Wikipedia:破壞 - 維基百科，自由嘅百科全書

Wikipedia:破壞 - 維基百科，自由嘅百科全書
跳去內容
出自維基百科，自由嘅百科全書
如果你想申請保護或解除保護，請到
WP:管理員留言板
畀人破壞，
維基妹
喊喇
請撳
Wikipedia:翻譯/破壞
，去整翻譯請求。
翻譯指引
呢版係粵語維基百科正式
政策
，維基友普遍接受，
通常
都要跟足。改佢之前要有
共識
先，重要嘅修改要響
討論版
傾過，同埋喺
報告版
宣布過。
捷徑
WP:VAN
WP:VAND
WP:VANDAL
一句講嗮：
一而再、再而三咁對維基百科蓄意作出無建設性嘅編輯行為，
封鎖
以至
禁制
係後果。
破壞
係指專登透過插入、拎走或者修改內容去降低維基百科全書質素嘅行為。最普遍嘅破壞包括插入猥褻、誹謗或者其他唔三唔四嘅內容，又或者洗晒成版嘢。
雖然有啲維基人嘅行為可能違反咗維基社群嘅共識或者守則，但係只要佢哋懷有改進維基百科嘅善意，咁就唔計破壞。另外，編輯戰都唔計破壞。你要諗清楚，先至可以分到到底邊啲改動有益，邊啲係好心做壞事，而邊啲係破壞。如果將人哋嘅善意改動攪錯做破壞，咁就唔好喇！
任何人都有權發現同處理破壞，如果你處理唔到破壞，麻煩你話畀其他人聽。
2002年IBM嘅研究表明，英文維基百科入面大多數明顯嘅破壞會喺五分鐘內畀人整返好。但係，破壞依然可能影響所有用戶，喺你編輯一個頁面之前，唔該先檢查一下呢個頁面嘅歷史，睇下有冇漏網嘅破壞。
唔係所有破壞都係顯眼嘅，亦唔係所有大量嘅或者有爭議嘅修改都係破壞，喺確認新數據或者資料係唔係正確，或者係善意動機下嘅錯誤，或者係全然嘅破壞嗰陣，大家要小心。
下面段文未譯好，歡迎你幫手。
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any
good faith
effort to improve the encyclopedia is
not
vandalism.
For example,
edit warring
over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. If it is clear that an editor is intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits are not vandalism,
even if
they violate some core policy of Wikipedia. Mislabeling good faith edits "vandalism" can be harmful, as it makes users less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement. For that reason, avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia; this is even true when warning a user with a
user warning template
. Choose the template that most closely matches the behavior you are trying to correct.
Handling
Upon discovering vandalism,
revert
such edits, using the undo function or an
anti-vandalism tool
. Once the vandalism is undone,
warn
the vandalizing editor. Notify
administrators
at the
vandalism noticeboard
of editors who continue to vandalize after multiple warnings, and administrators should intervene to preserve content and prevent further disruption by
blocking
such editors. Users whose
main or sole purpose is clearly vandalism
may be blocked indefinitely without warning.
How to spot vandalism
捷徑
WP:HTSV
WP:SPOTVAN
Useful ways to detect vandalism include:
Recent changes patrolling
, using the
recent changes
link to spot suspicious edits
Keeping an eye on your
watchlist
The
edit history
of an article can be checked for recent suspicious edits. Article size, as given in bytes, usually increases slightly with time, so a sudden large decrease may indicate a
section blanking
. Similarly, if an article's size change is inappropriately large for the stated edit summary (e.g. "Fixing typo"), it's an indication of vandalism.
Even in Rome itself, the City of the Popes, the vandalism of the ignorant wrought dreadful havoc.
Rev. James MacCaffrey,
History of the Catholic Church From the Renaissance to the
French Revolution
In all the three methods above, examples of suspicious edits are those performed by IP addresses,
red linked
, or obviously improvised usernames. A good way to start is to click on every edit in watchlists, histories etc. with the least suspicion of being vandalism. Increased experience will probably give a sense of which edit descriptions are worth to check further and which may likely be ignored. Some descriptions like "Fixed typo" may be vandalism as that is one of the default edit summaries. IP editors should not be approached with the assumption that they are vandals. Although many vandals do vandalize without registering an account, there are many IP editors who are
great contributors to Wikipedia
. Always read the actual changes made and judge on that, rather than who made the changes or what was entered in the
edit summary
See the
what links here
pages for
Insert text
Link title
Headline text
Bold text
and
Example Image
to detect test edits. (See also
toolbar experiments
).
