Wikipedia talk:Vandalism

This is not the page for reporting vandalism.

This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Vandalism page and the associated policy.

Report obvious vandals at Administrator intervention against vandalism
Report any other incidents at the 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.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Archives

Past discussion prior to these archives is available in the page history.

Ease of Use Vinegar

Like syntactic vinegar, vandalism should be discouraged by requiring a logged in user to edit any page. This will prevent most casual vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggb667 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been rejected many times before. The main problems are that most (~70%) of unregistered edits are constructive, so requiring registration will remove many good editors, and many vandals will just register as it only requires a username and password. Plus we couldn't prevent most editing from vandalism hotspots such as schools as we do now. There are plenty of other problems that are more pressing than vandalism, and such a drastic change really isn't warranted. Hut 8.5 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know where this 70% figure comes from. In my experience, there's a lot of mindless vandalism from anonymous users. i can't see that it is asking too much to require editors to log in before editing. It's not exactly setting the bar very high. Michael Glass (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes me too. Problem is for schools like Primary schools the block should be lifted. Whats the probability of 7 to 11 year olds knowing about this site? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itfc+canes=me (talk • contribs) [reply]

High. Consider today's technologically minded world. Unlike high schoolers an above, whom often are limited to sources other than generalised encyclopaedias, but it's a simple, easy to use source of information for young people to use for reports and projects, that don't require bibliographic record and lack limitations on sources. Neuro√Synapse 11:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that 70% of unregistred edits are benign. My impression is that 30% is a more likely ratio, at best. Nielmo (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's really difficult to judge percentages from one person's perspective. personally, I'm always running across IPs who are making useful, constructive edits to articles; I'd even seen IPs who revert vandalism from other IPs. the fact is, not every responsible editor wants to be part of the wikipedia community (heaven knows I have days when I don't want to be part of this community

), and I'd hate to lose valuable contributions because of some 'join or die' attitude.

now what might be useful is to start keeping track - if an IP has made 50 or so constructive edits, mark it somehow as a de facto user, and focus anti-vandalism efforts on IPs with few or no edits. that might add a little more efficiency to the process... --Ludwigs2 22:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history vandalism

Copied from WT:VAN/Archive 6:

Is the creation of edit histories on redirect pages (via multiple edits with the effect of preventing future non-admin assisted page moves to the redirect) vandalism? — AjaxSmack 04:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an example. I make loads of RDRs and mistakes are not uncommon. Richard001 05:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to create a hypothetical example. A page is titled Lage Raho Munna Bhai and I want to move it to the outrageous new title of Rajkumar Hirani's insult of Gandhi. I proceed to move it to Rajkumar Hirani's insult of Gandhi and Lage Raho Munna Bhai is now automatically made a redirect with one entry in the edit history. To prevent another editor from returning the page to Lage Raho Munna Bhai, I then go to Lage Raho Munna Bhai and change it from #REDIRECT [[Rajkumar Hirani's insult of Gandhi]] to #redirect [[Rajkumar Hirani's insult of Gandhi]]. This creates a two-entry edit history preventing non-admin moves and forcing editors who want to return the article to Lage Raho Munna Bhai to post it at WP:RM and get wide "consensus" to move it back to its orginal title. — AjaxSmack 19:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any real examples of this though? I'd just treat it on a case by case basis. The worst that can happen is having to ask an admin to move it. Richard001 21:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example is here where the edit summary reads "Null edit to pre-empt move war." This user was straightforward about it but others aren't. So, I repeat my question: Is the creation of edit histories on redirect pages (via multiple edits with the effect of preventing future non-admin assisted page moves to the redirect) vandalism? — AjaxSmack 01:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if it counts as vandalism, but it certainly seems dubious behaviour.--Kotniski (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that vandalism is defined here as "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia", I don't think the case you have cited would qualify. Talking to the Wikipedian in question would be the best idea. Richard001 (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an Arbcom ruling on the subject here, which will apply to the "having to post it to WP:RM" issue. I don't feel that it's even approaching vandalism. It's closer to WP:DE going on, if the user is doing so with ill intent. As Richard states, it's probably best to just talk to the user in question. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input and for pointing me to WP:DE. I was just curious about the issue in general and, in this particular case, I assume good faith since the user announced his purpose. It will work itself out through the RM process that has already started. — AjaxSmack 00:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a real example. Colin Ferguson was moved to Colin Ferguson (mass murderer) and then Colin Ferguson was edited, preventing reversing the move. When it was suggested that it be reversed at WP:RM, the inappropriateness of the move was overlooked. There have been numerous previous attempts to make the move to (mass murderer), each of which have been reverted previously. It is never appropriate to use (mass murderer) as a part of a subjects name, no matter how much you dislike them. Apteva (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding It

