Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Contents of the warning templates

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)

comment

A comment from patroller to contributor. You could type one in, as feedback to a user's edit. Gryllida (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProjects

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)

A large change tricky to implement...

...which could make a large difference. Please discuss here; I've put it there to avoid archival bots. Thanks. --Gryllida (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject proposal

I would like to invite this group to the discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Neutral Editors.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

How to become

I want to be part of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. How do I Join? Anuvarshanw (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anuvarshanw, joining here is fully up to you...there is no specific 'way' do it. So since you're interested in becoming a member, you can start by searching and reverting vandalism. For that all you need to know is what falls under vandalism, read WP:VANDALISM and see the various ways of finding it at Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism. Of course, you can join the Counter-Vandalism Academy and get yourself personally trained there. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Probable Vandalism in Modern Family (season 5)

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)

Maybe it was because of this IPs signature which I just removed? No big deal. Otherwise that IP also blanked out/changed sourced content on other related pages, and based on that, I've restored the content. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Suspected Vandalism

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.

Article	Problem
Manuelita (film)	11:19, 13 May 2014‎ 23.241.112.57 deleted the {{reflist}}
Allah Ke Banday	At a minimum, these two edits are vandalism: 11:15, 17 May 2014‎ 202.134.145.118 11:03, 17 May 2014‎ 202.134.145.118 The person has eight edits.
Boli (plantain)	Every edit by 143.210.180.165 is vandalism. Main problem: External link was good originally, but now, it is trashed.
Center Cass School District 66	Newest edits are vandalism
Monticello High School (Minnesota)	This article is a mess due to several vandalisms and reverts. It is still broken. Probably should be protected.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LukasMatt (talk • contribs) 17:25, 21 May 2014‎(UTC)

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?

--LukasMatt (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Counter Vandalism Unit Training

Hi my name is Schoolskater (talk). I was wondering whether someone could help train me so that I may join the Counter Vandalism Unit. Please reply here or at my talkpage. Thanks, Schoolskater (talk) 20:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

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

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

193.62.152.126

The user at this IP address has made some edits that look like vandalism to me, for example:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keith_Haslam&diff=prev&oldid=408422304
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Parish&diff=prev&oldid=612479195

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.

Thanks! -Stelio (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done: hope that's all there is to it, just that minor one right? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Help please! and Thanks in advance!

I posted the background information on my own talk page to avoid cluttering up your page. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2.177.11.225

Feel welcome to ask questions about the vandalism (accompanied by 4 months of meat-puppetry).

It's not easy - I know. Maybe I am asking too much of you. Could you please have a look? Thanks.2.177.163.10 (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Liberal Party

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)

Alright, thanks. JKDw (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Need anti-vandal

Old revision of Interboro School District The vandal got the right new principal, then went at the page with a hammer. Jerodlycett (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Old revision of A Pair of Silk Stockings Jerodlycett (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2015 (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)

Hello police officers of Wikipedia :D

You guys are da best!Doorknob747 (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

err, thanks? -Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:01, 20 April 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:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

New member

Hello, when I register to this group? I'd like combat with vandalism.--L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 14:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

Welcome Lukaslt13, there is no "requirement" to join the group, all constructive help is welcome! To get a good overview of ways to help, try going through this page: CVU Academy — xaosflux ^Talk 15:40, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Am, thank you :).--L.ukas lt 13 --Talk 17:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13

First things first

@DatGuy: What pointers would you give me on how to fight vandalism here on English Wikipedia and how to properly deal with it? Hoping for your kind response. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 00:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hamham31: Well, I'm not sure if this is the best place to talk about it but it's fine for now. I have watchlisted this page, so there's no need to keep pinging me. Anyways, the best places to find vandalism is on the recent changes possible vandalism tag and RTRC. After you find the vandalism, you should revert it. Those are the basics. If you would like, we can go into the rollback permission, 3RR, administrators noticeboard, etc. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 06:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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 Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:12, 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)

If you want, I can check out your anti-vandalism edits and give you tips. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

OK then, you may give me a tips so I can fully understand how things goes here. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 00:04, 21 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 Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy:

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.

