|This page documents an English Wikipedia
It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should
follow. Changes made to it should reflect
||This page in a nutshell: Intentionally making abusive edits to Wikipedia will result in a
||This is not the place to report vandalism, to do this please visit
Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV)
On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the
project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.
removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of
neutral point of view (which does not mean
no point of view),
no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. There, of course, exist more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant
obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism.
Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to
educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an
administrator to block (although administrators usually only block when multiple warnings have been issued).
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any
good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example,
edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. If it is clear that the person in question is (in their minds) intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits should not be labelled vandalism, even if they violate some other core policy of Wikipedia. Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful; instead of calling such problems vandalism, use the appropriate terminology to make it easier to correct. When editors are editing in good faith, mislabeling their edits as vandalism makes them less likely to respond to corrective advise or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement, for that reason you should avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user in question means to harm Wikipedia; this is even true when warning a user with
a standard warning template. Choose the correct template that most closely matches the behavior you are trying to correct.