Wikipedia talk:Dealing with vandalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

How does a sysop determine the IP of a registered user for IP-blocking of vandalism? --Zippy 05:53, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

He/she doesn't. Only a developer can do that. -- Someone else 05:54, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

From the Village pump

Contents

[edit] telling-tales on vandals ?

move to wikipedia:dealing with vandalism

Folks, what's our policy on "telling tales" (I can't think of a better term) on our misguided schoolkid vandals? Just as an example, I was looking at (porn-link) vandalism done my someone at IP [http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=205.174.111.220 205.174.111.220 ], which resolves to a Pennsylvanian school district, and already reverted by the dedicated User:Ahoerstemeier :). Do we have a policy of sending the net admin for such an address a (hopefully mild) nastygram, or do we just let it lie? If we do, can someone point me to the policy page, and if we don't - should we? (In the latter case, I'd gladly draft a gentle nastygram for communal approval). Finlay McWalter 21:33, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I just ignore such things the first time or two in my own place, elsewhere, and advise other community managers to do the same. It's not worth the time. Just a distraction from building an encyclopedia until there is a pattern of abuse from a place. JamesDay 22:43, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
If you desire to notify an ISP that one of their users has breached the ISP's terms of service, then you are welcome to do so. wikipedia:dealing with vandalism neither encourages nor discourages such actions. Martin 22:44, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I doubt that it would be necessary in this case - after the user got his warning on the talk page and continued his vandalism I simple blocked his IP, so he could not do any more harm. Most vandals will not come back once they see that their graffiti get reverted or their IP being blocked, there are only very few who do it again and again - like our infamous User:Michael. For those the nastygram would be necessary. andy 08:15, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"These blocks should last for a maximum of one month" -- Isn't it one day only? (See Wikipedia:Bans_and_blocks#Effects of being blocked) --Menchi (Talk)â 11:00, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Persistence

"block the IPs of persistent vandals." -- How persistent? I may be mistaken, but it seems like sometimes vandals are blocked after 5 attempts. Which is admittedly very annoying already, and potentially damaging. --Menchi (Talk)â 11:00, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What do you mean? 5 attempts at vandalism or returns five times? Dysprosia 11:02, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I guess 5 attempts. Is there a difference (in result)? --Menchi (Talk)â 11:05, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
5 attempts is no good, but I have a systematic warning "system" that I use in dealing with vandalism. In the end, if they make 5 reverted vandal edits but are warned and convinced to stop then that is a better thing that them being blocked after two or three, in my mind. Dysprosia 11:07, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  1. "No good"? That we blocked them only after 5 times, or that they vandalized already 5 times?
  2. I'm not sure what you mean by "returns five times".
--Menchi (Talk)â 11:12, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
5 attempts at vandalism is no good! :) The difference, I mean, that a vandal say, (speaking no names, of course) vandalizes 5 user pages - as opposed to a vandal doing some vandalism, is blocked, returns, is blocked... five times. Dysprosia 11:14, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I see, so the latter are the obssessive MIC-type vandals. --Menchi (Talk)â 11:22, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Logging in to deter casual vandalism

I don't understand why we don't all need to register before making edits. I'm sure this possibility has been discussed. Can someone direct me? (I've inadvertently edited while unregistered myself.) Is this a 'freedom' issue? Wetman 11:18, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This has already undergone lots of discussion. I don't like the idea, myself, because of the freedom issue. I remember someone saying something along the lines of..then the vandals just sign up and vandalize while signed in... Dysprosia 11:20, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Village Pump#Anonymous edits & also the List (if you can find in the morass). We need a meta-page for this. --Menchi (Talk)â 11:22, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The effort before wikipedia suffered from too many restrictions and wikipedia was begun as a radically open system to assist the other. Wikipedia became a huge success overshadowing and killing the former project. Various processes, semi-rules and so forth have been introduced into wikipedia to lessen the vandalism, but no one wahts to kill the goose that creates the gold. Anons contribute more than they vandalize and even more important, one edit becomes ten, they get hooked and soon another valued contributor is born. Stopping the anon edits could easily stifle that birthing process. 4.250.198.9 20:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] some helpful advice about vandals

(from the village pump)

If a vandal disrupts a page and you revert it, and the vandal reverts your revert, have restraint and do not revert immediately. The vandal is trying to start a revert war. Do not take the bait. Leave the vandal hanging. Go back in an few hours and THEN revert. It is unlikely that the vandal will still be around.

