Wikipedia talk:The motivation of a vandal

message: ----
This is just an insight to the mentality of a vandal. Please contribute and expand. 
Thetruthbelow 07:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

message: A small majority are out there to just destroy this place, attention or otherwise. At least one (WP:TCV) has admitted it, and others (Think banned users with a grudge here) also follow the same rationale. 68.39.174.238 05:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A further example: User:Primetime. His motivation genuinely seems to be to help us out, albeit in an extremely misguided and dangerous manner. 68.39.174.238 00:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd imagine that would some would vandalise not to hurt anyone but just because they like the power or the ability to destroy, similarly to some arsonists perhaps. raptor 05:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not always... 

message: I agree with the "Not Always" poster.  The motivations of vandals may be various, and in some cases may boil down to nothing more complicated than a genetic preference to cause havoc irrespective of whether it brings attention to the vandal.  (Many vandals, in fact, prefer that their acts remain anonymous, for obvious reasons.)
As I read this article, I was struck with a strong suspicion that the whole purpose behind the article is to discourage vandals while sounding like an objective dissertation on vandalism's cause.  While dissuading vandalism may be a noble goal (to non-vandals, anyway), it is not necessarily synonymous with finding out what actually causes vandalism.  --DarelRex 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Always (Second the Motion) 

message: The authors might want to look for another example of a vandalism "publicly humiliating someone".  The diff used for footnote 4 includes the full name of the "fat gay kid from Mount Airy, NC" originally targeted.  --CliffC 04:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 4 

message: This may be an essay, but I highly doubt it'll ever be agreed by even a plurality of people what exactly motivates vandals (At least, untill there's a rigorous study done by a legitimate external organization), and I can see an edit war in the distance between at least two groups with opposing views on this. I suggest it be split into sections, or subpages, or something, to prevent this. 68.39.174.238 17:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, this would have been my first edit war<g>.  However, I don't see any point in going to war over anything as subjective as what motivates a vandal.  I'm sure there are many motivations, but what difference does it make?  We should instead be working on ways to discourage them.  One way might be to depersonalize the (IMO) very personal feedback they get from the legitimate editors here; perhaps all reversions and warnings should be anonymized and standardized by sending them through a bot, similar to quietly and persistently painting over a (street) vandal's tagged wall every night.  --CliffC 00:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a split... 

message: I believe many vandals use Wikipedia as a platform to communicate personal messages, either to their friends or to the world at large. Here's an extreme example of this (one that I didn't have the heart to delete when I saw it):
The most beautiful and amazing girl in the entire world loves this place with all her heart! She has stolen my heart and has made me the happiest person in the entire world! I love you BETH!!!
--orlady 05:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I can kind of see that myself. They strike me as little more than ignorant children who should go on MySpace for this kind of stuff.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I would have reverted that edit immediately had I seen it.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 20:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair bit of the vandalism is written in hip-hop slang; for example, see this set of contributions.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This one too.-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But hey, I've never loved a girl with that level of zeal and look at me, I've got 5000 plus edits on Wikipedia...-h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contrasting your first and last contributions to this paragraph shows a charming increase in wisdom! Almost-instinct (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandals using Wikipedia as a bulletin board

message: One thing that I've thought about is how "regular" people connect to writing (as opposed to speaking.) Many many people are rarely -- if ever -- given the opportunity to write something extensive that anyone other than a few people (mostly close family) will read. Writing original thoughts for an audience is something many learn in college, but not everyone goes and not everyone learns it there, either. But there's a steep learning curve, and I wonder if some vandalism is an example of that? Sdedeo (tips) 02:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A thought

message: This is what I would at like if I were a vandal "you all suck die die die die die"--Arceus fan 23:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Like this 