I guess we should continue this discussion thru my user talk. You're right, maybe this is not the place to talk about it.Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 23:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

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:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

How do I join

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. NikolaiHo 03:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Nikolaiho, Go to the WP:CVUA and contact one of the trainers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

protecting citations

Are there any bots that monitor changes in citations like this? --Espoo (talk) 05:59, 23 September 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)

Stats on vandalism and vandals

Hi, what fraction of editors on Wikipedia are vandals, and what fraction of edits are vandalism edit? thanks! Srijankedia (talk) 01:14, 18 November 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 here} 10:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey proposal to make finding vandalism faster in watchlists and RC pages

In the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey, I have written a proposal to hide edits from editors you trust in Watchlists and RC pages to make our RC patrol and watchlists much more manageable, and thus help us winnow down to vandalizing edits in a quicker manner. Please consider supporting this proposal with your vote by December 12. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

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-revdel ^connect 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)

Thank you for your counter-vandalism work FriyMan. Have you seen Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools? (I can't guarantee that all the tools listed are still working). STiki and Huggle are powerful and widely used, but you need to have some "history" before being allowed access to these: Noyster (talk), 11:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

New Huggle improvements: what do you think?

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.

We want to hear from the Huggle community, so please check out the ideas presented and tell us what you think on the project Talk page. —JMatazzoni (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

not giving vandals warning?

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:

This user has been awarded the Gold CVU Award

This user has been awarded the Silver CVU Award

FriyMan ^talk 07:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• @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)

Ongoing Vandalism & Edit wars on Nara Lokesh BOLP

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)

Page protection requested [1]. Thank you Pavan santhosh.s for drawing attention to this problem: Noyster (talk), 08:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

?

What is this and how do I join? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mr. Guye: this is group of editors that collaborate to remove and prevent vandalism from the encyclopedia. A good place to start is Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:38, 6 October 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)

CVU is a WikiProject. Joining wiki projects do not bestow any special rights or privileges to editors, it is just a way to help coordinate efforts, the same way for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains editors may coordinate about trains related material. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

69

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)

@Mduvekot: You're not the only one who thinks it probably doesn't exist: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Possible_decade-old_hoaxes. Adam9007 (talk) 01:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

That's definitely possible, but IMHO it's credible enough to warrant some investigation. --Slashme (talk) 07:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Petscan seems like the perfect tool for this kind of thing. Love it already! --Slashme (talk) 07:18, 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)

Oh, and only 158 of them were created before 2008. --Slashme (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems to have been well cleaned up by the fine folks at AN. --Slashme (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Louis Armstrong

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.

Since I started this message, there has been another act of vandalism.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Oldsanfelipe:. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

Warnings

If someone is vandalizing a page, but do not have a talk page set up how should I warn them? Should I create a talk page for them? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you should create the talk page. Maybe include a welcome template too. Mojoworker (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Would creating a new talk page just be putting their User:Name and then the message? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 07:48, 9 December 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)

Thank you! HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Another warning

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)

Thank you HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan our mascot?

WP:TAN Says she is the mascot of the CVU. I don't see her anywhere on our project page. Is this outdated info that needs to be changed? thanks L3X1 (distænt write) 22:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Some people think I'm too para-militistic.

It's more that we don't advertise our "mascot" these days because of reasons. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. ASP and riot shield isn't exactly what I would think of militaristic, but I have ran across people who had a dim view of us. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism from User:Chie one socks

Please move this section to the right place and make a note that the place you moved it to is impossible to find if you don't know where it is.

