None of the warning templates appear to have belowmentioned proposed fields. Would you like them? If yes, what tools would need to be extended to support these new fields? Gryllida (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
If set, shows a line to invite invite contributor to participate in the WikiProject(s). You can set it based on the categories of the article s/he edited. Gryllida (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Would someone please take a look at the article "Modern Family (season 5)"? I went to this article to fix a "Checkwiki error #95. Encyclopedia articles should never link to or transclude any userspace pages" problem. Seems like every edit on May 15 could be reverted, but handling vandalism is not my area of expertise. Thanks.
--LukasMatt (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
As I continue to do fixes for Checkwiki, I'm encountering more and more vandalism recently. Can I just start a list here of articles that need vandalism reverted? If you prefer a different method (besides me reverting the vandalism--vandals give me a headache), let me know.
I've checked them and did what I could, but I don't think this is a right venue or a convenient way of getting this done. Most of these edits seem to be experimental (WP:NOTVAND) rather than blatant vandalism (which you can obviously revert yourself). Patrolling recent changes, using CHECKWIKI or vandalism detection tools, you will no doubt find countless edits such as these daily--I know it can be frustrating. I thinks it's best you revert the obvious and leave the rest if you're not up to it; they are not so 'damaging' and someone else may fix it anyway. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
As you wrote, I do revert the blatant ones. Frustrating–I have a headache right now from today's CHECKWIKI fixing and all of the blatant vandalism and related kin encountered. I hate to just leave them, which lowers the quality of Wikipedia, but fixing less-than-constructive edits is not my cup of tea. Thanks for your efforts. I really do like my "table", though. For GEOC, I copy edit files flagged with {{copy edit}}. For CHECKWIKI, I fix errors identified by their programs. However, in my every-bum-in-the-gutter-has-an opinion, the articles that I listed in the table fall under the purview of your Wikiproject. If I can fix the blatant vandalism, then who else but your Wikiproject should fix the convoluted ones?
Leaflet for Counter-Vandalism Unit at Wikimania 2014
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
Can I leave this with someone here to deal with, please? I want to remain distant as if this is David Butler (as the second link I've placed above suggests) then I've met him in real life and don't want to introduce a conflict.
Apparent vandalism was committed by 1.178.84.59 to Liberal Party, and then restored after reversion. I reverted the restored content, and informed/warned the IP in an edit summary and on their talk page. Then 1.178.155.63 (who is presumably the same person) restored the content again. I have not yet reverted this edit.
Should I treat 1.178.155.63 as though they are independent of 1.178.84.59, and give the IP a level 1 vandalism warning? I suspect this approach will only lead to repetitive IP changing and a long edit-war. What should be done? JKDw (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they are probably the same person given the circumstances, a dynamic IP address. I've reverted their edit since it was unsourced and given a warning to provide a citation. While I wouldn't say this is blatant vandalism, it's still bordering on disruptive editing--adding unsourced POV content. If this dynamic IP continues giving trouble in that page, I suggest you post it at the WP:RPP. Good day, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Jerod, but I don't see what you want us to do. Is this just a case of vandalism? In that case, why not just fix it? That's a non-rhetorical question. Achowat (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Notice to participants at this page about adminship
Participants here work hard to revert vandalism and often use the WP:AIV page. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
Sory for pinging you anyway. But I have another question, what is the qualification for granting rollback permission rights, and how do I add a tags on any edits that is possibly a vandalism? Hamham31Heke!KushKush!23:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
@Hamham31: Not sure if you have this page watchlisted, so I'll ping you for now. There is no set requirement, however I recommend that you'd have a month or so of experience in counter-vandalism. Here is when I got accepted! Don't forget that if someone has 4 warnings already in their talk page, then report them to WP:AIV. For your second question, the tags are automatically added by Wikimedia managed bots (something like that, not users though) to edits that have been filtered. Dat GuyTalkContribs14:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, thank you for your information. I'll be reviewing more of that for now. This will really helps me a lot to understand the process of handling and fighting vandalism here in Wikipedia. Hamham31Heke!KushKush!23:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed that here you manually created the page and added the warning. You can use Twinkle to do that! Just go to the menu (to the right of history, page, etc.) and hover over it. Then go down to warn, and add the proper warning. I'd suggest you check what the templates produce. To go into a level 2 warning, click on the first bar and go down to the level 2 warning. Finally, don't forget there are single issue notices and single issue warnings. Dat GuyTalkContribs09:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Counter-Vandalism Unit. You have new messages at Hamham31's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Notice to participants at this page about adminship
Many participants here constantly evaluate contributions, have a good understanding of editor behaviour, and decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:
How do I join this program? Is there a place where I sign up and what do I do? I want to join this team in order to eventually get rollback privileges but I don't know how to join. Thanks. NikolaiHo03:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
@Espoo:Perhaps you were referring to quotations, inserted as in your example using the {{Quotation}} template? - as there could be many valid reasons to change a citation, but not a quotation unless there was something wrong with it when first added. Changes to quotations could be deemed suitable for tagging by an edit filter, and you could request the creation of such a filter here; bear in mind that each new filter increases processing time for every edit. As for bots, the main counter-vandalism one is User:ClueBot NG, which examines all edits as they are made and reverts those it identifies as almost certainly vandalism: Noyster (talk),23:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
It was clear what meaning of the word citation i was referring to since i gave an example of the kind of vandalism we need to protect Wikipedia against. In addition, "quotation", not "act of quoting" or "reference to source" is the first meaning of the word citation in many dictionaries. It's also no coincidence that the article you linked to is called Wikipedia:Citing sources, not Wikipedia:Citations, and points out that this meaning of the word is also expressed as "reference". In addition, a dishonest change of the quotation in a reference is of course also an insidious change of the reference, i.e. of the citation in your use of the word.
