Forum:Wikipedia vandalism at its finest

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Wikipedia vandalism at its finest
Note: This topic has been unedited for 4896 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I'm a Wikipedian (for those of you who don't know), and I have officially gotten fed up with the policies at Wikipedia. So, a friend of mine and myself did some nice vandalism. Below is one vandalism:

Click here

The next one was the very first vandalism I ever did on Wikipedia when I first started getting frustrated with them. I did this from my old IP address as oppose to my actual Wikipedia username:

African beer

This next one links the Queen Latifah article to the Obesity article:


I uploaded a fine Uncyclopedia picture and put it on the Tom Cruise article. You may have to scroll down to find it in the article:

Tom Cruise

This last one is about Hilary Duff, made by my good friend Pcgamermofo:

Hilary Duff

Just thought I should share my most recent Wikipedia contributions with you all. Thank you. -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 02:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody cares. Maj.png Major Sir Hinoa (Plead) (KUN) 02:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The Great Gitten Huffs of 1800-2006 would be more interesting to you. --The Great Gitten Huff of 1820 03:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So... who here enjoys music? -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 02:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I only enjoy music if at least 50 percent of its lyrical content is profanity. --Sign2.pngSarinZero (blabber )Sign2.png 02:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah?! Well...let's see what happens when you all need me when I'm at the top! -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 02:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
At the top of what? The banned users list? --Composure1 02:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
That's impossible. There is an immense surplus of stupidity around here... he'd never be able to stay on top! Besides, he's a chinchilla! --Sign2.pngSarinZero (blabber )Sign2.png 02:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually impressed that the Tom Cruise pictre is still there over 2 hours after it was put in. That's got to count for something! I'd like to see how long it lasts. Nobody reading this is allowed to go and revert it either, on the penalty of being called stupid, and a game spoiler. Or something. Spang talk 03:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey emc.... GET A LIFE. Really, vandalism of wikipedia isn't exactly the height of anything, except stupid. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha, I totally saw that when it was happening... but I decided to let it go because half the bands I had never heard of and honestly didn't know whether or not they were christian rock. HOMESTAR ME!!! TURTLE ME!!! t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 06:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I must admit, however, that Tom Cruise picture is really classy. The fact it wasn't reverted reflects on the quality of that image. I hope it stays for a while longer. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 06:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tumbleweed rolls by... --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 09:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Banned for a week, because idiots who think they'll impress us by vandalising Wikipedia need a healthy slap with a wet fish. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 09:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

ED is another matter... --AAA! (AAAA) 07:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Haha, nice! Is this the first instance of someone getting banned on here for vandalizing a different site? --Composure1 14:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the term "precedent". ;-) -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 17:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
User:flameviper got his ban lengthened because of it. --Sbluen 17:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Tom Cruise using Dianetics.
I am not impressed by vandals. He should have written funny articles here instead. Besides everyone knows that this picture of Tom Cruise is funnier:

--2nd_Lt Orion Blastar (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think they would do the opposite at Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Sbluen 17:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, vandalizing The-Wiki-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named can earn you a cookie for services to the internet. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 21:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • You guys do what you think best, but unless we can set up some sort of mutual agreement between ourselves and Wikipedia (and a tacit one would be OK), whereby they're willing to impose sanctions on their users who come over here and vandalize our site, then it would probably be a bad idea to make a habit of banning our users for vandalizing WP, even if (as in this case) our user is using the same username here that he's using over there.
    Admittedly, my definition of what constitutes "vandalism by Wikipedians" is about as broad as a definition can possibly get, but I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that not all precedents are good ones.  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that he got banned for "trying to impress us by vandalizing" and not for the vandalous activities themselves.---Asteroid B612B612.jpg (aka Rataube) - Ñ 01:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps... but think of it this way: If we ban people for trying to impress us with WP vandalism, then nobody will post things like this here for fear of being banned, and we'll all probably miss out on seeing what might be some really cool vandalism.  c • > • cunwapquc? 04:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't "really cool vandalism" an oxymoron? --Composure1 13:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The "precedent" comment was a joke; each case for possible banning should of course always be judged by itself. But think of it this way; some guy knocks on your door, and tells you how he spraypainted your neighbour's house pink and orange in the night. You're going to be a bit wary about leaving him unattended on your property, no? To strain the analogy to breaking point, it also turns out that you own a big white wall where people are welcome to paint lovely murals, but he chose to daub slogans on the lovely 19th-century brownstone next door instead. My main reason for blocking this guy (other than the fact that it slightly amused me), is violation of golden rule #2: Don't be a dick. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 10:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The thing is that many users don't see us and WP as neighbours. They get the wrong impression that we are "enemies". Silly.---Asteroid B612B612.jpg (aka Rataube) - Ñ 16:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and it has been pointed out to me that the above linked page says "Although nobody is empowered to ban or block somebody for being a dick (as this would be an instance of being a dick), it is still a bad idea to be one". Since we all know I'm already a dick, this clause is therefore null and void. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 00:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean neighbours in the sense of 'barely tolerating each other's existence, ready to call the cops over the slightest provocation?' Anyway, if we let our users go over there and vandalise, then we might get a backlash of Wikipedians coming over here and inserting tedious facts, useless jokes or tedious and self righteous sermonising. 16:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the silly view I was talking about a few lines above. Don't you know what a parody is? A parody can't be good (and I think we are a great one) if it doesn't have a very high apreciation (if not fasination) with the thing it's parodying. Cervantes did like Knight novels and Mel Brooks did like Star Wars.---Asteroid B612B612.jpg (aka Rataube) - Ñ 16:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I love Wikipedia, that's why all the articles I edit I try and make more encyclopedic. I just hate Wikipedians. I think of it as a 'love the crime, hate the criminals' approach. 19:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to put this in perspective

I know I'm not going to win many friends for taking a stand on this, and obviously this is just my opinion anyway, but all this talk of "neighbors" and "enemies" sounds like over-generalization to me. Both sites are collections of highly disparate users who range from completely humorless (which includes a few people here) to completely wacky (which includes a few people there). We do have enemies over there, and they have enemies over here too — that's a plain and simple fact. All I'm really saying is that we should maintain a respectful distance from them, and actions like this shorten that distance.