The
auto-summary feature
can also help users spot vandalism.
Viewing the
abuse log
or this version
if the regular abuse log is cluttered by spambots.
Watching for edits
tagged
by the abuse filter. However, many tagged edits are legitimate, so they should not be blindly reverted. That is, do not revert without at least reading the edit.
Plausible, subtle changes not supported by sources or by text elsewhere in the article, particularly without an edit summary, may suggest vandalism. Changing numbers, sometimes by 1, is a common stealth tactic.
How to respond to vandalism
捷徑
WP:RVAN
If you see vandalism in an article, the simplest thing to do is just to remove or undo it, but sometimes vandalism takes place on top of older, undetected vandalism. With undetected vandalism, editors may make edits without realizing the vandalism occurred. This can make it harder to detect and delete the vandalism, which is now hidden among other edits. Sometimes
bots
try to fix collateral damage and accidentally make things worse. Check the
page history
to make sure you're
reverting
to a "clean" version of the page. Alternatively, 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—or you can manually remove the vandalism without reverting it.
If you see vandalism on a list of changes (such as your
watchlist
), then revert it immediately. You may use the "undo" button (and the automatic edit summary it generates), and mark the change as minor. It may be helpful to check the
page history
to determine whether other recent edits by the same or other editors also represent vandalism. Repair all vandalism you can identify.
For a new article, if all versions of the article are pure vandalism, mark it for
speedy deletion
by tagging it with
{{
Db-g3
}}
To make vandalism reverts easier you can ask for the
rollback feature
to be enabled for your registered Wikipedia account. This feature is only for reverting vandalism and other obvious disruption, and lets you revert several recent edits with a single click. See
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions
If you see that a user has added vandalism you may also check the
user's other contributions
(click "User contributions" on the left sidebar of the screen). If most or all of these are obvious vandalism you may report the user immediately at
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
, though even in this case you may consider issuing a warning first, unless there is an urgent need to block the user. Otherwise, you can leave an appropriate
warning message
on the user's
talk page
. Remember that any editor may freely remove messages from their own talk page, so they might appear only in the talk history. If a user continues to cause disruption after being warned, report them at
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
. An
administrator
will then decide whether to
block
the user.
For repeated vandalism by an
IP user
it is helpful to trace the IP address (e.g.
) and add
{{
whois
Name of owner
}}
to the user talk page of the address. If it appears to be a
shared IP address
, add
{{
SharedIP
Name of owner
}}
or
{{
Shared IP edu
Name of owner
}}
. The
OrgName
on the IP trace result should be used as the
Name of owner
parameter in the above three templates.
For beginners
睇埋：
Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism
For relatively inexperienced Wikipedians, use these simple steps to quickly respond to what you consider vandalism. This is essentially an abridged version of
Wikipedia:Vandalism
Assess
whether the edit was made in good or bad faith. If in good faith, it is
not
vandalism as such, so question the accuracy of information on the talk page or add an
inline cleanup tag
, such as a "
dubious
" tag, to the disputed edit. If it is in bad faith, then it
is
vandalism and you may take the appropriate steps to remove it.
Revert
the vandalism by viewing the page's history and selecting the most recent version of the page prior to the vandalism. Use an edit summary such as 'rv/v' or 'reverted vandalism' and click on 'Publish changes'.
Warn
the vandal. Access the vandal's talk page and warn them. A simple note explaining the problem with their editing is sufficient. If desired, a
series of warning templates
exist to simplify the process of warning users, but
these templates are not required
. These templates include
Level one:
subst
uw-vandalism1
}} This is a gentle caution regarding unconstructive edits; it encourages new editors to use a sandbox for test edits. This is the mildest warning.