I've seen it myself. One person wrote something bad about Albert Murphy. If somebody says something bad about somebody, it's vandalism.Wollslleybuttock (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table of types of vandalism

Given our dislike of spilling WP:BEANS, is there really any need for the policy page to include this detailed table of ways of vandalising Wikipedia? Wouldn't a general definition be enough?--Kotniski (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If vandals can't think this stuff up for themselves, they're unlikely to spend much time reading anything, let alone Wikipedia's guidelines. Richard001 (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So who is it for then, if it's all so obvious?--Kotniski (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These categories can sometimes be useful - I once got a complaint from a vandal who thought that because his vandalism was hidden inside comments it was acceptable - but it could be trimmed down a bit. Hut 8.5 08:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reality check

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone here could comment on this edit [1]. Someone keeps adding the word "terrorist" to the Hamas article, and others keep taking it out, characterizing it as vandalism. I think that's clearly not the case (it may be POV, or violate other policies), but I'd appreciate some neutral input: is this vandalism? IronDuke 00:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New policy idea: Require IP edits to be made with edit summary

Here is a new idea for a policy: one in which those who edit using IP rather than an account, will be required to use the edit summary in order to be able to save the edit. Until something is filled into the edit summary line, clicking save will not be possible.

It is quite obvious by now that most vandalism is at the hands of IP editors, and quite a lot of it has involved blank edit summaries. Perhaps requiring this line to be filled in would reduce the amount of vandalism. Hellno2 (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it that much of a deterrence, as most of the vandals would just type in 1 char to overcome the limit. Also, it doesn't seem to be right to single out IPs for this change. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 19:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring users to fill in the edit summary has been proposed many times. Among the objections is that it will lead to meaningless summaries added just to meet the requirement. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unsourced or original content

Is adding unsourced or original content vandalism? The template {{uw-unsourced3}} suggests that repeatedly adding such content is considered vandalism, but nothing about it is mentioned on this page. 86.1.249.35 (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What vandalism is not" vs "What is not vandalism"

First of all, I apologize if this has been covered in another discussion.

What vandalism is not seems to me as an incorrect title for the section which it describes. The title, as it stands, would be more appropriate if the section described acts of vandalism and then sought to explain that these acts of vandalism do not constitute something else. "What is not vandalism" makes more sense to me because this title suggests that there will be a description of situations/acts that do not constitute vandalism.