More times than not, this strategy works. And you can spend your time editing things you want, rather than having your time sucked into a revert war. Kingturtle 06:15, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Of course this leaves inaccurate or obscene information in the Wikipedia for a few hours. You could also try listing the vandal on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress and having an administrator ban them. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:50, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with bully editing

How should one deal with bully editing that involves moving articles? The moving of an article can certainly be achieved by bold editing, but in the case where there is a discussion on the subject one ought to await taking action until consensus has been achieved. Moving ahead of consensus or even being unwilling to take part in a discussion would be considered bully editing, and as such a form of vandalism. Ordinarily, vandalism of an article can simply be reverted. Cut and paste moves are simply a variant of this, but the "Move this page" function may not allow such a move to be reverted if the originating page has been edited. I have recently been made an administrator and I'm looking for some advice on being able to use these powers for resolution without inadvertly setting a move war in motion. -- Mic 11:38, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

A study by IBM found that most Wikipedia vandalism is reverted within five minutes.

Is that a joke? Or was there an actual study (why by IBM?)? Please explain. Paranoid 19:33, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
The original reference seems to be [1] which is a 404. I could also find [2] and [3] which mention how quick it is, but do not say anything about five minutes. Maybe the references should be added to this and other places in Wikipedia where the study is mentioned (I've already seen at least two more) cesarb 17:56, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Vandalism from Edit Summary

Is there a way to remove Vandalism from the edit history. My impression is that the general response to Vandalism is to just revert the edit, but I recently noticed a problem where the vandal also included the offensive text in the Edit Summary so that it continues to show up in the edit history. You can see an example on the page history for Ridley Scott or [4] --- Solipsist 06:52, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

there should be some way to effectively delete a change -- rolling back to the previous version, and replacing the preceding edit-version with a note "<timestamp> edit by <user1> deleted by <user2>"; the deleted edits could be stored in a deleted-edits table for 90 days (or forever), but not shown to the average reader. +sj+ 08:52, 2004 May 22 (UTC)
Wouldn't this allow people to vandalize by completely eliminating content by removing it and making it unrevertable? - RealGrouchy 01:17, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This will be possible to remove with the new software to be uploaded this weekend (that is, Real[ly] Soon Now) - sysops can import an entire article history using Special:Import (or something) which takes the same output as Special:Export (the XML output that Yahoo wanted from us, IIRC). Obviously this system will be ripe for abuse (but we trust our sysops, don't we? ;-))...
HTH.
James F. (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
A minor correction: Special:Export has been around longer than the Yahoo-related thing - unless they're going to change the format, that is, and annoy the Wikinfo folks, who've had an importer for some time (come to think, maybe that's not such a bad idea ;-)) - IMSoP 20:39, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Special:Import is not ready yet. Angela. 20:16, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Types of Vandalism

There is another type of vandalism that isn't covered in this article, namely self-promotional vandalism. This would include unnecessary links to sites to try to increase traffic to them, or to influence Page rank. I think that the nigritude ultramarine contest guys would fall under that category as well. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:40, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Minor/major edits

Does removing vandalism count as a minor edit?

