Wikipedia talk:Vandals versus Trolls

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Differences

I think in calling someone either a "vandal" or a "troll" you are making a judgement about that person's motivation. I agree there is a distinction in that trolls take more interest in people's reactions. And they, like "real" trolls, also tend to stay longer in the same place. (On the other hand, I have often seen people called "trolls" and "vandals", on WP and elsewhere, merely because someone disgreed with thier views.) Steve Dufour (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with "all trolling is vandalism". This simply isn't the case. Yes trolls make nonconstructive edits, but thats not vandalism, just white noise. Theres a difference between poking the bear and killing it. Think outside the box 11:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Troll (Internet), everything else is covered in our personal attack policy and the vandalism policy. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where this essay is going. It reads more than an individual attempting to get to grips with a distinction between troll and vandal than something that would be useful to the community. It might be better off in user space than mainspace. Nice try though. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In general we only concern ourselves with people's actions here, not their motivations. It seems to me that a person could have very good motives and still commit vandalism. Say for instance, someone changed the opening sentence of Hitler's article to say: "Adolf Hitler was the most evil person who ever lived." The motive could be very good, but it would still be vandalism. Steve Dufour 20:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move this to my userspace if people don't think this belongs in the Wikipedia mainspace.--Miss Pussy Galore 22:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine where it is, but I'm not an expert on WP policy. Steve Dufour 06:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling hitler evil would not be vandalism. It might not be constructive, but it would be good-faith. 75 * 18:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, vandalism could be bad-faith but well motivated. What if wikipedia turns evil? 75 * 18:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just unconstructive edits?

A quick thought - how about vandals/trolls who start by making good edits in order to give the impression they are a genuine good faith editor, before then causing disruption. These types do exist and I therefore doubt vandals and trolls can be described simply as making unconstructive edits. Whitstable 15:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we need to be mainly concerned about if an edit is constructive or not; not about judging people. Steve Dufour 22:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, on second thoughts - both words/descriptions are liable to cause more damage than solve problems Whitstable 13:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is small

Perhaps there is more to be said regarding the issue of trolls vs. vandals? I tried to add the stub tag, but an admin reverted it and warned me for vandalism. 24.68.253.80 14:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't stub essays, only articles. Dloh cierekim 14:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a stub tag to an essay is a common mistake made by a newcomer and definitely doesn't rise to the level of a vandalism warning. Read the essay. —Viriditas | Talk 13:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of vandal

Why is Thor as the picture of the vandal? The painting doesn't look vandalized and thor doesn't appear to be vandalizing anything. William Ortiz (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was the picture used in Wikipedia:Don't insult the vandals so I just used it. It's probably meant as a reference to the ancient barbarian tribe called the Vandals.--Urban Rose 13:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under "Trolls", change the "Main article" template to "Main page". 109.225.98.60 (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done to my knowledge, there is no Main page: _ template. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant changing it somehow to display "page" instead of "article". I'm sorry for my lack of knowledge on how to do this. 94.234.42.53 (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to do this? ―Abelmoschus Esculentus 06:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done had to use a generic hatnote template, as the {{main}} template could not identify the namespace and defaulted to article Danski454 (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Troll guarding "bridges"?

It seems to me in late Wikipedia every sentence or paragraph has a troll of sorts that is the reason it exists. These trolls (Three Billy Goats Gruff) just revert all changes to their favorite sections of Wikipedia, and they're not necessarily noble, they are just the only economy Wikipedia has that dictates at the end of the day which content stays and which content goes (without a patron troll you go.)--184.20.10.253 (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]