Since dishonest claims of the contents of cited sources are the most dangerous and insidious form of vandalism, it's quite amazing that we apparently don't yet have an automated process of at least checking (or at the very least flagging) any changes in the cited words. It should be in addition possible to check whether claims of a source existing and claims of it containing specific wording are true or not, including all printed sources accessible thru Google Books. --Espoo (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we don't have that information, though most established users are not. You'd need to provide a reasonable definition of an "editor" on Wikipedia, as everyone can be an editor, and I don't think we know what fraction of edits are vandalism. It changes a lot. Adotchar| reply here10:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
2016 Community Wishlist Survey proposal to make finding vandalism faster in watchlists and RC pages
Suppression of edit history to protect children of BLP article subject
This edit by an anonymous IP added, into an article about a living person, the purported names of that person's children. The edit did not provide any evidence that the children themselves are notable, nor indeed that the information was accurate. I have therefore reverted the edit. However, it remains publicly visible via the article's revision history. In order to protect the identities of these children from doxxing attempts, is there a provision for that edit to be made not publicly visible? If so, please can you direct me to the relevant Wikipedia documentation? Thanks. zazpot (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Zazpot: Hiding revisions and log entries from view, known as revision deletion or revdel, is governed by the revision deletion and oversight policies. In this case, an oversighter determined that the edit was supressable under the first oversight criterion: Removal of non-public personal information. In the future, do not post diffs of potentially suppressable edits on-wiki. Instead, use the email list or type !oversight in #wikipedia-en-revdelconnect to contact an oversighter privately. For standard revdel requests, contact an administrator using Special:EmailUser or use !admin <your request> in #wikipedia-en-revdel. --AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 15:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
AntiCompositeNumber, many thanks for this. Apologies for the unintentional misstep re: posting the diff. I felt that it was urgent to protect the children's privacy, but I only had a minute or so spare to act on it yesterday. I searched for an appropriate help article before posting here, but (due to not initially guessing the right search keywords, I suppose) did not find WP:revision deletion or WP:oversight before I came close to running out of time, hence my question here and my link to the diff. Thanks again for your guidance! zazpot (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Anti Vandalism tools
I am a fairly new wikipedian and I decided to dedicate myself to fighting vandals. I am contributing with google chrome and mac os. Are there any good tools to ease monitoring RTRC list? - FriyMan (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The WMF Collaboration Team is looking into ways to improve Huggle. We've proposed a suite of new tools aimed mostly at helping reviewers get better information about edits in the queue. There's a page on Mediawiki that describes the project's goals and proposed improvements.
Ok, so I met an IP user who has reverted vandalism lots of times, however he refuses to issue warnings to shared IP's! I saw a reversion made by him and the fact that the IP which was a school IP had not been warned. I tried talking to him/her over this issue but he/she seems to blank their own talk page every time and replies via edit summaries only! When I tried asking him not to black his talk page and to have meaningful discussion, he replaced everything there with a link to the Wikipedia policy which allows a user to blank their own talk page. So my question is whether he's right in his approach of not leaving warnings when reverting vandalism. If not, how should we get him to talk regarding this matter. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Userboxen for CVU awards.
I have created two userboxen for CVU awards. I believe that CVU awards should be reformatted from barnstar-like to something like million award. Here are my userboxen:
@FriyMan: i agree with your proposal, maybe they can complement the barnstars! Like we can add this to the user page of users who have received barnstars for counter vandalism! Yashovardhan (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi,
Recently I've noticed that there is ongoing Vandalism on BOLP - Nara Lokesh. Lokesh is a Minister in the cabinet of Andhra Pradesh and from last one month, he is being trolled seriously in Social media which lead to penal actions against some of them. Especially these trollers are using a troll nickname for minister.
