Wikipedia talk:Revert, block, ignore/Archive 1

Archive 1

Absolutely

This is precisely the optimum manner in which to deal with dull vandals. They want satisfaction; don't give it. They want attention; deny it. They feed on the game; don't play it. Constructing pages, categories, tags and the rest can serve a purpose in certain scenarios (see below) but generally, it means that time is spent on what are fundamentally time wasters, and that kind of inverse victory shouldn't be handed to them.

There may be some exceptions to this. There are cases where massively acute vandalism (Squidward springs to mind) needs a holding-pen briefly to contain e.g. a list of the IPs that need a range block or to assist admins who have had to go to sleep (!) to know that what they see is something that is not unexpected. This can be useful in the short-term and can help to stop a million [sic] messages to WP:AIAV and/or WP:ANI. The trouble with creating these pages is that they are hard to remove later; but perhaps one or two of them lying around doesn't do so much harm.

In general, however, I'd agree heartily that revert, block and ignore is both the lowest-maintenance and most effective approach. It should also include not bothering to tag the userpages of throwaway accounts with {{indefblockeduser}}; if they've been thrown away, don't pull them out of the trash can for decorating. -Splash - tk 01:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Support with clarifications

Thanks to Cyde for posting this essay. I don't agree with him about everything on the site but there is a substantial core of merit to his approach to this issue. And I am pleased to see an attempt to approach the issue via an essay that will hopefully lead to some consensus, as opposed to through a continuation of unilateral action by anyone.

A few caveats:

1. The RBI approach should apply to chronic, serial vandals. It should not replace (and I don't think Cyde means it to replace) the "test" warnings for newbies, the AGF principle, etc.

2. There seems to be a trend among some users to define "vandalism" ever more broadly. "Deleting my content because it was unsourced is vandalism," "blanking a warning from your userpage is vandalism," etc. This is about "vandalism" in its original, narrow sense -- page-blanking, deleting content for no reason, inserting blatant nonsense, etc.

3. In discussion at ANI, many editors, including experienced admins who focus on vandal-fighting, indicated that some pages tagging sockpuppets, summarizing patterns of long-term abuse, etc., are very useful to them in vandal-fighting and it would set their efforts back if such pages were deleted. This issue needs to be talked through in detail among the most affected users. One possibility might be to limit access to the LTA and similar pages to admins (or some others with appropriate safeguards) but eliminate them from the pages accessible to the vandals themselves and the Google searchers. Or some variation thereof.

Subject to further discussion, I think that Cyde has basically the right idea here. Newyorkbrad 03:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Here's my thought, FWIW. Vandalism is mostly good. It's just kids testing out Wikipedia the way kids test out the limits of any structure to see what they can get away with. For the most part I don't warn, I'm not an admin so I can't block. I just quietly revert. The lesson is: you vandalise us, the vandalism goes away, nothing bad happens. You get bored. These kids grow up a bit, some of them join us as wikipedians, and lots more know and trust the site and use it for reference. It's all good. AndyJones 19:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• And here's my other thought, FWIW. (I've got two.) The other lesson is: what you type here sticks on the internet for everyone to read. If you type good stuff it hangs around. That's the ultimate positive reinforcer for the kind of guys we want on this project. It's all good. AndyJones 19:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Good

Good essay; harmonious with my own thoughts on the subject. Our most powerful tool in fighting vandals is boredom: the kids that bother us have short attention-spans, and quickly give up and go away, more often than not, when they don't get that thrill of reaction. I remember what it was like being a 14-year-old troublemaker. In my own career as a vandal-fighter, the worst mistakes I have made have been when I've yelled back at trolls, written about vandals on specialized pages, or posted anxious calls for help. Revert, block, ignore, and hurl their trophy cabinets into the nearest drainage ditch. Antandrus (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Not all 14 year olds are troublemakers. Don't overgeneralize. 1ne 21:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We tried this with the PWOT lot. Talking to themm worked better.Geni 01:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Who? --Cyde Weys 01:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

PWOT mob. Standard forum raid. Mildly anoying. people managed to talk them out of it.Geni 02:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong

CVU pages and the like helped me coordinate and fight vandalism a whole lot when I cared about this stuff. Vandals outnumber us by hundreds to one, yet we beat them because we employ all available tools; rollback, recent changes apps, and so on, make us more effective and efficient and reverting vandalism than vandals can be at vandalizing. WP:CVU and the so-called 'vandal hall of fame' are part of the structure that enables anti-vandal "cops and robbers" to coordinate with each other and know what is going on in the Wiki.

The most important example of why it's needed to have specific information about vandal profiles is that particular vandals often repeatedly hit the same pages. That means that an informed vandal slayer, when he or she notices a pattern of vandalism, can know where else to look for vandalism to revert, causing it to be reverted much faster.

I appreciate the concerns raised in this article as well as WP:DENY, which is why I think the best middle ground is to "admin protect" the relevant articles so that only admins can view them. However, it seems that suggestion was dismissed without consideration by supporters of DENY with the rationalized non-argument that there is "no need to bother the busy devs". This made my work on Wikipedia frustrating and difficult enough that I pretty much quit.

It's disheartening to see people so concerned with making life harder for the people who do the boring and thankless job of reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Vandal fighters catch enough grief from the vandals themselves; I've been threatened with violence and called all manner of names on my talk page, repeatedly. So to see the hard work I've done to document effective vandal fighting techniques for other users summarily deleted by the community was frustrating to say the least, and was a major contributor to my effective quitting my administrative duties. Vandal fighting is hard enough for us to be required to do it in any way except the most effective way possible.