Regardless, let's look at this situation more closely: EMC is a well-established Wikipedian with over 1,500 edits, and a link to Uncyclopedia at the top of his WP user page. (He's also a well-established contributor here, as we all know.) But after finding out what he'd done, as described above, the Wikipedia folks did not block him for it. And AFAIK, this is the first time something like this has happened, i.e., an established Wikipedian vandalized Wikipedia, posted about it here, and got blocked here, but not there.

Now, don't jump to conclusions — I'm not saying what he did was a good thing. In fact, to some extent, this is precisely the sort of thing I despise: Wikipedians treating Uncyc like some sort of dumping-ground for their weird revenge fantasies. But what EMC did not do was spork crap articles from WP and spam them here because he couldn't stand to see them get deleted. (I would dearly love to see Wikipedia users blocked from editing Wikipedia for doing that, but that's just never going to happen!) EMC also has not (to my knowledge) gotten into flamewars, edit wars, or link/template-spamming, on either site. (However, he has been known to impersonate an admin on occasion.)

Long story short, with all due respect to Codeine, I just think a week is too much, even if this isn't his first offense. It's very easy to underestimate the amount of frustration people can build up over at Wikipedia, and if it boils over for a "cross-wiki" user in a way that embarrasses us, yes that's bad, and certainly not something we want to encourage... but IMO the punishment should fit the crime a little better than it did in this case.  c • > • cunwapquc? 03:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your points are, as always, erudite and well-argued, SU. And yeah, maybe a week was too harsh. EMC owes you a drink. However, do bear in mind that this is actually not the first example of someone being blocked for being a disruptive influence at Wikipedia. I do understand the frustration that people can experience with Wikipedia's ceaseless bureaucracy; however, the answer is not to lash out violently in response. People who do that in real life tend to earn themselves reputations as "loose cannons", and for good reason. Wiki vandalism is ineffective and stupid[1]. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 09:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. Except against ED and/or the Nazi wiki
Right. The only sensible response we can make is to respond to people's frustration with Wikipedia's bureaucracy with a dose of our own ceaseless bureaucracy...=P R 04:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

His real motive

I think he really did it to impress Jodie Foster and not Uncyclopedia. --2nd_Lt Orion Blastar (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you create that article just for that comment, or write this comment as a plug for your new article? 14:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
My real motive wasn't to impress anybody. I find it adorable how everybody seems to think that there was a real "motive" behind my actions: there wasn't. It wasn't to impress anybody, especially not Jodie Foster. I was just bored. Excuse my actions. -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 20:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I freely admit that I did both to impress Jodie Foster. It got me a lunch date with her. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

His fake motive

Is this true, EMC? That whole "I have officially gotten fed up with the policies at Wikipedia" thing was essentially a lie, and you only did that because you were bored? Or are you really saying this because you're uncomfortable with all the fuss this has caused? Personally, I think you'd be better off having done it as more of a "statement" — that would imply that you simply wanted to make a point and were unlikely to do it again, whereas doing something like that out of boredom practically equates you with the sort of person who would deliberately throw garbage on the floor of your office or cubicle and tell anyone who saw you that "the cleaning staff will pick it up."
This is going to sound a little didactic, but vandalism, especially crass vandalism, actually empowers the oligarchy at Wikipedia - in many ways, it's the very basis of their so-called power. (To some extent, that's also true here, I suppose, but to a far lesser degree.) If they wanted to, they could institute all sorts of semi-intelligent parsing algorithms to prevent at least 80-90 percent of vandalizations from even being made at all, but they haven't (though they're testing something in Germany now that might be a first step towards this). The reason they've resisted (or back-burnered) such automatied measures is that vandalism gives them a clear and highly visible reason to exist, not to mention an easily-identifiable and largely unsympathetic enemy to "fight." And since that enemy keeps coming, and never stops, the inevitable result is a form of "fortress mentality" - precisely the sort of mindset that leads to frustration on the part of people like you.
Long story short, EMC, you'd be wise to listen to Codeine and others here on this page — vandalism is stupid and useless. You can do better!
Personally, when I'm bored, I like to play golf or go to the driving range, or if it's dark, I play the piano, or try an exotic recipe of some sort. (This is assuming there's no football on TV, of course.) Anything will do, really, other than vandalizing wikis, and of course touching yourself in unmentionable places... Just remember, I'm counting on you! We're all counting on you!  c • > • cunwapquc? 05:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to have to go with touching yourself. 09:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
For -- sannse esnnas 14:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
ZOMG lawl ur a n00b, itz dun & overr!!!111one1 -- [sire] EMC [TALK] 21:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
What? you mean you are already touching yourself? -- sannse esnnas 17:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)