Recently I noticed that same Troll nickname is being used in his Wikipedia page and while I searched History of the page, people even started reverting those anonymous edits. Even though reverts are being done, Vandals again vandalizing the page. I would like to take this to your notice about ongoing vandalism. Thank you.
--Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I guess what my main question is, how is this different from normal anti-vandalism actions? I already have the following rights: extended confirmed user, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker, and new page reviewer. So I know something about anti-vandalism. I'm not new. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 14:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this is useful (maybe could be incorporated into an edit filter) or not, but I have noticed a number of VOAs have the number "69" in there usernames, and that bad-faith edits often contain the number "69" or large numbers alternating 6s and 9s, like "696969" they always seem to start with 6 and end with 9. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
A nice little puzzle for you
I'm trying to tease as much information as possible out of the author of this post. I haven't yet figured it out, but maybe some of you have some good ideas? --Slashme (talk) 21:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Isn't the best hoax one where you're sent looking for a hoax that doesn't exist? Petscan might be a good tool. Look for pages that transclude the EB1911 or EB1922 template and are in a category such as 16th-century Russian people. Mduvekot (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, I've done a PetScan for all Russian religious leaders with any of the EB templates (did I miss any?), and only found two pages which don't mention any people who are at all uncertain. Without the template restriction, it's 270 pages, which would not be impossible for me to scan through in an evening. If the hoax is real but it isn't even on an article about a Russian religious figure, we don't have enough information here. --Slashme (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I reverted three edits within about ten minutes on the Louis Armstrong article. The first two were pretty subtle by [[2]]. This account is only responsible for two edits, but the editor wrote Tag: Possible vandalism in the edit summary. A second editor followed with explicit vandalism, substituting Louis Armstrong with Mr. Robot.
I warned the account, when you see vandalism, revert it and warn the vandal, if it is bad enough to warrant a block, (vandalism after final warning, or account apperes to be only used for vandalism) then report it to WP:AIV. Admins don't patrol this talk page, so if you want anyone to see your report, report the vandal to WP:AIV. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions about this, I do a lot of vandalism removal. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Tornado chaser:
I do have a few questions. When I see vandalism, it is usually overt and originating from an IP. In this case, it looks like two accounts were created just for making bad edits. With the first account, the edits were not overt. A few minutes later, someone created a new account an immediately created two edits which were overt vandalism. Should I still just revert and warn, or does this call for something more severe? I have bookmarked WP:AIV. thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
HickoryOughtShirt?4 It's easy if you install Twinkle and use the welcoming or warning tabs. There are those who object to using "semi-automated" tools like Twinkle but it is very handy for a wide range of routine editing operations. But if you prefer to send them an individual message, just select the red link to their talk page and type into the blank editing box: Noyster (talk),09:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I have another question! If a user is currently blocked for 31 hours for vandalizing one page should I still leave them a message if I see another page they vandalized?
HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
No, just revert the vandalism and only give fresh warnings for any further misdeeds committed after the block is expired. Further vandalism within 24 hours of coming off a block may be reported straight to AIV: Noyster (talk),10:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
DNS records are meant to be verifiable, and as such should be acceptable for reference in the bibliography of articles.
If concerted efforts have been successful to block contributors based on allegations of 'unverifiability' and or 'vandalism', the matter of false-flagging becomes an issue of abuse-of-wikipriviledges.
207.228.146.67 (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
New option for reading difficult diffs
Quick note to say that folks who regularly deal with diffs may be particularly interested in the Beta Feature for visual diffs. Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and scroll about halfway down the list to find it.
Here's the main reason why you might be interested:
In the old diff mode, none of the text changes, such as the removal of the word not, are marked at all, because the paragraphs were re-arranged. Here, they're highlighted. The toggle box at the top lets you switch back and forth, so you can use both for the same diff. Some changes are easier to spot in one mode, and others in the other mode, so the system is set up to let you use both. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Thanks for the help. This user is still going at it under different accounts and from different IP addresses. Quite a few of them can be seen from the article on Thromboangiitis obliterans. While changing the meaning of a name to something stupid is just stupid vandalism, this user is also changing information in medical articles, which is a much bigger problem. -Yupik (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
What is the best way for me to seek out vandalism?