I realize that this may not make a lot of sense to others as it does to me so I apologize if it souds confusing or overly trivial. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Be bold and change it.--Kotniski (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with the change. I think it should be done. Orfen ^T • _C 20:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The title is What vandalism is not, and if you change it to a complete sentence for each subject, it would be Vandalism is not Tests by experimenting users for the first point, and so on. --Hamster X (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point being, I think, that normal English would have it the other way round - "tests... are not vandalism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotniski (talk • contribs)
That's exactly my point. Tests are not vandalism sounds more correct that Vandalism is not tests. To me, at least. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
False charge of vandalism
An edit of mine was reversed by a bot due to being "vandalism," even though it was not. This concerned the article on death. If a bot is convinced your good-faith edit is vandalism, how do you get around that? My guess is just re-adding the material will get nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.168.205 (talk) 09:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was not undone by a bot but rather Wikiscient I suggest if you have any problems in regard to the edit the person made you ask on the editors talk page. Thanks Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 09:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dirtfoot
I need a whinge. The above article started life fairly well-formed, it has then been edited into nothing, even spent some time as a redirect. On balance of probability one could say that all edits are good faith, but if anybody and everybody can edit, which is an admirable ambition in itself, how can we ensure that the "facts, the whole facts and nothing but the facts" are there. Wouldn't it be great if each page was split into two - a protected page and an editable page - which could replace the protected page when authorised by a non-contributor to the article. This would enable the aims of WP to be kept, while at the same time offering something that could be a reliable source of information. At the moment it's nothing more than a semi-anarchist free-for-all graffiti wall. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Flagged revisions. Don't know when it's going to finally come live.--Kotniski (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do Wikipedia wanted to blame me?
I have never edited Paul McCartney's page, then they said that I vandalized the page.I've been blame for nothing,I look through the history and I saw the page was vandalized by my IP address, but it wasn't me who vandalized it.I am not an active user, so I need some help to report to the administrators. 124.82.61.100 (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already addressed this at this IP's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a suggestion for group consideration
I'd like to suggest that the normal 'four-warning' process be skipped, and immediate intervention and blockage be available, whenever a vandal targets the user page of someone who flagged him for vandalism. this is pragmatism more than anything else - a vandal who targets vandal patrollers leaves no doubt that he is intending vandalism, and I haven't yet seen a case where such a user didn't get blocked anyway. in the long run, this would save a lot of people a lot of effort going through the motions of giving a 'fair chance' to someone who clearly isn't interested. --Ludwigs2 19:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative suggestion-What about just shortening it to two warnings, or one even, instead of four? Marcia Wright (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well, I think that's partly implied (since they'd have to get at least one warning in order to have a patroller to attack) but I could agree with this as well. --Ludwigs2 18:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deliberately adding false information
What form of vandalism would deliberately adding false information fall under? Example: [2]. Vandalism for the purpose of appropriating Wikipedia's reputation to lend validity to a false statement. (Or maybe it was deliberate misinformation to make WP look bad?) What's the course of action to take? Just a {{vandal}} on the IP talk page? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
inappropriate humor, maybe? that's probably what I'd use, anyway, since it seems he's intent on pulling someone's leg. --Ludwigs2 18:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well.. It sounds to me like he added info to the encyclopedia so he could tell a friend either "it's true, wikipedia says so" or to say "look what crap Wikipedia says". Either option deliberately disrupts and harms the encyclopedia, whether or not they thought it was just good fun to misrepresent it. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 15:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template vandalism
Since Template vandalism seems to be the new fad as a quick browse of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents will show (plus personal experience with the relatively few articles on my watchlist), I think it would be a good idea to have a Wikipedia:Template vandalism article. I would urge anyone who has any knowledge about this to write an article. It seems that the main fear when this sort of thing occurs is that Wiki has been hacked, I know because that was my first thought when I experienced it. A proper informative article would perhaps allay the worst fears for most casual editors .--Saddhiyama (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could write one (and will tomorrow, if no one else gets to it) but I think it would only need a section in this article, not an entire article of its own. --Ludwigs2 03:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a blurb here - wp:Vandalism#Obstinate_.28Template_and_CSS.29_vandalism - though it could probably use some editing. --Ludwigs2 17:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, even though the blurb may or may not need more work it is still very helpful in removing some of the confusion concerning template vandalism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling
"Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged"
Could someone explain why this is? Excessive typos, lack of spacing, improper letter casing, all make talk pages illegible and unappealing. They discourage rather than encourage proper discussion. I want to know who thinks it is discouraged, and why it should be. I think fixing obvious typos is perfectly fine. You can't alter the meaning of something meaningless.
Furthermore, how do you deal with people who keep reverting your refactoring? We can spend a lot of time making things more aesthetic and then have some guy come and roll it back in a second, it seems equivilent to vandalism to me. Tyciol (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On occasion, someone may intentionally mispell something. More often, the person "fixing" the spelling is actually wrong, or has mistaken the intended word, which may be obscure or technical, for something else. The person fixing the spelling may inadvertently alter the meaning of the statement, and some might even take more liberty than simply fixing the spelling. While certainly, fixing a link-breaking typo is almost purely undebatable, outside of that it's just easier to make everyone accountable for their own spelling and grammar. Some people also take offense at having their comments revised, and this is a simple thing to avoid as aesthetic pleasure in a discussion is not a top priority. Although fixing God-awful formatting is not discouraged, and that can be far more annoying than spelling mistakes. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Related essay of potential interest
Wikipedia:Vandalism does not matter; responses most welcome. Solidarity, Skomorokh 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discouraging the "rvv" edit summary abbreviation?
