Ah, I see, thank you. That's definitely badly written, but I think that the rest of the paragraph makes it clear that it goes beyond a narrow interpretation of

Ah, I see, thank you. That's definitely badly written, but I think that the rest of the paragraph makes it clear that it goes beyond a narrow interpretation of "vandals": Only add vandals that have a need to be pointed out, especially ones whose contributions could be confused for good-faith edits by somebody unfamiliar with their modus operandi. This includes sneaky sockpuppeteers, prolific trolls, POV-pushers, editors who add deliberately false or biased information and promotional editors. In particular, that's excluding the kind of drive-by abuse that I associate with "vandalism", the equivalent of graffiti by writing irrelevant and/or offensive things on pages just to prove that they can. So I think they should definitely replace the word "vandals" with "abusers" there. (And, uh, maybe somebody should, since that is itself a wiki page.)