Level two:
subst
uw-vandalism2
}} This warning is also fairly mild, though it explicitly uses the word 'vandalism' and links to this Wikipedia policy. It is the first to warn that further disruptive editing or vandalism may lead to a block, however it uses the wording "loss of editing privileges" rather than "block".
Level three:
subst
uw-vandalism3
}} This warning is sterner. It is the first to warn that further disruptive editing or vandalism may lead to a block while actually using the word "block".
Level four:
subst
uw-vandalism4
}} This is the sharpest vandalism warning template, and indicates that any further disruptive editing may lead to a block without warning.
Level four-im:
subst
uw-vandalism4im
}} This warning template should be used only in the worst conditions of vandalism. It indicates that this is the only warning the target will receive, and that further disruptive edits will result in a block without warning.
Watch
for future vandalism from the vandal by checking the user's contributions. If bad faith edits continue, revert them and warn them again, letting the users know that they can be blocked. Note that it is
not
necessary to use all four warning templates in succession, nor is it necessary to incrementally step through warnings.
Report
vandals that continue their behavior after being warned to
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
. While not strictly required, administrators there are most likely to respond rapidly to requests which include at least two warnings, culminating in the level-four "last chance" template.
Template and CSS vandalism
If no vandalizing edits appear in the page's edit history, or the vandalism obscures the page tabs so you can't easily access the history or edit the page, it is probably
template
or
Cascading Style Sheets
vandalism. These are often not difficult to fix, but can be confusing.
To access the page history or edit the page when the "View history" or "Edit" tabs are inaccessible, use
Wikipedia keyboard shortcuts
. You can also access the history through a
vandalism patrolling tool
if you're using one, or from your
watchlist
if you are
watching the page
), or from your
user contributions
if you have edited the page. Or, enter the
URL
manually into the
address bar
of your browser: it will take the form
Name_of_article
?action=edit
or
Name_of_article
?action=history
If vandalizing edits do not appear in the page history, the vandalism is likely in a
transcluded
template instead of the page itself. To find the template page, edit the article (using
Wikipedia keyboard shortcuts
if necessary); toward the bottom of the edit page is a list of all templates transcluded into the page. Look for vandalism in the transcluded templates not
protected
. Alternatively, look for
Template name
or
Template name
parameter
...
in the text, approximately where the vandalism appears, then go to the page Template:
Template name
and revert any vandalism. When you return to the original page, the vandalism should be gone, though you may need to
purge
the page.
Image vandalism
Images
are occasionally used for vandalism, such as by placing shock or explicit images where they should not be. When an image has been created exclusively for vandalism, it can be requested for speedy deletion: under criterion
G3
if hosted on Wikipedia or as
vandalism
if hosted on
Commons
(a file repository for
Wikimedia Foundation
projects). When an image is used for vandalism due to its explicit nature but has legitimate encyclopedic uses (Wikipedia
is not censored
) or is hosted on Commons and has legitimate uses on other projects, it can be requested for being added to the
bad image list
, which precludes its addition on any page except those specified.
How not to respond to vandalism
捷徑
WP:NORESVAND
Do not nominate a page for
deletion
because it is being vandalized. If a page is persistently vandalized, consider requesting
protection
of the page at
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
Do not feed the trolls
. Fanning the fire will only serve to make the situation worse. Similarly,
do not insult the vandals
. If someone is doing something they know is wrong, insulting them over it is likely to make them vandalize more, just to get that reaction. Furthermore,
Wikipedia is not the place for personal attacks
, it is
not a battleground
, and
two wrongs don't make a right
. Instead, report them to the
administrators
if they continue.
Avoid the word "vandal"
. In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to any
edits that might have been made in good faith
. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are
not vandalism
. Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with them. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making
personal attacks
Warnings
Template:WarningsSmall
捷徑
WP:WARNVAND
The purpose of warning a user who has vandalized is to inform the user that the user's conduct is abusive and prohibited, and seek the user's compliance. Not all that appears to be vandalism is in bad faith, and a warning can politely advise and correct users unaware of the nature of their actions. A warning may even dissuade a user acting in bad faith from continuing, particularly as the warnings escalate and the user is informed of the consequences of continuing.
Warning a user for vandalism is generally a prerequisite to administrator intervention. Because of this, users should be warned for each and every instance of vandalism.
