Possible Duplicate:
Does the rejection of a suggested edit with the reason “Vandalism” flag the post in any way?

I just ran across this suggested edit.

I'm usually fairly reluctant to use the vandalism rejection reason because I look at it as sort of the "spam flag" of rejecting suggested edits. Is it just another reason or do moderators have some way of looking through suggested edits that are rejected for vandalism?

Should there be some way to flag suggested edits that are deemed offensive, even though they will get rejected? It seems like if a user tried to do something like this in a suggested edit, they could just get away with it because it gets rejected. I know my example is a minor case, but a truly vandalizing edit shouldn't go unpunished, and I think tracking the vandalism reason is an easy way to keep track of users intentionally not using the system correctly.


No, they don't get any special treatment. It's a decline reason like all the others, it doesn't have any side-effects.

There's also nothing a moderator could do, the user is anonymous. There's no account to suspend, anyone visiting the site can make suggested edits.

If you encounter a registered user vandalizing, please use a moderator flag on any of his posts and explain what he's doing.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    It is perfectly possible for a registered user to make an edit like that, though. – animuson Apr 11 '12 at 6:26
  • I've added a sentence about that, if you observe such behaviour from a user with an account, just flag him for moderator attention. – Mad Scientist Apr 11 '12 at 6:27

Both the change and the description of the change can only be described as gibberish and can in no way be construed as an attempt to add value to the post. Add that to the fact that the edit takes a code sample and breaks it by changing its behaviour and you've got Vandalism.

Marking a Suggested Edit as Vandalism means that the data is there to be used, if needs be. Based on a quick search of meta, I don't believe anything is done with it at present, but (in the case of non-registered users) I don't doubt that the logging in place means that repeated acts of vandalism by non-registered users from a given IP/range could be blocked, but only if the data point that indicates the edits are vandalism has been recorded.

Another poster suggests that:

It seems that user just trying to figure out edit issue and if he can edit

Doesn't wash. If someone's trying to find out if they can edit, they should make a constructive edit.

| improve this answer | |
  • Who can see the IP address/IP range? – Nemo Apr 12 '15 at 7:09

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .