warnings WikiProject. A full list of all the user warning templates and what to use them for, can be found at the template messages page.

In the table below, are the most commonly used user warning templates – this is why, simply because editing tests, page blanking, spam linking and just plain simple vandalism are among the most commonly practiced vandalisms.

Description	Level 1	Level 2	Level 3	Level 4	Level 4im
Editing tests	{{subst:uw-test1}}	{{subst:uw-test2}}	{{subst:uw-test3}}	Escalate ↓	Escalate ↓
Vandalism	{{subst:uw-vand1}}	{{subst:uw-vand2}}	{{subst:uw-vand3}}	{{subst:uw-vand4}}	{{subst:uw-vand4im}}
Page blanking, removal of content or templates	{{subst:uw-delete1}}	{{subst:uw-delete2}}	{{subst:uw-delete3}}	{{subst:uw-delete4}}	{{subst:uw-delete4im}}
Adding spam links	{{subst:uw-spam1}}	{{subst:uw-spam2}}	{{subst:uw-spam3}}	{{subst:uw-spam4}}	{{subst:uw-spam4im}}

What the warnings mean

Editing tests covers everything from gjkiljsahlfuweovierruoasdlah to $#%($)#!(#~@(#!*@(#~, and even the odd [[Image:Example.png|500px|left|thumb|fyasfhsd.]]. However, there are limits to what edits are classed as testing edits; for example, adding profane language to the end of an article or in the middle of a sentence, is leaning very close to vandalism, and should be treated as vandalism, and not as an test edit.
Vandalism, as you probably have figured out by now, is, as above, adding profane language to the end of an article or in the middle of a sentence, replacing sections with own personal thoughts about the subject (this person rocks/sucks, etc), you know the sort of stuff. Vandalism should not be confused with test edits – they are two different things.
Page blanking, partial section removal, replacing whole page with vandalism of sorts, etc; these are always, even when they are not, vandalism. Users who do this should most definitely be warned for it immediately, as should users who do any form of vandalism.
Spam linking refers to linking of external websites, generally in the External links section of the article. If a user adds an external link to an article, and the external link has absolutely nothing to do with anything related to the article, or very little, the link is spam, and the user was obviously not assuming good faith. However, if a user adds an external link to an article, and the external link is relevant to the article's subject, then the user was most likely assuming good faith.

When to use which level

You must assume good faith when warning a user using a warn template: assume that the user made the edit with the intention to help the project, and not hurt it.

In short, when deciding which template to use on a user, you must look at the edit, and think: was the user really trying to help the project? Was the edit obvious vandalism?

According to the user-warnings page, the level templates are as follows.^[2]

Level 1 – Assumes good faith. Generally includes "Welcome to Wikipedia" or some varient.
Level 2 – No faith assumption
Level 3 – Assumes bad faith; stern cease and desist
Level 4 – Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning
'Level 4im – Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, first and only warning

Warning users for vandalism

After you have determined that an edit in question is vandalism,

Places to look for vandalism

Keep a watchful eye on vandal's contributions, they may vandalise more articles.
Special:Longpages – only the extremely long ones (many many KBs), it is likely some user has replaced the page with a rude sentence over and over again.
Special:Shortpages – for very short pages, easy to spot blanked pages.
Viewing Special:Recentchanges, hiding logged-in users – studies have shown that over 85% of vandalism is commited by IP users.^[3]
Special:Search – type in a word or two of profane language into the search bar, and it should bring up a few pages with vandalism on them.
The top 10 articles on Special:Mostrevisions – these articles have the most revisions, because they are just about some of the most controversial topics in real life, and receive alot of vandalism.

Examples of so-called "vandalism"

Figure 1.0

The IP address changed "Nine Inch Nails" to "Nine Centimetre Nails"; this may seem harmless, and intended to be a joke, but, take a look at

Click [show] to show diff

	Line 144:		Line 144:
	:''See also: [[Chinese Democracy (album)\|Chinese Democracy]] and [[Chinese Democracy Tour]]''		:''See also: [[Chinese Democracy (album)\|Chinese Democracy]] and [[Chinese Democracy Tour]]''
-	In [[1999]], guitarist Robin Finck departed the band in order to rejoin his former band, [[Nine Inch Nails]], on tour. In [[2000]], [[avant-garde]] [[guitarist]] [[Buckethead]] joined Guns N' Roses as a replacement for Finck. Drummer Josh Freese was replaced with [[Bryan Mantia]] (formerly of [[Primus (band)\|Primus]]). Robin Finck returned to Guns N' Roses in late 2000, complementing Buckethead on lead guitar, and the revised lineup debuted on stage in [[January 2001]], with two well-received concerts, one in [[Las Vegas, Nevada\|Las Vegas]] and one at the [[Rock in Rio]] Festival in [[Rio de Janeiro]]. The band played a mixture of old hits as well as new songs from their forthcoming album. During their Rock in Rio set, Rose made the following comment regarding former members of the band:	+	In [[1999]], guitarist Robin Finck departed the band in order to rejoin his former band, [[Nine Centimetre Nails]], on tour. In [[2000]], [[avant-garde]] [[guitarist]] [[Buckethead]] joined Guns N' Roses as a replacement for Finck. Drummer Josh Freese was replaced with [[Bryan Mantia]] (formerly of [[Primus (band)\|Primus]]). Robin Finck returned to Guns N' Roses in late 2000, complementing Buckethead on lead guitar, and the revised lineup debuted on stage in [[January 2001]], with two well-received concerts, one in [[Las Vegas, Nevada\|Las Vegas]] and one at the [[Rock in Rio]] Festival in [[Rio de Janeiro]]. The band played a mixture of old hits as well as new songs from their forthcoming album. During their Rock in Rio set, Rose made the following comment regarding former members of the band:
	:''"I know that many of you are disappointed that some of the people you came to know and love could not be with us here today. Regardless of what you have heard or read, people worked very hard (meaning my former friends) to do everything they could so that I could not be here today. I say fuck that. I am as hurt and disappointed as you that unlike [[Oasis (band)\|Oasis]], we could not find a way to all get along."''<ref>[http://www.artistopia.com/Music-Artists/Pros/Bio.asp?ID=250 GN'R Biography]</ref>		:''"I know that many of you are disappointed that some of the people you came to know and love could not be with us here today. Regardless of what you have heard or read, people worked very hard (meaning my former friends) to do everything they could so that I could not be here today. I say fuck that. I am as hurt and disappointed as you that unlike [[Oasis (band)\|Oasis]], we could not find a way to all get along."''<ref>[http://www.artistopia.com/Music-Artists/Pros/Bio.asp?ID=250 GN'R Biography]</ref>
diff

Vandalism?

Yes, it is vandalism.

About this article

This article, is a comprehensive guide to all things vandalism-related. It was originally written by me, with all base context written from the ground up.

Disclaimer

The diffs provided within this article act solely as examples, and no-one involved with contributing to this article was, is, or intending to attack the users who made the edits in the diff. If you were involved within one of the edits in the diffs shown, and you take offense, I offer my apologies here and now.

Notes

^ This was made up by me, but it is probably true, anyway.
^ Wikipedia contributors (2007-07-31). "Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace". Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2007-08-01. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)
^ This has an 85 per cent chance of being false.