- RealGrouchy 01:14, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Trolls

I removed Trolls from the vandalism section. Whatever one thinks about it, it is not useful to confuse the two things. Mark Richards 15:41, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is no confusion. Trolling is vandalism. - Hephaestos|§ 15:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, it isn't Heph. Trying to cross define everything you don't like so that distinction cannot be made is not helpful. Vandals deliberately damage content, trolls try to provoke a reaction, the two are different. Mark Richards 15:45, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Trolls try to provoke a reaction by deliberately damaging content. The ends are inconsequential. - Hephaestos|§ 15:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's simply not true. A user could troll without ever touching the content. Mark Richards 15:48, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
How? - Hephaestos|§ 15:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, for example, by blanking other people's user pages, or taunting them on their talk page. Mark Richards 15:52, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's all content. - Hephaestos|§ 15:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not in any meaningful sense. You userpage is not part of the encyclopedia content. Look, the bottom line is that there is a useful distinction between someone who replaces a page with "YOU ARE GAY" and a user who makes a controversial edit that could be reasonable, but is designed to produce heated debate (like listing George Bush on the list of alcoholics). The two are not the same, and we need to keep the two terms meaningful. Mark Richards 15:56, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The end result is the same, which is to say the degradation of the quality of the material. There is no reason a distinction should be made. - Hephaestos|§ 16:02, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, the end result is not the same, there is no debate over the first, and considerable over the second. As you know, the poll on this issue has not reached concensus, whereas there is concnesus on vandals. The two are not the same and you are trying to push trolling into the category of vandalism because you can't get people to agree on allowing you to ban people you call trolls. It's not a good idea, because you confuse the terminology. Mark Richards 16:04, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Vandalism is indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." That's not terribly ambiguous, and I didn't write it. - Hephaestos|§ 16:10, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, if someone makes a good edit, in bad faith, is that vandalism? Compromise the encyclopedia? In whose opinion? Vandals are clear, and trolls are not vandals (at least, not always, some trolls vandalise as well as troll, of course). Mark Richards 16:12, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some folks may troll because they hope to indirectly benefit the content (eg trolling -> get rid of a troublesome and flameprone contributor -> improve the content). Also, trolling is often quite subtle and arguable - people debate whether someone is actually a troll, or just misunderstood - whereas vandalism is typically much more obvious. Martin 17:47, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Applying the concept of "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist", one can see that someone can put George Bush in a list of alcoholics (He SAID he had an alcohol problem) another can revert that saying the first was a troll; and the first can revert claiming valdalism because verifyable data is being deleted. Calling people names proves nothing. Asserting an act is trolling or vandalism is often a spurious attack to win an edit war based on ego. The "I know they are the bad guy so I can attack them" attitude is itslf POV. We ALL can be wrong. 4.250.198.9 20:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

  • Censorship vandalism: Some vandals think it is a good idea to censor fellow Wikipedia users. These vandals delete information they do not like to protect a particular person or item, even though it is common knowledge. However this is usually a neutrality problem, not vandalism.

I removed this. Firstly, we do remove personal attacks, and we do sometimes edit Wikipedia to remove the real names of people who've decided to leave (cf user:H.J.), and I think these things are to be encouraged. If it's referring to articles - well, deleting information from articles is a normal part of the editing process, for example if it's unverifiable.

I'm not sure whether a specific article is being thought of, but I can't think of any acts of censorship that I'd be happy to consider vandalism. Comments? Martin 17:47, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IP: Kobe Bryant, I added the accuser's name in the article. Someone censored it, so I re added it. It got locked. Her name is common knowledge as it has been in some mainstream tabloids. This is censorship.