How to warn vandalizing users
A list of user warning templates, with descriptions and instructions for their use, is at
Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace
. In addition to a series of user warning templates for vandalism, there are series for specific types of vandalism. Use the most specific user warning template for the conduct. The existence of these templates is intended as a convenience, and
their use is not required
. A specifically tailored note, written personally and directly addressing the problematic behavior is equally as acceptable as a form of warning, and in many cases, will often result in better engagement with the user in question.
Assume good faith
(such as that the user is simply unaware of the policies and guidelines) unless it is clear that the user is deliberately harming Wikipedia from the outset, such as the use of abusive, vulgar, or juvenile vandalism.
If you do choose to use warning templates, please choose templates that are appropriate to the type and level of problem in question. If edits are questionable, but not clearly vandalism, consider using lower-level templates (level 1 or 2) and wait for a few further contributions to see if the other editor responds or changes their behavior. If the behavior continues, or if it is clear the edits are in bad faith from the outset, the use of a higher-level template (level 3 or 4) may be appropriate. If, after receiving multiple warnings, the behavior persists past the point where good faith can be extended, or it becomes clear that the user has
had
the opportunity to notice they have been warned, and they
still
persist with the problematic behavior, consider reporting them to
the Vandalism noticeboard
Administrator response to vandalism
Response from administrators at the vandalism noticeboard varies depending on the type of vandalism and the specifics of the report. Keep in mind:
Admins are unlikely to block a user who has not been warned at all, or who has been warned, but has stopped editing since being warned. It must be clear that the user has been told to stop vandalizing, and still persists despite such warnings, except for egregious cases.
Reports of vandalism from registered accounts are handled differently than that from IP users, and reports from newly registered accounts are handled differently from accounts of experienced Wikipedia users.
IP addresses may or may not be kept by the same person for long periods of time; a dynamic address which appears to have stopped vandalizing will probably not be blocked, while one that
is
actively vandalizing will likely receive a short (1–2 day) block. If there is evidence that an IP address is being used by the same person over a long period of time to repeatedly vandalize Wikipedia, or if it is clear the IP address is being used by multiple people to vandalize Wikipedia (such as a school-based IP, which can sometimes attract lots of juvenile vandalism over long periods of time from many different people) then an administrator may block the IP for a longer time period (several months to a year). IP addresses are almost never blocked indefinitely.
Brand-new accounts who repeatedly vandalize despite multiple warnings are usually blocked indefinitely, especially when there is no history of quality editing on the account.
Reports which involve experienced Wikipedia users rarely result in blocks for vandalism, as these reports are usually mislabeling other problematic behavior (such as misrepresenting sources, or removing text, or edit warring) as vandalism. The vandalism noticeboard is not designed to litigate disputes or to investigate complex behavior problems. Instead, other noticeboards such as
the edit warring noticeboard
or
the incidents noticeboard
are more appropriate to deal with those issues.
Check back in to the vandalism noticeboard to see how your report has been dealt with. If an administrator declines to block someone you report, they will always leave a note explaining why they did not respond as you requested. Often, this does not mean the person you reported is behaving properly, or should not be dealt with, but merely that the
mechanisms
of the vandalism noticeboard are not well suited for handling many types of reports. Consider taking the issue up at a more appropriate noticeboard, which has been tailored to the specific type of problem you are seeing. Other times, a report is declined for being stale (blocks to abandoned accounts, or to IP addresses which have been dormant for some time are rarely done), or to the admin being unable to easily identify the edits as vandalism.
If the vandalism in question is "sneaky vandalism", is being committed by a person who was
blocked under a prior account or IP address
, or requires in-depth and direct knowledge of a prior problem, consider taking the report to
the incidents noticeboard
instead. There are hundreds of Wikipedia administrators, and many of them are unfamiliar with the intricacies of past cases. Unless it is the sort of vandalism that needs no explanation at all, it should be taken elsewhere and not
WP:AIV
Reminding responding users to correctly warn
Because warnings for vandalism are generally a prerequisite to administrator intervention, it is important that users responding to vandalism warn vandalizing users. To inform responding users of this responsibility, use the user warning template
uw-warn
Likewise, incorrect use of user warning templates, even if well-intended, should be identified to the mistaken user. The
uw-tempabuse
series of user warning templates may be used, but a detailed talk page message is better.