message: As a user of Uncyclopedia, I must disagree (respectfully of course) with the mention of said website in this essay.  Uncyclopedia is not made to be vandalized.  As far as I know, no wiki exists simply for the purpose of providing an area for vandalization.  Therefore, I object to its inclusion in this essay.  We treat vandals much the same way you do here.  After all, you guys do parody us ;)-Ljlego 02:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true. Even Encyclopedia Dramatica is not a vandalism wiki. A wiki decidated to vandalism would not function.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respectful disagreement 

message: Most of the comments about this article are useful, and many well-considered. So without belaboring an opinion about which are the most central, let's talk briefly about Wiki's image of itself. Here's an opening Wiki sentence which seeks to support the Wiki effort, but in-and-of-itself embodies conceit which prompts aspects of vandalism:
"When a vandal stumbles upon Wikipedia, he/she immediately sees the large number of contributors who work tirelessly editing Wikipedia, sacrificing their personal time to help improve a project and a concept that is bigger than themselves."
This paragraph has several instances of marketing language which don't belong in Wiki.
In this marketing viewpoint, vandals don't come here intentionally, they stumble. I.e., they aren't competent individuals, they don't come here intentionally.
Once vandals are here, they "immediately see" something. Why is the word "immediately" included at all? Is there some importance to how long it takes a vandal to decide their course of action?
"Contributors who work tirelessly". A cliche. Hyperbole. Ok, some people do work themselves to exhaustion on Wiki. But many contributors have motivations which are -- who knows? -- perhaps little better than the vandals. They aren't necessarily honest or tireless.
"Sacrificing their personal time"? Hasn't it been shown in recent high profile cases that employees have used company time to modify Wiki? The point is this. Some people are sacrificing personal time, but many others have an axe to grind, and aren't doing it on personal time.
"A concept that is bigger than themselves". What concept isn't bigger than one's self? What difference would it make it if was a "smaller concept"? Would that make it not worth doing?
This Wiki article, perhaps above most others, should deal with straight facts, or well-considered speculation. Not marketing diatribes.
71.198.183.159 03:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less Wiki spin would be helpful 

message: They could put together information from many sources and give a better impression of why vandalism exists. Who knows, there may be one out there who is willing to dedicate their lives to researching vandalism on Wikipedia. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To "dedicate their life" is a strong phrase, but it's possible that a psychologist could conduct a study on it. I wouldn't bet on it though...--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 12:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a study that discusses vandalism among other things, but not from a psychological perspective. PDF file--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 21:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not ask a professional psychologist? 

message: Let's face it, the message isn't that effective.  The first time I vandalized, i got a polite message telling me to stop.  It should be more like:
"Your recent edit, insert edit here, was considered vandalism by the Wikipedia community.  If you are thinking of vandalising again, let's review your previous actions:
1.You vandalized a page which we were able to revert in less than 5 seconds (hopefully)
2.You're probably doing this for attention and/or personal satisfaction which is just pitiful.  Do you really have no life that all you do every day is disrupt Wikipedia?
3.We will take great pleasure in blocking you which will cause no effort for us at all.
Please cease these unconstructive edits, or you will be blocked immediately."
OVERTWITCH~Your Favourite Nerdy, Glasses Wearing, Hyperactive, little Asian
:I think you make a good point.  I would say that the "...less than 5 seconds..." point is good (although I might change that to anywhere upwards of 30 seconds from previous experience when I used to vandalize from time to time).  However I believe saying "You're probably doing this for <insert reason>" and making the cliche accusation of "you have no life so you bother us" in the form of a question is counterproductive.  I believe it's worth noting that blocking a person takes little effort, but the productiveness of stating how much pleasure you will derive from it is arguable.  The last statement of "Cease or be blocked" is perfect.  As such, Here would be my on-the-fly suggested revision to what you've suggested:
:"Your recent edit, "....", was considered vandalism by the Wikipedia community.  If you are thinking of vandalizing again, consider the following:
::1. We were able to undo your vandalism in less than 5 seconds after we observed it.
::2. Blocking your IP address and/or User account takes no notable effort on our part.
::3. This is your one and only warning.  Please cease these nonconstructive edits, or you will be blocked immediately."
:I noted that I used to vandalize Wikipedia from time to time.  For what it's worth, I'll share my reasoning.  I would only vandalize on a rare, inconsistent basis.  I did so once every few to several months from some time in my late teens into my early twenties.  I'm 26 now.  When I did it, I was bored.  Sometimes I resort to what I consider childish or otherwise immature or senseless activities (outside of Wikipedia) when I'm bored.  Generally they're not too destructive.  I'm getting better.  But yes--I was bored, and vandalizing Wikipedia released a little bit of dopamine, especially when I got to read what the person who reverted it had to say to me.  If the message in reply to vandals is completely cut-and-paste standardized, perhaps the dopamine high that comes from seeing a genuine real response to their vandalism from a real human being will be dulled some, thus discouraging further activity--i.e., they'll think "this is lame..." and find something else to do that better alleviates boredom.64.189.17.156 (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The template given to first time offenders should be much more aggressive.

