Wikipedia:Identifying test edits

Patrolling recent changes to articles is a major task to which many editors dedicate a significant amount of time. Nonconstructive or disruptive edits vary widely in how difficult they are to identify. Some edits are blatant vandalism and are easily recognized even by novice editors. Others can be difficult even for experienced patrollers to identify or handle properly. They may fall into "grey areas", be open to more than one interpretation, or appear to be either sneaky vandalism or a harmless experiment by a new user who is simply unaware of Wikipedia's policies. A question that many recent changes patrollers, particularly those patrolling for vandalism, will occasionally ask is, "Is this vandalism or a test edit?"

Understanding the difference between the two is important because it affects how we should handle the situation. Remember that vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." While test edits are certainly deliberate, they are usually made to "see what this will do" or "see if this works", rather than with the intention of damaging Wikipedia. Test edits should generally be reverted manually, with the undo function, or with a patrolling or reversion tool that simplifies the process. When using the rollback function to revert a test edit, an edit summary must be provided, since rollback is intended by default for reverting obvious vandalism only. The warning or message left on the editor's talk page will also differ depending on the type of edit and other circumstances. For example, the warning templates for test edits and vandalism are worded differently, but they both initially assume good faith and eventually treat continued disruptive editing as intentional misconduct after repeated warnings. You don't want to make the mistake of warning someone for vandalism when their edit was not actually vandalism; it can come across as biting a newcomer, particularly if they take offense at being wrongly accused. It may even drive them away from Wikipedia, which is an outcome we absolutely want to avoid.

Distinguishing test edits from vandalism, assuming good faith, and properly handling 'grey area' situations can be challenging. However, these are essential skills for vandalism patrollers to develop. The ability to recognize ambiguous situations, avoid jumping to conclusions, and respond appropriately is one of the qualities that distinguishes experienced patrollers from inexperienced ones. This essay will help you distinguish between test edits and vandalism.

Remember what is and is not vandalism

This essay assumes that you know and understand what is and is not vandalism. Forms of disruptive editing, such as incivility, copyright violations, content disputes, violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, and verifiability violations, are not test edits. Similarly, common good-faith mistakes such as typos, editing the wrong page, adding a discussion to a user page or article instead of its talk page, or edits that others would reasonably believe are competence-related are also not test edits and are outside the scope of this essay. Edits that fall outside the scope of obvious vandalism or test edits by newcomers should be identified and handled according to the circumstances. If the user has a history of trolling and blatant disruption (such as long-term abuse or sock puppetry), you should use your best judgment and handle each situation according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This essay generally applies to articles and pages outside the user's own sandbox, their own user or user talk space, or other Wikipedia sandboxes. Edits that occur within a user's own sandbox or user space and fall into the "vandalism or test edit grey area" are usually test edits and can generally be left alone.

Typical test edits

Test edits are usually quick, small, or perhaps even careless changes that appear to be intended to "see if this works" or "see what this will do". They can also consist of the removal of content with similar intent. If you know that the edit needs to be reverted but you cannot decide whether the edit is vandalism or a test edit, it's always best to assume good faith and proceed with the assumption that the edit was a test edit. A warning that is "too soft" and directs the user to use the sandbox for test edits will generally come across more positively than one that is too harsh and implies that their edit was vandalism. New users who have their good-faith edits reverted with warnings about vandalism may react negatively to your actions. Nobody likes having a good-faith contribution immediately undone and then being told that it was made with bad intentions. Keep this in mind when deciding how to handle the situation.

Typical test edits will often contain one or more of the following traits:

• It may add random words such as "test" or "hi", short phrases such as "hello world!", or other text commonly associated with test edits.
• It may add a small number of random characters or letters, patent nonsense, or careless keystrokes in only one place, without being combined with content removal or other potentially disruptive changes.
• It may add the account's username in one place, or replace a name, word, or small number of words with the account's username.
• It may remove a single word or a small number of words from the article.
• It may add a letter or a small number of letters to a word, making the word incorrect without changing it into a different word or substantially changing its meaning. The resulting word will usually no longer make sense or will appear to contain a typo.
• It may add a small or moderate number of empty reference tags, default formatting elements such as "Bold text" or "Italic text", or lists or image galleries containing "Example.jpg" or "Example". This is usually the result of experimenting with the formatting toolbar or attempting to add content using the VisualEditor.
• It may involve a subtle modification to a template, table, or similar object. The modification may have a significant impact on the article even though the edit itself is small.
• It may be made to an article that was created by the editor, or to an article that clearly appears to be "under construction".
• It may, particularly in combination with one of the traits above, include an edit summary such as "testing", an explanation that the edit is a test, or patent nonsense or gibberish.

Editing behaviors that should also be considered when determining if an edit is a test:

• A test edit will usually not be repeated after it is reverted and the user receives an appropriate warning on their talk page.
• Test edits will usually not follow edits made by the same user that are blatant vandalism, egregious policy violations, or obvious trolling.
• Test edits may contain an edit summary that is careless or perhaps typical of editors who vandalize Wikipedia. In this case, you should use your best judgment and base your determination on the actual changes made rather than the edit summary.

Blatant vandalism

Edits that are blatant vandalism are performed with the intention of damaging Wikipedia:

• They contain large amounts of profanity and are made with the intention of disrupting the article.
• They remove large amounts of content from multiple unrelated articles with the apparent intention of causing disruption, usually in combination with other changes that are blatant policy violations.
• They repeatedly modify static numerical or chronological facts such as weights, heights, measurements, dimensions, dates, populations, or formulas by changing them to values that are obviously impossible or untrue, even after the user has received multiple warnings.
• They add blatant or egregious insults about living people to biographical articles.
• They add egregious racist, sexist, or otherwise harmful statements with the intention of offending others, or unreferenced content that is blatantly false or libelous. In general, these edits require revision deletion.
• They blank article pages or replace their entire contents with silly phrases, insults, or other statements to cause disruption.
• They replace names, places, or factual information with references to internet memes, jokes, or other humor that has no relevance to the article.
• They insult, "challenge", or threaten Wikipedia editors who previously reverted the user's vandalism or left a warning on the user's talk page for such disruption.
• They tell editors who have reverted the user's previous edits to "stop reverting my fun changes" or to "fuck off", sometimes in all capital letters and with numerous exclamation points.
• They insult or harass Jimbo Wales, members of the Arbitration Committee, Wikipedia administrators, Wikimedia Foundation staff, or other editors with advanced user rights.
• They blank the user pages or user talk pages of other editors, or make widespread harmful changes to them.

See also

Similar pages:

• Identifying blatant advertising
• Assume good faith
• Do not insult the vandals
• Don't stuff beans up your nose
• IPs are human too
• Not every IP is a vandal
• Revert, block, ignore
• The Motivation of a Vandal
• What is a troll?
• What is not vandalism