Wikipedia talk:Do not insult the vandals

message: I can certainly live with "Do not insult..." rather than "Be nice..." but I'm wondering the use of deleting a pic post on talk. It was just a way to lighten the mood.
Anyhow, the advice the article attempts to impart is quite sound. In incidental ways, dealing with vandalism is dealt with on Wiki pages but perhaps we need one or two placeholders that directly address it. A "what if" section ("what if they insult my race," "what if they actually threaten me") could be useful here or on a related start-up. Marskell 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I guess that makes me a vandal, so be nice to me, okay? ;-) Uncle Ed 02:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Ed, there is another "nasty" picture below for you to delete, have fun!  --Fire Star 05:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Does HTML strikeout work on images? ;-) Uncle Ed 11:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Status

message: Those do contrast a little bit this user box :):
Titoxd(?!?) 03:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  User boxes 

message: With a userbox like that I think you are inviting infinitely endless vandalism to your userpage and talk page. --ElectricEye (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inviting vandals?

message: Which vandals have become admins? I would like to see an example. -- Psi edit 04:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admins? 

message: Can someone please tell me what the heck the shortcut stands for?--HereToHelp (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be nice to vandals. Didn't even have to look it up. Booyah! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 06:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:BNTV]]?

message: Am I the only one with this problem? In the following paragraph—
* Vandals can become useful editors, and may even become administrators! Approach them with a suggestion, and the possibility exists they will decide to contribute helpfully.
:—the words a suggestion, and the are hidden by the right-hand Vandalism panel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Copey 2 (talk • contribs) 
I think there is something wrong with the panel or photo.  The entire article appear lower than the end of the photo on my screen. I notice panels from other projects don't have this same problem. --ElectricEye (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers, ElectricEye. Problem sorted. (This time:) Copey 2 13:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Visibility problem

message: What is the status of this page?
Guideline?
Policy?
Proposed POlicy/Guideline?
Essay?
AndrewRT 17:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere between Essay and Guideline. I don't think this could really become a policy. If it did it'd be folded into NPA or something similar. 68.39.174.238 05:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of this page 

message: How utterly patronising and biased. I guess it doesn't matter if you go against Wikipedia's guidelines as long as it's something the main editors agree on. Most vandals vadalise because the editors lack a sense of humour in the extreme, and are extremely geeky with all their "THIS USER HAS CHLAMYDIA" Merit badges. Once you take something so abstract so seriously(like that pathetic VANDALS MUST BE OBLITERATED merit badge), people will mess with you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kittie Rose (talk • contribs).
:I generally think I have a good sense of humor- hell, I'm even in a comedy troupe. But I don't use Wikipedia to laugh. The goal of this site is to build the most comprehensive encyclopedia in the world. Vandals can't use the "oh, have a sense of humor, it was just a joke!" defense more than once- after that, it's just flat-out vandalism. -- Kicking222 15:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To see if it's appropriate humor being wet-blanketed or just vandalism: see if it would fly on Uncyclopedia. If doing it there provokes an immediate "No Redeeming Value" or similar, then it's either lame humor or just malice. 68.39.174.238 05:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: Having reverted and undone enough, I've adopted a new policy.  I won't revert.  It's too difficult.  The vandals win simply because it is harder to revert than it is to vandalize.  The undo feature works but only for the most recent edit.  That is not a powerful enough tool.  When Wikipedia creates an easier way to accomplish the reversion process (going back more than one edit), I'll resume reverting.  The grunt work of reverting will eventually get done by those who are willing to spend brain time doing shit work.  Bless their souls.
There should be a 'timeout' button that forces a vandal from any further edits for 8 to 24 hours.  One click and their work is simultaneously reverted and they're locked out for a period of time.  Like a penalty box.  Block the ip address and let them cool off doing something that doesn't harm wikipedia.  If we have to be the referees, then it has to be as simple as yanking a flag out of a back pocket.  The closer we can get to correcting unacceptable behavior within seconds the more effective we'll be in discouraging/frustrating vandals. blackcloak 07:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving up 

message: It's a well-known fact that if given a problem with a variety of possible solutions, even the most fair-minded people will generally pick one that dovetails best with their personal philosophies. In this case, I think it's entirely possible that this prevailing attitude of "love thy vandal" seems to stem from editors who would self-classify as more permissive, understanding, and open-minded than most of their contemporaries.
That said, I certainly don't begrudge them their personal philosophies, since even the best of us tote a certain degree of baggage to the Project (some more than others). But the real issue here needs to be fact; what are the different types of vandals, what motivates each type, and what kind of interaction is the most effective with each.
Politics aside, I will say that I think we run a serious risk of trying to lump apples and oranges together in one category when in reality the strategies for dealing with one type of vandal over another may differ wildly. I can however say that from my personal experience I have never once run into an IP user who: 1)vandalized more than once, 2)recieved a warning, 3)heeded it, saw the error of his/her ways, and started editing productively. Most of course ignore the warnings and continue until blocked. Some probably come back (or try to) for another round in one incarnation or another. But I believe I can safely say (from my limited perspective) that 9 times out of 10 the guys we catch are on their 4th or 5th blatant vandalism, long past AGF.
I'd also like to point out that with the lack of a cut and dried policy on blocking (the so-called "blocking policy" is by no means definitive), the response from admins on AIV is wildly variant. Different admins seem to have entirely different interpretations of what the policy actually means in practice. I've been verbally-smited for failing to give "the required 4 consecutive notices" before reporting a prolific and active IP vandal, who, without any further commentary and no more than a minute later, got a weeklong ban from another random admin who happened to be passing by. It happens more often than you might think.
Nobody is arguing about "protect, not punish". Nobody is arguing about AGF until proven otherwise. The issue is when and how we should go about doing it. It needs to be clarified, set in stone, backed up with consensus, and violators sanctioned. But no more of this "the flower-children vs. the war-hawks" business, as it just leaves the hard-working WP:CVU watchdogs stuck in the middle. BullzeyeComplaint Dept./Contribs) 09:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  As with most Wiki-issues, Where You Sit is Where You Stand 

message: Is the Thor picture -really- needed? It is rather funny, though. 65.175.227.130 19:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As if it gives the wrong message - the opposite of this page's intention. --Biblbroks (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thor 

message: I just got the urge to make a page entitled Do not insult the Visigoths.
But anyway, nice essay/guideline page, I congratulate its makers. --Kitty who? 01:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice job 

message: If you really don't like this page or think it's totally pointless, go voice your opinion to the administrators. I'm mostly neutral on it; I consider it just to be an extention of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Tezkag72 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice your opinions 

message: Ok has anybody else encountered Bortmeister? He just vandalized my userpage... yes, I was able to revert it without any problem, but this sort of childish behavior can be aggravating. Can anything be done about this guy?-- Avazina, (Talk to me). 15:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the appropriate user warning tag to the vandals userpage.-- Avazina, (Talk to me) DEMs are morons. 16:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Bortmeister]] is a Vandal 

message: how ironic would it be if someone vandalised this page!! 188.222.41.105 (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ha ha 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Wikipedia:INSULT and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 30#Wikipedia:INSULT until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wikipedia:INSULT" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]