User:Porkchop28/Vandalism Patrol

Welcome. For all people who would like to be in porkchop28's Vandalism Patrol,Please sign below.

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles.

For more Info go to the article on Wikipedia:Vandalism

Signatures

1. Captain Porkchop28^Talk_{What I do}

Types of vandalism

Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:

Type	Description
Blanking	Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes referenced information or important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where 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. An example of blanking edits that could be legitimate would be edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and non-biased information on the living, and this 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 normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.
Page creation	Creating new pages with the sole intent of malicious behavior. Includes blatant advertising pages, personal attack pages (articles written to disparage the subject), blatant POV pushes, hoaxes and other intentionally inaccurate pages. New users may sometimes create test pages containing nonsense or even autobiographies, and doing so is not vandalism, though such pages are normally speedily deleted. Also, creating a page on a topic that is simply not notable is not vandalism.
Page lengthening	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).
Spam	Adding or continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism, or sites that have some relationship to the subject matter, but advertise or promote in the user's interest, or text that promotes one's personal interests.
Vandalbots	A script or "robot" that attempts to vandalize or spam massive numbers of articles (hundreds or thousands).
Silly vandalism	Adding profanity, graffiti, random characters (gibberish), or other nonsense to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously non-encyclopedic pages, etc. Please note that the addition of random characters to pages is a common way that new users test edit and may not be intentionally malicious.
Sneaky vandalism	Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), using two or more different accounts and/or IP addresses at a time to vandalize, abuse of maintenance and deletion templates, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. 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.
Userspace vandalism	Adding insults, profanity, etc. to user pages or user talk pages (see also Wikipedia:No personal attacks).
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).
Template vandalism	Modifying the wiki language or text of a template in a harmful or disruptive manner. This is especially serious, because it'll negatively impact the appearance of multiple pages. Some templates appear on hundreds of pages.
Abuse of tags	Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes removal of extremely-long-standing {{policy}} and related tags without forming consensus on such a change first.
Page-move vandalism	Changing the names of pages (referred to as "page-moving") to disruptive, irrelevant, or otherwise inappropriate terms. Wikipedia now only allows registered users active for at least four days and with at least 10 edits (i.e. autoconfirmed users) to move pages.
Link vandalism	Modifying internal or external links within a page so that they appear the same but link to a page/site that they are not intended to (e.g. spam, self-promotion, an explicit image, a shock site).
Avoidant vandalism	Removing {{afd}}, {{copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content. Note that 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.
Modifying users' comments	Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself). Signifying that a comment is unsigned is an exception. Please also note that correcting other users' typos is discouraged.
Discussion page vandalism	Blanking the posts of other users from talk pages other than your own, Wikipedia space, and other discussions, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc., is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. Note: The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page. Editors are granted considerable latitude over editing their own userspace pages (including talk pages), and blanking one's own user talk page is specifically not prohibited. 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. Since anonymous user talk pages may be shared by many users, removal of warnings is generally not appropriate.
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 only becomes vandalism if it continues after the copyrighted nature of the material and relevant policy restricting its use have been communicated to the user.
Malicious account creation	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.
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 remain visible when viewing a page's history. Only a small number of editors with special powers above administrators have the ability to modify edit summaries). Often combined with malicious account creation.
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 (described above), or placing malicious, offensive, or otherwise disruptive or irrelevant messages or spam in hidden comments for editors to see.
Gaming the system	Deliberate attempts to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures by making bad faith edits 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.

What is not vandalism

Although at times, the following situations may be incorrectly referred to as vandalism, usually, they are not considered vandalism, as such. However, each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether or not the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In addition, if an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, then that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.

Type	Description
Tests by experimenting users	New users, who discover the "edit this page" button, sometimes want to experience editing a page and may add something unhelpful to a page (e.g., a few random characters) as a test. Such edits are not done in bad faith and therefore, are not vandalism. Rather than be warned for vandalism, these users should be warmly greeted, and given a reference to the Wikipedia sandbox by using the template message {{test}}, where they can continue to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive. If a user has made a test edit and then reverted it, consider placing the message {{uw-selfrevert}}, on their talk page. Registered users can create their own sandbox subpages as well. The template: {{uw-vandalism1}} — even though it is a warning template — is also appropriate, because it is courteous enough not be perceived as offensive, and it does not imply vandalism. It is also the default template for Twinkle and Huggle.
Using 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.
NPOV violations	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 a NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all affected by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. Though the material added may be inappropriate, it is not vandalism in itself.
Making bold edits	Often, Wikipedians make sweeping changes to pages in order to improve them— most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of your text removed or substantially rewritten, can certainly be frustrating, simply making edits that noticeably alter the text or content of a pages should not be immediately labeled vandalism.
Failing to use the edit summary	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.
Unintentional misinformation	Sometimes a user will add content to an article that is factually inaccurate, but in the belief that it is accurate. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia, and improve it rather than vandalize. If you believe inaccurate information has been added to an article in good faith, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it.
Unintentional nonsense	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 or edit conflicts can unintentionally produce the appearance of nonsense or malicious edits. In either case, assume good faith.
Disruptive editing or stubbornness	Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is regrettable— you may wish to see the dispute resolution pages to get help. Repeated deletion or addition of material may violate the three-revert rule, but this is not "vandalism" and should not be dealt with as such. See also: Tendentious editing
Harassment or personal attacks	There is a clear policy on Wikipedia of no personal attacks, and harassing other contributors is also not allowed. While some forms of harassment are also clear cases of vandalism, such as user page vandalism, or inserting a personal attack into an article, harassment in itself is not considered "vandalism" and should be handled differently.
Changes to guideline and policy pages	Editors are encouraged to be bold. However, making edits to the 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, or of edits covered under Biographies of Living People.	Some material— sometimes even factually correct material— does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Wikipedia standards, before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism.
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.