Tracing IP addresses
捷徑
WP:WHOIS
WP:TRACEIP
The owners of
IP addresses
can be found using:
ARIN
(North America)
RIPE NCC
(Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia)
APNIC
(Asia Pacific)
LACNIC
(Latin American and Caribbean)
AfriNIC
(Africa)
IPLigence
IP-adress.com
sic
Find-IP-address.org
who.is
If an address is not in one registry, it will probably be in another.
Identifying associated IP addresses
If you're trying to determine whether a
set
of IP addresses involved in vandalism are related, a command-line WHOIS query will generally list this information, or can be shown using the
Routeviews
DNS
name server
asn.routeviews.org reverse
IP
look-up to find the
CIDR
and
ASN
for a set of IP addresses. This can be done using
IP lookup tools
WHOIS query
will typically return NetRange, CIDR, NetName, NetHandle, and OriginAS, all of which identify specific network spaces. Data and labeling vary considerably by WHOIS registrar.
The Routeviews data is far more uniformly structured and returns ASN and CIDR as a reverse-lookup TXT query result. It is more useful and faster than WHOIS when checking multiple IP addresses and can be scripted or automated.
CIDR identifies a set of related addresses ("network space") and ASN identifies an
Autonomous System
—that is, a single administrative entity with control over multiple (and often very many) addresses. Some (though not all) abuse from multiple sources does come from such unified spaces—possibly corresponding to a set of hosts within a single facility.
Abuse originating in a short period of time from different IP addresses within the same CIDR or ASN may indicate a dedicated non-distributed attack, as opposed to a
distributed denial of service attack
Proxies, VPNs and Tor exit nodes
It's possible that a user's source location is being masked by routing traffic through a
Proxy server
VPN
or the
Tor network
. Such addresses typically serve many, not just one, person, and though they can be valid present challenges when used for abuse.
A proxy VPN is not necessarily detectable, but commercial services may be indicated by the hostname when resolving an IP address.
Users of the Tor anonymity network will show the IP address of a Tor "exit node". Lists of known Tor exit nodes are available from the Tor Project's
Tor Bulk Exit List exporting tool
Types of vandalism
捷徑
WP:VANDTYPES
Vandalism on Wikipedia usually falls into one or more of these categories:
Abuse of tags
Bad faith placing of non-content tags such as
afd
db
sprotected
, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes baseless removal of
policy
and related tags.
Account creation, malicious
Creating accounts with usernames that contain deliberately offensive or disruptive terms is considered vandalism, whether the account is used or not. For Wikipedia's policy on what is considered inappropriate for a username, see
Wikipedia:Username policy
. See also
Wikipedia:Sock puppetry
Avoidant vandalism
Removing
afd
copyvio
and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content. However, 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.
Blanking, illegitimate
假如你想揾嘅係legitimate cases of blanking articles，請睇「
Wikipedia:Redirect §
Redirects that replace previous articles
」。
Removing encyclopedic content
without any reason, or replacing such content with nonsense. Content removal is
not
considered to be vandalism when 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.
Blanking that could be legitimate includes blanking all or part of a
biography of a living person
. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and unbiased information on the living; blanking may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good faith content removal,
uw-test1
or
uw-delete1
, as appropriate, should be used as initial warnings for content removals without more descriptive edit summaries.
Repeated uploading of copyrighted material
Uploading or using material on Wikipedia in ways which violate
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 becomes vandalism
only
if it continues after the copyrighted nature of the material and relevant policy restricting its use have been communicated to the user.
Edit summary vandalism
Making offensive edit summaries in an attempt to leave a mark that cannot be easily expunged from the record (edit summaries cannot simply be "reverted" and require
administrative action
if they have to be removed from a page's history). Often combined with malicious account creation.
Format vandalism
Changing the formatting of a page unreasonably and maliciously. But many times, editors might just make an unintended mistake or are testing how the wikicode works. Sometimes it might be a bug in the Wikipedia software. Some changes to the format are not vandalism, but rather either good faith edits of editors who don't know the guidelines or simply a different opinion on how the format should look, in which case it is just a disputed edit.