message: "With every warning the vandal receives for his vandalism, they feel a growing sense of self-satisfaction from the fact that their "work" has been acknowledged. This is a problem for the good editors, for by warning a vandal, they may be encouraging them to vandalize more to gain more attention. Which is what happens almost 95% of the time." This sentence is tagged with citation needed, and in my opinion with good reason. As a vandalism fighter it is my experience that most vandals (95%?) are in fact scared off by the first warning. It is only a handful that persists after a warning, and those are mostly IPs from educational institutions, where they probably have a much more grateful audience in their friends watching their antics than anonymous unimpressed Wikipedia-editors. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warnings creating self-satisfaction for vandals 

message: It's been my observation, in my relatively small time reverting vandalism, that children comprise a high percentage of vandals. This is evident from the fact that vandalism targets are often schools. I am sure that if you surveyed vandalism, you might find that "kiddie type" vandalism is dominant, such as in use of bathroom and sometimes infantile words. In light of that, shouldn't we address vandalism from the issue of child psychology? I'm not qualified to do so, but maybe somebody else is. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Children and vandalism

message: Here's one example: someone claiming (quite convincingly) to be "the Senior Academic Practice Advisor at Brunel University" (name Keir Thorpe) stated that he "seed[s] material with errors ... on Wikipedia to show students that it cannot be relied upon".  He doesn't elaborate on why his students need such a personal demonstration of vandalism in order to take on board his message.  Perhaps the entry standards at Brunel are low.  But still, I doubt he would go around tricking old people (e.g. "all the buses are cancelled today, dear, you might as well go back home") to prove to some psychology students that some individuals really are cruel enough to go around tricking old people.
So he can keep his 'academic practice advice', as far as I'm concerned.  But anyway it's useful for us to be aware of this mentality.  Perhaps the above URL could be used as a reference in the "expose, through vandalism, what they perceive to be flaws in Wikipedia's design" bit, in Wikipedia:The motivation of a vandal#Other motivations of vandalism.  Open4D (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of "exposing perceived flaws" 

message: I used to be a former vandal. I did state my reasons why here. If this is any help to the essay, i'm happy to help. There's a lot of variation in motivation so maybe it should be expanded. --Saltedcake (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something to note 

message: I found the whole essay interesting but especially the section about ex-Wikipedia contributors turning vandal. I was away for about a year and when I returned I was shocked by the number of well-known (to me) editors who had been here a long time (over 3 years, some a great deal more) who, during the time I was away, were banned for sock-puppetry sometimes involving vandalism. What would cause productive editors to violate known rules when it is so easy to catch people? If someone could explain this, that might lead to some insight that could help prevent rogue editors in the future. Or, perhaps, the reasons are too individualized in each case to generalize about. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former editors 

message: see: the IP that I used when i was seven years old: Special:Contributions/76.183.255.21 MDaxo (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A lot of vandalism edits are just from little kids who have internet access and don't know better