User:Geofferybard/Vandalism typology

VISITOR INPUT WELCOME: Generally the preferred etiquette would be to comment here corrected link to follow inline edits, if that is easier, are ok if not combative, and I suggest making them bold or alternate color.

Bard गीता 22:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER

DRAFT

This essay is not intended as policy. It will be parsed to comply with all applicable policies which may be applicable. I gratefully acknowledge those wikipedians who have developed the basics upon which this essay is based. Bard गीता 23:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Preface: Why the term "vandalism" should be replaced

The vandals were a tribe which corresponds to some European ethnic groups. They were in conflict with Rome and since Rome has written much of recorded history its' interpretation predominates in the literature. A more scientific basis is established by modifying the term. Thus we will use the term Intentional Editing Destructiveness (IED). There may on some wikis in some places at some times also be IED conducted by persons with administrative privilege, which would be classified as IAD, Intentional Administrative Destructiveness. Some former wikipedians allege that they have been harassed and such instances may involve IAD. This essay is restricted to the broader question of IED.

Proposed new terminology: Intentional malicious editing

I have observed quite a bit of administrative activity that was distorted by POV or by highly ambitious goals coupled with callous disregard for other people's views and feelings.

Side issue: Is IME possible when conducted by persons with administrative powers?

I have postulated the existence of "administrative vandalism" as something which can occur on some wikis at some times. That was reverted by someone who simply claimed is was "wrong". Be this as it may, the purpose of this essay is to correct the fundamentally flawed approach to the typology of vandalism which is incumbent in the corresponding section of the wikipedia article on vandalism. Once the foundation is established for better clarity and a more fruitful approach to the issue, we can decide whether there is at least a theoretical possibility of vandalist action by parties with administrative privileges or whether that is an absolute impossibility in all scenarios, in all nations, in all languages, and at all times. Even in countries under absolute authoritarian dictatorships, if there is a wiki project of any kind, nothing its administrators can ever do can be considered to be "vandalism", according to that viewpoint.

What is and is not "malice"

Malice is defined as "A predetermination to commit an act without legal justification or excuse." Thus, the motive may not necessarily conform to the stereotype of an angry person who is malicious in the ordinary sense of the term. At law, one is considered to act with malice if they disregard the law, intentionally, even if they are full of good intentions. For instance, if they commit an act of treason and espionage because they are full of love for an alien enemy nation. In such instances, the emotional state may not be malice in the psychological sense, but something quite apart from it and resembling patriotic devotion, in a twisted sense. Nevertheless, in the legal sense the person is acting out of malice.

Categorization of intentional malicious editing

Malicious editing (IME/vandalism on Wikipedia can be categorized based upon the nature of the target, the nature of the perpetrator, the motive, and media such as bots, viruses or worms. The list posted in the article Vandalism is not categorized and lists types of "vandalism" alphabetically without regard to the category of vandalism types or IME types.

This essay attempts to forge new ground by sorting that list into categories.

Additive versus subtractive disruption

IME can be destructive (deletions or blanking of whole pages)or additive (insertion of false or irrelevant material). Malicious overwriting is the changing of content by deleting and replacement.

Types of malicious creativity: additive, cancerous edits

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.

IME Type Category I: Classified by editing method

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 baseless removal of {{policy}} and related tags.

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

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.

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.

Copyrighted material, repeated uploading of

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.

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.

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. 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).

Page-move vandalism

Changing the names of pages (referred to as "page-moving") to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate names. Only autoconfirmed and confirmed users can move pages.

Subcategory of IDE-I: Second-level IDE, or Attempts to evade detection

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.

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.

Sneaky vandalism

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 only reverting 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.

Categorization by content

Silly vandalism

Adding profanity, graffiti, or patent nonsense to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously unencyclopedic pages, etc. However, the addition of random characters to pages is often characteristic of an editing test and, though impermissible, may not be malicious.

to classify

Spam external linking

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.

Categorization by target (victim)

Talk page vandalism

Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' 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 of pages.

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, with certain exceptions, should not be edited without permission of the user to whom they belong. See WP:UP#OWN. Related is Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Categorization of tools used

Vandalbots

A script or "robot" that attempts to vandalize or add spam to a mass of pages.