So, socks. I accidentally ran into User:BA_Anderson and reverted the edits from that account. Then I found Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chie one and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chie one. I cleaned up User:AA Miller. Two down, way too many to go for me to do alone. Alexis Jazz (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Alexis Jazz I don't know of any place to report this, save perhaps WP:AN. WP:LONGTERM doesn't have a section for The Abominable Wiki Troll, and I don't know if Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll is helpful if the accounts are already blocked and tagged. I scanned through Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Chie one and checked that the accounts had had their contribs reverted. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 14:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

False-Positive Pushing

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)

Need help from the CVU

Hello! I'm not sure what to do in this case of vandalism here on the en-wiki, because the user has an account, but often posts from random IP addresses as well. The edits are clearly identifiable as being related to each other since the user Ozzta has repeatedly changed the Eivind article to refer to burgers and burger-eaters and there are the same changes from IP addresses as well. The vandalism is not just in the Eivind article and is often missed when people revert the edits. I'd appreciate any help in countering this vandalism, as I am only sporadically on the en-wiki. -Yupik (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Yupik: Sorry for late response. In these cases just simply undo their edits and place suitable warning templates on their talk pages. You can also file a report here. The users involved have been blocked. Cheers. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 08:08, 25 May 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)

@Yupik: Requested page protection. The user may be blocked. On a different note, I suggest archiving your talk page. It's too large. Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Thank you! And I'll try to remember to get around to it :) -Yupik (talk) 01:13, 18 June 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)

@Izzat Kutebar: It's both. Extended confirmed is 30 days and 500 edits. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@ElHef:. Ah, right. I'm halfway there in both counts, then. Thanks very much. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Izzat Kutebar: You may also download WP:HG and patrol recent changes. You may have rollback permission to actually USE the software, but everyone can enable read-only mode. You can manually open the page and revert edits after you spot a vandalism in Huggle. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 02:27, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Abelmoschus Esculentus: Thank you, I intend to apply for STiki and Huggle when I become an extended/confirmed user, which won't be for another few days yet. All the best. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Izzat Kutebar: You can't apply for Huggle but you can request for rollback permission I mentioned above which allows you to get full access to the software. I haven't used STiki before, but I think Huggle is quite good ;-) ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

You can request rollback permission now, no need to be ECo. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 15:50, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again. I'll go for that. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 18:06, 27 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)

Thank you, @Anna Frodesiak: Would you believe I found a vandal straightaway? I will make use of that page too. All the best. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of sources-type vandalism?

Hio. I have been seeing multiple IP addresses remove sources (even some more recent ones like here), which I ended up reverting. Has this been addressed before? Am I wrong to revert such edits? CommanderOzEvolved (Comm-Net) (Action-Log) 13:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@CommanderOzEvolved: It's totally fine as long as you explain it in your edit summary. I've reverted tones of these edits before. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 13:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

No subject

can I join counter vandalism unit?Scout MLG (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Scout MLG: Yes ofc. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 06:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protect this page?

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)

@AfroThundr3007730:  Done by Ymblanter ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 10:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 13:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Northern Bitcoin

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-C 10:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you please put that back on my userspace, even if I'm blocked? If one day, we want to try it, we will do of course the AfC-way - and then other can decide if it is to promotional or shows a COI ... --2A01:598:B90B:4282:B9F9:FA71:5A7A:68D1 (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@MER-C: See above. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

No. You are prohibited from editing topic banned from all blockchain and cryptocurrency related content even if you are unblocked. MER-C 09:09, 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)

Sorry to hear that. If you're still having trouble, you can request an account here. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

How to join the Counter Vandalism Unit’s Academy

I don’t know how to I need some help big time plz help Thekidn1 (talk) 17:38, 27 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)

Hi, can you guys please get involved at The World Factbook list of developed countries? Led8000 (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Hey, what is that? I read it and still don't understand it. Led8000, can you help? Thekidn1 (talk) 12:34, 28 March 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)

Can you guys please help out on that page to get it fully protected and other ways to prevent vandalism? Led8000 (talk) 00:41, 16 April 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)