In the "How not to respond to vandalism" section, I'd like to propose we consider adding a suggestion that editors should be discouraged from using the abbreviation "rvv" (or "rv v") in edit summaries. Using this abbreviation makes it too trivially and flippantly easy to brand someone else's editing as vandalism — an accusation which we shouldn't be throwing around lightly, especially if an inappropriate edit might possibly not have been malicious or wanton after all.
Except perhaps in the most blatantly obvious cases (and maybe not even then?), I would suggest that less inflammatory alternatives should be preferred. I used to use "rvv" all the time in edit summaries, but I recently decided to stop doing so.
What do others think about this idea? Richwales (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Continued unconstructive edits after block
An IP (86.18.83.87) has continued to make unconstructive edits after being blocked, I'm not sure how to deal with it, though. Do I go through the warning cycle again, issue an only warning or report it straight to WP:AIV? I know there's no hard and fast rules regarding warnings, but I'd just like to know what's usually the done thing as I can't find any guidelines or discussions covering this. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 12:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunately, if it gets blocked and comes back to to the same thing, all you can do is go through the cycle again. make a note of it when you report him to ANI, he'll get progressively longer blocks that way. --Ludwigs2 23:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
Hi. Have noticed that someone has vandalized the page about the death of Hitler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Adolf_Hitler I don't understand how to edit the page to remove the line "To everyone's dismay, however, Hitler had 'pulled a Tina' and now resides in Argentina." could someone please remove this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.140.162 (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Thanks for your help. Hut 8.5 15:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BLOCKED IP ADDRESS.S
i have been made aware to my address was blocked due vandalizm my ip is 195.189.14754 but it shows as 71.249.105.66 there is not enough room for the whole ordeal that i am going thru mfs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtina49 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong - neither of the addresses above are blocked. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Call me Mr. Bonaparte!)} 06:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How to respond to vandalism
The way the section is worded, it implies that if I come across some vandal-inserted nonsense in an article, and I don't have time to check the edit history to see how it got there, then I should leave it there, because it might have been inserted in place of something else, and simply deleting it is the act of a "novice editor". Is this what we mean to say? --Kotniski (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is easily a matter of common sense. if you run across an edit where someone added something that could no way be part of the actual article, undo it. if the edit in question could reasonably be assumed to be part of the article, then do one of the following: remove it and ask for clarification on the talk page, take the time to investigate further, tag it with an appropriate inline template, or let it go and come back later when you have the time. --Ludwigs2 21:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a go at rewriting the advice then. It may be common sense, but there are some people who actually read and follow the guidance we give them, and we don't want to discourage them from removing vandalism because they think they have to go through the whole complex process every time.--Kotniski (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I heard Geotool is nice
Geotool is pretty good for tracking down IP addresses. I use Mozilla Firefox, so I have it installed on my browser as an add-on. That's how I found out about it. I would provide the link for it, but for some odd reason it's been blacklisted as a spam link. Can anyone explain why? Crackthewhip775 (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Demote?
Looking at this page again, while I've got nothing against it, it seems to be more like a help page or how-to page than a policy page. Any scraps of policy here are probably already contained in other pages like WP:BLOCK. Otherwise it's mainly advice about dealing with vandals. Would it make sense to reclassify it by removing the policy tag? Then people would feel freer to edit it with useful tips, without the fear that they're somehow changing WP policy in the process.--Kotniski (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Warning users
Is it okay for people who are not administrators to warn people who vandalize Wikipedia?. Mythdon (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. In fact, there are some good ways to do it. You can use the functionality built-in to Twinkle, or use the chart here: Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When i do so, I prefer to only use the first two levels of warnings as levels 3 and 4 sound like admin-use. Mythdon (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Macintosh shortcuts bug
This is trivial, but "Obstinate (Template and CSS) vandalism" says "To access the page history or edit the page when the 'history' or 'edit this page' tabs are inaccessible, use the Windows keyboard shortcut shift-alt-h to access the history, or shift-alt-e to edit the page (Macintosh computers use shift-ctrl-h and shift-ctrl-e)." This hasn't been the case since the Mac version of Internet Explorer was abandoned years ago... and of course on both platforms the actual shortcuts are browser-dependent. --Robort (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it works fine on my normal browser (Safari), but not on Firefox - Firefox just uses ctrl-E and ctrl-H. since that combo also works on Safari, and also in SeaMonkey and Camino, I'll edit the page to say that instead. anyone have a version of Opera they can check? --Ludwigs2 00:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, this article answers all these questions - the Vandalism article could link to it. --Robort (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
excellent find. I'll link it in now. --Ludwigs2 03:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ip adress
If someone vandalises will their ip adress be banned or just the acount? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolaroo (talk • contribs) 14:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anonymous, just their IP unless the IP's heen hardblocked (i.e. both anonymous and registered accounts on that IP are disabled). If registered, usually both the account and the IP are blocked (though the block on the IP lasts only 24 hours, if I recall right...). Finally, we do not ban users right off the bat - we block them first and ban only as a last resort (as a ban gives carte blanche to revert the banned user's edits and block on sight). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 16:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good-faith editors deleting vandalised sections rather than checking history
Good-faith editors see a vandalised section and delete it, not realizing than the grafitti was replacing content, not just in addition to it. It's likely more widespread than I realize, because I only notice it when I see a discrepancy: Extra space between paragraphs/sections or casual mention of a concept not previously/otherwise mentioned, as if something's missing.
This is likely perennial, but I thought I'd ask if anyone had any thought about increasing awareness of checking (at least recent) history when seeing vandalism rather than only deleting it. TransUtopian (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
can you give an example? the general practice for removing vandalism is to rollback the edit, which should reinstate any section that the vandal deleted. the only way I can see this happening is if two separate vandals hit a page before the patroller - one deletes the section, and the next adds bad content. the patroller would not see the first edit that way. --Ludwigs2 04:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Examples:
National Curriculum assessment: [3] and [4]