Good afternoon. I'm still relatively new but I volunteered to help CVU a few days ago. It seems that I'm not yet qualified to host some of the anti-vandal tools which might be useful. I've got Twinkle but that's all. I've found that loading the special page listing recent edits is time-consuming and, as a result, I feel discouraged. Is there a better way for a new member to try and help? Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Izzat Kutebar Hello, I like to check out Special:PendingChanges for suspicious looking edits, usually removals. Also there is Special:RecentChanges and if you turn on ORES (a detector that analyzes edits for probability of vandalism) in your preferences that makes finding bad edits a little bit easier. After you become extended confirmed, you can apply to use STiki and Huggle, external applications which have their own queues and can save you a lot of time. cinco de L3X1◊distænt write◊17:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, L3X1. Thank you for the useful advice. When would I become extended confirmed, though? Is it so many edits or a time period? Thanks again. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Another way is to patrol new user accounts. Look for rude usernames, etc. This finds vandals that are currently vandalizing hot off the press. It is also an education into what new users are like and why they are here. For example, you will encounter usernames like Bob's Plumbing and Electric, with the first edit at their userpage with "Call us. 34559-23445-366 Toledo!" You will encounter users needing welcoming too! Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Looking through the history of this page, it seems that most of the IP edits are disruptive or outright vandalism. Would it make sense to have this page permanently semi-protected? It just seems silly that the CVU page is still vulnerable to this. — AfroThundr (u · t · c)02:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey everybody. my account User:TheMorningBell is blocked indefinitely, because I moved the article Northern Bitcoin (it took me several weeks to do this - and yes - it has the notability for wikipedia.. ) from my userspace into the article space. I revealed before on my userpage and on the discussion page, that I'm paid to edit this and that I'm a employee. The article got deleted (without any AfD-discussion) and I'm blocked.. could somebody help me? I have no idea what I should do now :( --2A02:810D:4CC0:31B8:98A:D52E:6D7A:C3BB (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC) - and yes.. it feels like vandalism for me
Declaring your conflict of interest does not mean that you are permitted to edit without restriction. You are still required to edit within Wikipedia's policies. I can't see the article as it has been deleted, but it was speedily deleted under criterion G11 as clear advertisement or promotion, and your account was blocked as an account that was only being used for advertising or promotion. User:MER-C is the administrator who deleted this article and imposed the sanctions. They have been notified and may come to this page and explain further. If you would like to appeal your block and/or topic ban, there are instructions for doing both on your talk page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 03:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. Declaration is necessary, but not sufficient. You still violated WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMO and general sanctions were authorized for this topic to counter exactly this type of editing. MER-C10:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
No. You are prohibited from editing topic banned from all blockchain and cryptocurrency related content even if you are unblocked. MER-C09:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
March 2019 talk with ElHef by Thekidn1 (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi I’m a Disney imagineer and my stuff was reverted for vandalism. I’m sorry. My younger son got ahold of my phone and did that for fun to show his friends. I hope this is the right spot. Sorry, but plz put my thing on Nevada back. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.55.95.93 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any edits from this IP address that should be added back to the Nevada article. If you'd like to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, I invite you to continue editing and feel free to do so. Better yet, create an account! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh. I can’t make an account for some reason. My computer doesn’t allow me for some stupid reason. Sorry, Me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.55.95.93 (talk)
Thanks a lot ElHef. You have helped me a lot. Once again, thanks!🙂 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.55.95.93 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
PS the two edits my kids got ahold of my phone. Sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekidn1 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok, now it works on computer. thanks for help Thekidn1 (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
A request (this section is irrelevant and should not be on this talk page anymore since the subject article has been deleted)
The section below is irrelevant and should not be on this talk page anymore since the subject article has been deleted. I tried to delete it, but BilCat insists it not be deleted because BilCat thinks it is poor form to delete talk page sections where others have commented, even in this situation. I think it should obviously be deleted, because no one can vandalize a deleted article or help with vandalism that cannot take place any more. Led8000 (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Led8000: I see an edit war between two editors, not vandalism. That means that both you and User:Ineedtostopforgetting are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that the other editor disagrees. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. The article has been temporarily protected from editing to allow such discussions to take place. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@ElHef: It is not an edit war, it is vandalism. There is nothing to agree or not agree about or discuss. The list is right there at the source at cia.gov. I even followed along with this ridiculous accusation that an administrator made before, and added my argument on the talk page and pinged the user actively vandalizing the page. He did not respond, and vandalized in the same way without explanation (and there is no explanation that justifies changing the list to be inaccurate anyway). Led8000 (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The section above is irrelevant and should not be on this talk page anymore since the subject article has been deleted. I tried to delete it, but BilCat insists it not be deleted because BilCat thinks it is poor form to delete talk page sections where others have commented, even in this situation. I think it should obviously be deleted, because no one can vandalize a deleted article or help with vandalism that cannot take place any more. Led8000 (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Done: hope that's all there is to it, just that minor one right? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