[edit] Vandals

If an anon user is vandalising talk pages persistently, how long should he/she be banned? What if they're blanking/vandalising articles? etc... — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:38, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First, you need to check whether the anon is a shared proxy (from someone like AOL). There's not much point blocking such IPs for more than an hour or two (or a day or two, max) as a determined miscreant can just log off and then on, and they'll get a new IP. At this point your block will only inconvenience some innocent third-party. We have a few of such persistent anonyvandals (no names, no pack drill) and there's a limited amount we can do about them. If an IP appears to be fixed (or the proxy-user is determined), then make sure you've warned the person that what they're doing is inappropriate (after all, anything goes in some other online places), and warn them that if they don't quit then they'll be blocked. After that, if they persist, a 12 or 24 hr block seems appropriate. If the come back, unreformed, the same again. Some people advocate a progressive doubling. Remember that the point of the block is to get them to quit vandalising, not to permanently ban them from wikipedia. There's really very few anonyvandals who have the patience to stick with it in the face of implacable reversion and a measured, firm blocking scheme. Oh, and remember that anything you write on an anon's talk page can be read by some innocent later (or, it seems, randomly right now), so try to sound, well, fatherly :) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:59, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:17, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
My procedure is as follows: The first test or vandalism edit prompts a {{test}}~~~~ on the user's talk page. Subsequent questionable edits more than 5 minutes after I've left the previous message (making sure they have a chance to read what I've said) get {{test2}}, {{test3}}, {{test4}}. After that, one more bad edit results in a 24 hour block, noted on the user talk page. If they return and continue to vandalize, they get one more warning and another 24 hour block. After that the blocks get progressively longer. Note that this is extremely seldom necessary; most people stop after the first or second warning, and almost everyone goes away after the first block. In my opinion, we should standardize this among admins so that we stop working at cross-purposes. moink 16:58, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It isn't clear enough to me how I either revert this vandalism of the Smallpox talk page or pass on the information it has been vandalised to the administrators.

(The whole discussion was replaced by "vary bad" which suggests to me that the school in question may have a fair bit of work still to do on that one!)

whois 206.172.38.200 Bell Canada WORLDLINX04 (NET-206-172-0-0-1)

                                 206.172.0.0 - 206.172.255.255

Lambton Kent District School Board LKDSB-CA (NET-206-172-38-192-1)

                                 206.172.38.192 - 206.172.38.255

[edit] template

is there a template for vandals, like the one for tests? place the code prominently please. - Omegatron 19:44, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

The test templates are vandalism templates. The only way we can tell the difference between tests and vandalism is persistence. Thus the first two assume tests, and then they start to discuss and define the idea of vandalism, and that vandalism is considered a problem. moink 04:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Google Watch

The link to Google Watch brings you to some irrelevant rant about how evil Google is, and has nothing at all to do with IP addresses. Since I couldn't find evidence that a vandal had put it there, though, I figure it was merely out-of-date. I replaced it with a link to ARIN's Whois. — Asbestos | Talk 15:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings on talk pages

I think we should suggest that whenever you revert vandalism, you add something to the user's talk page. This makes it easy to identify repeat offenders at a glance by providing a record past vandalism on the talk page. – flamurai (t) 11:47, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

And it also explains to the user what's going on. Isn't this already a guideline? moink 04:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warnings on crowded anon talk-pages

I've been dealing alot with vandalism the last few months and am starting to get rather good at it. The most important thing I've learned, and a thing I believe other could take note of, is that by far the most effective template to get most vandals to stop is the polite test template. Ok, so the template is (mostly) meant for test-edits, and the higher numbered testx templates have a more direct wording that one might think would scare the vandals more. But in my experience, if I start off my warnings with, say test3, after a user has vandalised a lot of pages, the vandal is most likely to just turn even more provocative and continue until being blocked. But give them the polite test-template first (even if they've been defacing, blanking, inserting profanity (i.e. been vandalising) lots of articles) and a surprisingly large number of them simply stop. Politeness works!

But my problem is users with an allready crowded talk-page. A page full of month old messages with block-threats and whatnot. Appending a test1 on those pages will simply look stupid and drown in all the harser messages when the anon clicks on "you have new message" to read. And most of these ip's are behind large isp or school proxies, so it's quite likely that the old messages were not read by that same user before.