Mad Libs: [5] and [6]

NAFTA: [7] and [8]
Not RC patrollers generally, but getting awareness out to others who well meaningly "see vandalism in an article, the simplest thing to do is just to remove it" without checking history. I could post on individual talk pages when I see this happening, but I would like to draw more awareness to "check the edit history to see what content was removed (and repair the damage), or leave a note on the article's talk page suggesting that someone else do this", and suggest changing that to posting to WP:EAR if the article's talk isn't frequented. TransUtopian (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, yeah, that's tough. the first one is a bot error (which I should probably report), the second is a piece of vandalism that was missed completely, and the third is vandalism correction by an IP who just didn't know what he was doing. we can write something up about this, I suppose, but I doubt it will do much good - it will only get to the people who know or bother to read this guideline. what would you suggest? --Ludwigs2 16:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence after "the simplest thing to do..." explains what to do additionally if "it seems likely that the vandalism was put there in place of something else". Maybe the wording could be improved to make that clearer (but I agree that most people making the kind of edits referred to above are probably not much influenced by this page anyway).--Kotniski (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
what if we rephrased it like this?
If you see vandalism in an article, the simplest thing to do is just to remove it. But take care! Sometimes vandalism takes place on top of older, undetected vandalism, sometimes other editors make edits without realizing the vandalism occurred, and sometimes bots try to fix collateral damage and accidentally make things worse. Check the edit history to make sure you're reverting to a 'clean' version of the page, or if you can't tell where the best place is, take your best guess and leave a note on the article's talk page so that someone more familiar with the page can address the issue.

--Ludwigs2 22:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds excellent.--Kotniski (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I'll edit it in. --Ludwigs2 18:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came here for something else, but I've just spotted this section. I think this is potentially a significant problem in Wikipedia, especially for less visited articles. From time to time I check up on articles that I'm familar with, and it is not at all uncommon to find that chunks have been deleted through incorrect vandalism repair. Typically someone has replaced a paragraph or section or whatever with a juvenile obscenity, and the next person to come along has deleted the obscenity without reiinstating the original text. Often this has gone unnoticed for months, and I wonder how many instances go unnoticed forever. If I'm noticing as many instances as I do in just a few articles, then that suggests to me that the problem is widespread. Matt 05:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC).
Vandal fighter
I want to become a vandal fighter. Who will help me become one, and teach me how to notice vandalism (the sneaky type of vandalism). Perhaps there are certain tools I could use? Please give me some more information on this. I eagerly await your answer, J.B. 10:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jouke Bersma (talk • contribs)
You can get ideas on how to do that by reading the entire WP:Vandalism article. Try checking this one out. Hope it helps. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Thank you for your time. J.B. (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Happy vandalhunting! --Eaglestorm (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]