Gaming the system
Deliberate attempts to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures by causing bad faith edits to go unnoticed. Includes marking bad faith edits as minor to get less scrutiny, making a minor edit following a bad faith edit so it won't appear on all watchlists, recreating previously deleted bad faith creations under a new title, use of the
construction
tag to prevent deletion of a page that would otherwise be a clear candidate for deletion, or use of
sock puppets
Hidden vandalism
Any form of vandalism that makes use of embedded text, which is not visible to the final rendering of the article but visible during editing. This includes link vandalism, or placing malicious, offensive, or otherwise disruptive or irrelevant messages or spam in hidden comments for editors to see.
Hoaxing vandalism
Deliberately adding falsities to articles, particularly to
biographies of living people
, with hoax information is considered vandalism.
Image vandalism
Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explicit images on pages, or simply using any image in a way that is disruptive. Please note though that
Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors
and that explicit images may be uploaded and/or placed on pages for legitimate reasons (that is, if they have encyclopedic value).
Link vandalism
Adding or changing internal or external links on a page to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate targets while disguising them with mislabeling.
Page creation, illegitimate
Creating new pages with the sole intent of malicious behavior. It also includes
personal attack pages
(articles written to disparage the subject),
hoaxes
and other intentionally inaccurate pages. There are many other types of pages that merit deletion, even
speedy deletion
, but which are not vandalism.
New users
sometimes create test pages containing
nonsense
or even autobiographies, and doing so is not vandalism; such pages can also be moved to become their sandbox or userpage. Pages on non-notable topics are not vandalism.
Blatant advertising pages
, and
blatant POV pushes
, are not vandalism, but frequently happen and often lead to editors being blocked. It's important that people creating inappropriate pages be given appropriate communication; even if they aren't willing to edit within our rules, they are more likely to go away quietly if they understand why their page has been deleted.
Page lengthening, illegitimate
Adding very large (measured by the number of
bytes
) amounts of bad faith content to a page so as to make the page's load time abnormally long or even make the page impossible to load on some computers without the browser or machine crashing. Adding large amounts of good faith content is not vandalism, though prior to doing so, one should consider if splitting a long page may be appropriate (see
Wikipedia:Article size
).
Page-move vandalism
捷徑
WP:MOVEVANDAL
WP:PAGEMOVEVANDAL
WP:MOVEVAND
Changing the names of pages to disruptive, irrelevant, or otherwise inappropriate names. Only
autoconfirmed or confirmed
users can move pages.
Redirect vandalism
Redirecting
or changing the target of redirect pages to other pages that are vandalism, nonsense, promotional, non-existent pages, or attack pages. This also applies when a redirect or its title is created only to disparage its subject. Pages that redirect to non-existent or deleted pages are also applied with
G8
Reverting to vandalism
Reverting edits to the latest revisions that are nonsense, promotional, personal attacks, and/or harassment.
Silly vandalism
Adding
profanity
graffiti
, or
patent nonsense
to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously unencyclopedic pages, etc. This is one of the most common forms of vandalism. However, the addition of random characters to pages is often characteristic of an editing test and, though impermissible, may not be malicious.
Subtle vandalism
捷徑
WP:SNEAKY
Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes), hiding vandalism (such as by making two bad edits and reverting only one), simultaneously using
multiple accounts
or IP addresses to vandalize, abuse of maintenance and deletion templates, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Impersonating other users by signing an edit with a different username or IP address also constitutes sneaky vandalism, but take care not to confuse this with appropriately correcting an unsigned edit made by another user. Some vandals even follow their vandalism with an edit that states "Rv vandalism" in the
edit summary
in order to give the appearance the vandalism was reverted.
Spam external linking
Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. A spam external link is one added to a page mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a user's interests rather than to improve the page editorially.
Talk page vandalism
Illegitimately removing or editing other users' comments, especially in closed discussions, or adding offensive comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism,
internal spam
, or
harassment
or a
personal attack
. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are also
permitted
to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was
considered and rejected
on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.