--causa sui ^talk 17:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this idea is unhelpful.Saying Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages encourages vandalism is counterproductive & unhelpful, by attacking the tools users use to help out.Assistant N (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

And Wikipedia in culture is not just concerned with vandalism. This is innaccurateAssistant N (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

There is an opposing view

I have added the opposing view. As this is an essay, I think it needs to be balanced somewhat, because as it stands now it doesn't speak for all the community but only a subset who believes a particular point of view. I should also note that I was under the impression that essays are what Metawiki was used for? Essays on Wikipedia quickly lead to division and useless arguments. They are also, IMO, against the spirit of the Wikipedia namespace. I certainly didn't read this till recently, and I totally disagree with its central premise! I know I'm not alone in this, either. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hardly. We have hundreds of essays in CAT:E and quite a bunch more in general rants or user-sub-pages. If you don't like an essay, feel free to edit it. >Radiant< 16:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In case you haven't noticed, I have and in fact that is what I just said I have done in the preceding comment. However, I don't think that people referring to "rants" or user subpages in the wikipedia namespace are a particularly good idea. As essays seem to trump NPOV, then what is to stop someone posting offensive essays about, say, how Holocaust denial should be renamed to something less "unkind"? For that matter, where exactly are the guidelines on what essays should and shouldn't be? If I write an essay that is offensive to some, but not to others, who adjudicates? What if someone writes an essay that picks on a group of editors? Let's say, the inclusionists write an essay that picks on the deletionists? What then? Should the deletionists then fire back an essay? Like I say, essays shouldn't be divisive, and that is what I'm seeing is happening here. In particular, I refer you to WP:ILIKEIT. (sorry, no idea where I raise this issue, as there is no particular place to mention it). - Ta bu shi da yu 10:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying I'm happy with the current situation either. But the point is that we never had rules or limits as to who could write what in the Wikipedia namespace, and as a result it has quite a lot of, well, rants. We have several people claiming that essays "sound like policy" for some reason. We have several people changing failed policy proposals to essays because they find {{rejected}} sounds too harsh for their Obviously Brilliant Idea that nobody really likes. And yes, there are several essays that are divisive, or simply bitter or snide reactions to some situation a user doesn't like. Perhaps we should write Wikipedia:Don't write snide essays if you are disgruntled about something. Yep, it's messy all right, but I don't see a feasible way of cleaning things up, as there is strong objection to both deletion and userfication many essays. >Radiant< 10:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Here's a better thought. Let's all follow Wikipedia:Assume good faith! Writing snide essays indeed. I wrote an essay that stated what I thought. Hardly snide at all, in actual fact. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I wasn't talking about your essay in particular, just the general tendency. There are several that are rather snide, if you look around. >Radiant< 12:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

trolls?

I see the 'don't feed the trolls' image, and the article talks of vandals? This is confusing. Is the essay saying RBI for trolls too? SaltyBoatr 21:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The "don't feed the trolls" is somehow related, so it's better linked in the "see also" section. Tizio 15:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What about warnings?

This essay should probably be titled "Revert, Warn, Block, ignore since warning the vandals is part of the vandalism fighting process as well.--Miss Pussy Galore (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea. I get tired of reverting vandals and looking at their history to see other vandal edits without any warning on their talk page. It hinders the ability to block. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 17:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

"opposing view"

I find the "opposing" section isn't opposing at all. Of course we necessarily need some infrastructure to be able to cope with vandalism. The point of "RBI" appears to be to give this infrastructure as low a profile as possible. It also suggests people should avoid statements implying that they are worried by vandalism. Vandals should be treated like vermin: a bother, but an unexciting, boring household chore type of bother. Discussions of notable vandalism in article space is a different issue altogether. This page doesn't pretend to give advice on article content, just of how vandalism should be handled within the community, i.e., in WP: and Talk: namespace. Since Wikipedia:is in the real world, there will be some cases that leak to public attention, and we'll then have to treat it dispassionately like any other article topic. dab (𒁳) 22:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that vandal fighting should be as low profile as possible, without sacrificing effectiveness. What is at stake here is just how low that profile should be before we start throwing the baby out with the bathwater. See the comments I posted higher up on this talk page, when I was more resentful about how the "revert, block, ignore" idea, if taken to extremes, can become authoritarian and get in the way of vandal fighting. It's worth noticing that while I still edit articles, I still haven't bothered with RCP work since a coupe years, because I think there are too many community-imposed obstacles in the way of the people who want to do that work to make it worthwhile. This page, when taken as policy, is frustrating to us to say the least. --causa sui ^talk 20:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Dbachmann: there is no opposing view. Maybe we could summurise that by saying that 'we must ignore the vandals so we can focus on the vandalism'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.133.7.37 (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring is easier than blocking

This essay assumes that getting a block is a simple step. Disruptive editors are often familiar with the rules of Wikipedia and are good at staying within the boundaries of legality. The Block step is hard to come by. I think that a formalized form of ignoring would be a useful adjunct to reverting. At Talk:Disruptive Editors I've suggested we develop a procedure for formal boycotts of disruptive editors. Comments and suggestions are welcome there. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about a line in the lead

This line: "It should be remembered that most vandals are bored students with nothing more interesting to do." When was that conclusion made? Beam 21:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just like urban legends and "consensous", mate. If enough users believe it (or that the world is flat, or any other such thing), it becomes Wikipedia reality. I got used to it. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 02:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well it's likely that most people who commit vandalism are bored and have nothing better to do. However I've changed the word "students" to "individuals" because singling out students (as opposed to, say, bored theoretical physicists, social scientists, politicians, and so on) is rather difficult to justify. --TS 18:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)