So, my question is: Would it be ok to delete those old messages (say, more than a week old) when dealing with a new vandal? To clean the talk-page and give him the test1 template as his sole message? I know that many don't approve of deleting talk-messages, so that's why I'm asking. The old messages will of course still be available in the history, and it is certainly usefull to see earlyer vandalism history, but I feel that starting a fresh sometimes would be the best approach. Shanes 03:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

as long as the page is then labled as a school or proxy fineGeni 03:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've certainly cleaned up anon talk pages in the past. I rely on my own judgement to determine whether I think this is the same person returning or if it may be a new person with the same IP. I tend to give the user the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter if I'm unsure. If the latter, I'll clear the page. Then, I start with test, test2, test3, test4, with a five-minute break between each to ensure the editor has had a chance to read the previous one, then I'll block (which happens nearly never following this method). I do understand that I'm hiding the ability of others to immediately see the whole history of warnings against this particular IP, but I feel that the possible risk of having some poor newbie have their first test mistaken for their seventh act of malicious vandalism outweighs this factor. moink 04:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Also, I initially wrote the testx templates. I'm not going to tell others how they can and can't use them, but I will say that the original intent was to use them in order. That is, to start with the super-sweet one and progressively up the ante as you can tell they're not listening. I had a whole plan to propose policy that we can't block people until they've been warned at least three times with a progression in tone (including mentioning vandalism and the blocking policy) but I never really got around to the proposal. moink 04:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I've thought of using them that way, but I haven't found that their wording makes it possible. the first one is completely open as to what was done, but test2 forks to either adding nonsense or removing content, making progression work only if the vandal sticks to the same formula, or follows a certain pattern of vandalism. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I for one, like seeing the history of warning messages to anons. I use it as a guide in how long I block an editor for. The more warnings the longer the block. If I can tell it is a dynamic IP I'll set that aside, but in the case of repeated vandalism, I'd rather err on the side of blocking longer. Specifically for static IP's I'd prefer no warning messages are ever removed since that shows the history. Being that it is hard to tell the difference, I'd prefer to err on the side of removing less warnings I guess. - Taxman 20:08, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I don't have any feelings about keeping or deleting old message, but if you do delete old messages, please put a very clear message in the edit summary about it ("deleting old warning messages", or something) so we don't have to actually grovel through the old versions to see that there was a history of incidents. Noel (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Only Allow Registered Users to Edit?

I'm sure it has been discussed before, but after going through the Recent Changes page, I'm beginning to see that the 'majority' (probably close to 95%) of vandalism occurs with non-registered users. While it 'may' reduce the amount of legitimate edits done to articles, it certainly will have a deterrent effect for a lot of vandals. Also, those who edit anonymously will most likely register if they feel they really do have something meaningful to add to an article. -- MacAddct1984 15:39, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it has been discussed before, but I don't think it really has been for quite a while. I think when Wikipedia was young and unproven we needed the open editing policy to attract people to the project. Now we get so much attention that is not as important. If the edit this page redirected to a create a login, I don't think it would be a significant impediment to anyone. It's not like creating a user name is giving up any private information. All it does is collect the edits of a given person in a way that makes it easier to assess their trustworthiness. I believe Jimbo is very attached to the open editing policy, and that it probably won't change anytime soon. But I don't think it makes a lot of sense anymore. Vandalism would be nearly eliminated if there was no anonymous editing. The vandal fighting procedures we have would make it so easy to block those that did decide to create a username and vandalize. - Taxman 16:39, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
Why wouldn't it just drive up the number of sock puppets? Blocks really aren't really effective against a registered user who is willing to re-register. At best, you might eliminate the laziest vandals, but they're not the real problem. Mwanner 17:43, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know the numbers, but just from experience over 50% of vandalism is people doing it just because it is easy. "Really? I can edit this page? Cool, let me put some naughty words or other idiocy in there then." I'll bet it's even higher than 50%--I really think most vandalism isn't from truly persistent vandals. The persistent we can't entirely prevent, just mitigate, but we'd cut down on a lot of the rest if people had to register. - Taxman 14:57, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
That first type of edits you describe isn't vandalism. They are test-edits, and are how a large percentage of later good wikipedians make their first baby steps here. It really is surprising to many that everyone can edit here, and some don't belive it before they see it. Calling all those edits vandalism (especially on their talk page as their first ever contact witrh the community (not saying that you do)) is rude. I've come across newbies who didn't even belive that the edits they made were visible for others than them selves and were surprised by someone else noticing them. Later many of these people become good wikipedians. If it weren't for the easy access to their virgin edit, many of them wouldn't have. And so I am strongly against making it harder for people to edit here, having to clean up after a few of them is a small price to pay for geting more people to join the project. Shanes 15:42, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Why not let the non-registered editing in general, but close non-edited editing for pages which are frequently target of vandalism (like George_W._Bush, look at the history of the page)? This would make it a little bit more difficult for vandals. And - enhance the registration by a required working email. This is imho acceptable for common users but makes it more difficult for vandals to re-register.Wilfried Elmenreich 23:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Just four points:

  1. Read anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles.
  2. Read posting by anonymous users should be limited, but not banned.
  3. Anonymous users make thousands of good-faith contributions to all of the WikiMedia projects every day. I made good faith contributions to Wikipedia back when I was anonymous, and I'm sure that I'm not the only pseudonymous user who did. All pseudonymous users would do well to remember what they did when they themselves were anonymous.
  4. Read friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles.

Uncle G 09:57:50, 2005-07-26 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

I've protected this page since it's linked from some of the vandal warning templates and gets a lot of vandalism without many legitimate edits. Since I imagine this protection will be a fairly long-term affair, and I don't think the protection notice should be on the page itself: {{vprotected}} — Dan | Talk 23:18, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I count 9 cases of vandalism the last month. Is that "a lot" now? I don't have any strong objections to this particular page being protected, but I've noticed a trend of us having more and more pages vprotected. Maybe that's just the way a wiki goes, but it's not a good trend. Shanes 23:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic IPs

I recently blocked User:62.253.96.42 for 48 hours due to vandalism (they had been blocked before), and the next day received two emails from other people using this IP wanting the IP to be unblocked. A few days later this IP was blocked again, but later unblocked b/c a registered user was accidentally blocked b/c he was on that IP. Today, I saw that this anon had another vandal-warning. A few of their edits are vandlism, but many are not. This is an NTL IP. Is there a way to deal with the (probably) one person doing the vandalism, without disrupting the other people that may use the IP? Lachatdelarue (talk) 13:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Is there any way to block an IP for anonymous users, but allow registered users on that IP through? That would appear to be a good solution, if it's possible. Ravenswood 01:43, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vadalism on Discussion Pages

Wikipedia has two conflicting policies which puts me in a situation I need a resolution to:

  • You are not allowed to delete other people's comments on Talk pages, and
  • Vandalism should be reverted.

The question is, what do you do about Vandalism on Talk pages? On the Talk:Arguments for and against drug prohibition page, someone anonymously posted "specially since most non whites are high all the time....right dudetts?" My gut feeling is that it should be deleted, but I am aware that not deleting another user's words on a Talk page is considered sacrosanct among the Wiki community. Please help! Ravenswood 01:42, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Do delete obviously bad-faith additions. Add a note that you did so and sign it. Superm401 | Talk 05:07, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! Ravenswood 07:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bad indentation

Can an admin fix the flawed indentation on this page in the Templates section. I would, but the page is protected. Damn vandals. :) Superm401 | Talk 05:07, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why is This a Redirect?

I think this page should not be a redirect. It is a good guide to those who want to stop vandalism, and if it were not for the fact that this page is one of the rare fully protected pages, I would revert it back to a seperate page immediately. Mathmagic 18:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/a/Wikipedia_talk%7EDealing_with_vandalism_87c9.html"