Template vandalism
Modifying the wiki language or text of a
template
in a harmful or disruptive manner. This is especially serious, because it will negatively impact the appearance of multiple pages. Some templates appear on hundreds or thousands of pages, so they are
permanently protected from editing
to prevent vandalism.
User and user talk page vandalism
Unwelcome, illegitimate edits to another person's user page may be considered vandalism. User pages are regarded as within the control of their respective users and generally should not be edited without the permission of the user to whom they belong. See
WP:UP#OWN
. This is why there is an
edit filter that prevents new and non-(auto)confirmed users from editing user pages other than their own
. Related to this is
Wikipedia:No personal attacks
Vandalbots
script or "robot"
that attempts to vandalize or add spam to a mass of pages.
What is
not
vandalism
捷徑
WP:VANDNOT
WP:NOTVAND
WP:NOTV
WP:NOTVANDALISM
WP:NOTVAN
Although at times the following situations may be referred to colloquially as "vandalism", they are not usually considered vandalism within the context of Wikipedia. However, each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether or not the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such,
it may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors
Boldly editing
Bold edits, though they may precede consensus or be inconsistent with prior consensus, are not vandalism unless other aspects of the edits identify them as vandalism. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold and acknowledges
the role of bold edits in reaching consensus
Copyright policy violations
Uploading or using material on Wikipedia in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies is prohibited, but is not vandalism unless the user does so maliciously or fails to heed warnings. It is at least as serious an issue as vandalism and persistent offenders will ultimately get blocked, but it is well worth spending time communicating clearly with those who add copyvio as they are far more likely to reform than vandals or spammers.
Disruptive editing
or stubbornness
Some users cannot come to an agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus.
Edit warring
is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such.
Dispute resolution
may help. See also:
Tendentious editing
Starting a
deletion process
in bad faith is disruptive editing, but is not vandalism. However, misusing deletion template messages
with no intention
to start a deletion process is vandalism by
abuse of tags
In short, all vandalism is disruptive editing, but not all disruptive editing is vandalism.
Edit summary
omission
The
edit summary
is important in that it helps other editors understand the purpose of your edit. Though its use is not required, it is strongly recommended, even for minor edits, and is considered proper
Wikipedia etiquette
. Even a brief edit summary is better than none. However, not leaving edit summaries is not considered vandalism.
Editing tests by experimenting users
Users sometimes edit pages as an experiment. Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from vandalism. These users should be warned using the uw-test series of
user warning templates
, or by a talk page message including, if appropriate, a welcome and referral to the
Wikipedia sandbox
, where they can continue to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive. Registered users can also create their own sandboxes as a
user subpage
. If a user has made a test edit and then reverted it, consider placing the message
uw-selfrevert
, on their talk page. Pages created as test edits outside of userspace may be deleted under
speedy deletion criterion G2
. Editing tests are considered vandalism only when a user continues to make test edits despite receiving numerous warnings.
Harassment
or
personal attacks
Personal attacks and harassment are not allowed. While some harassment is also vandalism, such as user page vandalism, or inserting a personal attack into an article, harassment in itself is not vandalism and should be handled differently.
Incorrect
wiki markup
and
style
Inexperienced users are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia's formatting and grammatical standards, such as how to create internal and/or external links or which words should be bolded or italicized, etc. Rather than label such users as vandals, just explain to them what the standard style would be for the issue at hand, perhaps pointing them towards the documentation at
How to edit a page
, and the like.
Lack of understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia
Some users are not familiar with
Wikipedia's purpose
or policies and may start editing it as if it were a different medium—such as a forum or blog—in a way that it
appears as unproductive editing
or borderline vandalism to experienced users. Although such edits can usually be reverted, it should not be treated as vandalism.
Misinformation, accidental
A user who, in good faith, adds content to an article that is factually inaccurate but in the belief that it is accurate is trying to contribute to and improve Wikipedia, not vandalize it. If you believe inaccurate information has been added to an article in good faith, remove it once you are certain it is inaccurate, or discuss its factuality with the user who has added it.
NPOV contraventions
The neutral point of view policy is difficult for many of us to understand. Even Wikipedia veterans occasionally introduce material which is not ideal from an
NPOV
perspective. Indeed, we are all affected to a greater extent than we estimate by our beliefs. Though the material added may be inappropriate, it is not vandalism in itself.
Nonsense, accidental
While intentionally adding nonsense to a page is a form of vandalism, sometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves correctly (e.g. there may be an error in the
syntax
, particularly for Wikipedians who use
English as a second language
). Also, connection errors, browser extensions, or
edit conflicts
can unintentionally produce the appearance of nonsense or malicious edits. In either case,
assume good faith
Policy and guideline pages, good faith changes to
Editors are encouraged to
be bold
. However, making edits to
Wikipedia policies and guidelines
pages, such as this one, does require some knowledge of the
consensus
on the issues. If people misjudge consensus, it would not be considered vandalism; rather, it would be an opportunity to discuss the matter with them, and help them understand the consensus.
Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material
Even
factually correct
material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is inconsistent with
Wikipedia's content policies
is not vandalism.
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, per
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
Make sure that the removed content is consistent with Wikipedia's standards before restoring it or treating its removal as vandalism.
See also
Template:Wikipedia glossary
Vandalism on Wikipedia
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-06-22/Vandalism
User:ClueBot NG
- A bot specifically designed for fixing vandalism.
Tools
睇埋：
Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools
Huggle
– Cross-platform application for dealing with vandalism (requires
rollback
permission).
Twinkle
– JavaScript gadget allowing reversion of vandalism from page
diffs
Ultraviolet
– User-friendly Javascript-based diff browser and counter-vandalism tool (works with or without
rollback
permissions).
Igloo
– JavaScript-based browser window for reverting vandalism. (requires
rollback
permission).
STiki
– Cross-platform and Java-based anti-vandalism application. Connects to a remote, non-Wikimedia server. (requires
rollback
permission).
mobileUndo
is a
userscript
which allows you to revert vandalism on mobile.
Guidelines
Administrator intervention against vandalism
– intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers
Cleaning up vandalism
– introduction to cleaning up vandalism
Criteria for speedy deletion
– English Wikipedia policy
Do not create hoaxes
– content guideline
Most vandalized pages
– articles that have undergone repeated vandalism
Recent changes patrol
– Wikipedia communal patrol
Requests for page protection
– for protection against long-term attacks
Template messages/User talk namespace
– grid of templates for user talk page warnings and notices
Vandalism-only accounts
– advice for dealing with vandalism from registered accounts
WikiProject user warnings
– internal project for creating a complete, standardised set of user warning templates
WikiProject Vandalism studies
– internal project for conducting research related to unconstructive edits on Wikipedia (currently semi-active)
Essays
Avoid the word "vandal"
– essay on the differences between vandals and those who make adverse edits
Deny recognition
– essay on not feeding the trolls
Do not insult the vandals
– essay on vandals and civility
Don't be trigger happy
– essay on care, courtesy, and professionalism when performing recent changes and new pages patrols
Don't call a spade a spade
– essay on civility and difficult editors
Don't template the regulars
– essay on how to use warning templates carefully
Identifying test edits
– essay on the difference between editing tests and vandalism
IP address editors are human too
– essay on assuming IP address editors are able and willing to make positive contributions
Make protection requests sparingly
– essay recommending not overusing page protection
Not every IP is a vandal
– essay on the common assumption that IP address editors are vandals
On assuming good faith
– essay on the relationship between the Vandalism policy and the
Assume good faith
behavioral guideline
The motivation of a vandal
– essay on "Why would anyone wish to vandalize a source of information that benefits people?"
Vandals versus Trolls
– essay on the distinction between vandals and trolls
User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism
– one
administrator
's view
Meta
m:Anti-vandalism ideas
m:Vandalbot
m:What is a troll?
m:Small Wiki Monitoring Team
– cross-wiki anti-vandalism
Further reading
Statistics about reverts by bots, Huggle, Twinkle
in wmcharts
"How I Used Lies About a Cartoon to Prove History is Meaningless on the Internet"
. 15 June 2020.
Other
RC patrol
Anti-vandalism ideas
Vandalbot
由「
」收
屬於3類
譯緊嘅文章
維基百科政策
維基百科幫手
屬於1隱類：
維基百科破壞
Wikipedia
破壞
加主題