![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
What is the most useful thing I can do if a newly-created AfC submission draft comes up in the recent changes feed I'm watching, and it is obviously a self-created article (for example Draft:BaguetteCayden).
Should I just wait for these to go through the AfC process, or is there something I should be doing to flag these when I see them to take some workload off the AfC reviewers? Exor674 ( talk) 02:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I do Wikipedia research at the University of Virginia. I am still sorting notes but I have this study to share -
In summary, the team used machine learning to examine Wikipedia users who have blocks, and used the analysis to try to predict which user accounts do not have blocks but are seemingly engaged in misconduct.
This research and practice raise all sorts of cultural and technological challenges. To advance the conversation on this I also started drafting documentation about the general concept at WP:Automated moderation. I am not seeking any particular response at this time but if anyone wants to develop our policy on human / bot interaction in moderation, then feel free. The social issues are more complicated than the technical ones. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for a rough estimate of the number of editors watching recent changes at any given time. Even an order-of- magnitude estimate would be useful. looking ideas? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 23:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi there,
While I’m new to Wikipedia, I have a particular subject matter on the the encyclopaedia which I want to start improving. I have spent a few attempts, the most recent being this evening, where I put one hours work into upgrading the article.
A contributor who has a profile for 13 years vandalised and undid all my edits even though I had not quite finished.
I would be considered a person of knowledge on the subject matter of this article in the real world.
I thought Wikipedia was interested in gaining knowledge and updates to articles. Is there something warning with the system, whereby a long term member of Wikipedia can vandalise a new contributors page because maybe there is a personal bias on the subject mater for example ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtic Musician ( talk • contribs) 22:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Having made a complaint of vandalism. Where the edits I was attempting to make were being undone by someone who is a long term member of Wikipedia, I take onboard totally the points made in references being needed. My point is, in this particular case , the policing of the edits was carried out by the actual original editor of the article who had many inaccurate statements with zero backup from real sources. I was not even been given time to finish my edits so frantic was this writer to undo my corrections. If Matt genuinely believed in the accuracy of Wikipedia instead of some idealogical belief he was protecting Wikipedia or his own article, he would have sworn this energy engaging and working with me to correct the errors on his original piece. Anyway , I’m done. Wikipedia can keep the inaccurate state article and continue to erode the original reason it was suppose to exist. I will just pursue a more trusted destination for the quality information and accuracy I can bring to that topic. Ultimately the resistance to allow improvements to Wikipedia articles without this kind of harassment only spells one trajectory for Wikipedia. Sad for the carry on. I donated a lot of funds to Wikipedia over the years also. When I believed it was a force for actually using the power of mass knowledge to improve as many encyclopaedic articles as possible.
Clearly someone in Wikipedia thinks Wikipedia is right enough now to stop improving or no longer make it easy for people to improve.
I have no time for this. I need to get back to the real world and life of now. Celtic Musician ( talk) 01:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Are this user really a member of this unit, despite the account was created on 2019-02-08 ? It seem his edits were fishy. Matthew hk ( talk) 14:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Reviews Ganging together to protect each other’s policing. Who polices the police? As the age old conundrum question of corruption goes. Best of luck guys. Celtic Musician ( talk) 06:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Too bad they don't read before they rollback. Skalle-Per Hedenhös ( talk) 12:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if the members of CVU might be able to answer a question I have about Huggle. How do I filter the queue to just vital articles? Category:All Wikipedia vital articles is applied to talk pages, so if I add it to a Huggle filter, it seems to only include pages in the Talk: namespace and not in mainspace. Is there an "include corresponding namespace" switch somewhere I'm missing, or a script, or another tool that I could use? The only thing I can think of is to add the 38k pages to my watchlist, which doesn't seem like the best idea. Also, anybody know why we apparently don't have a mainspace hidden category for vital articles? Thanks for any suggestions! – Leviv ich 23:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
As Wikipedia begins with a W, and 'wandalism' is more humourous, I think that vandalism had ought to be referred to as wandalism when it is in the context of Wikipedia. -- Beaneater00 ( talk) 14:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
If i understood my experience just now with Shrovetide correctly, we should require bot owners to check for vandalism before running them to prevent bots from making vandalism much harder to detect and fix. And why was it not possible to click on undo on this edit? There didn't seem to be any later edits that affected the parts changed by that vandalism. -- Espoo ( talk) 23:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll answer both of you at the same time. In order to not use up too much of our time and perhaps result in some change that actually improves WP, i'll try to summarize the situation and my comments, whose main points both of you misunderstood:
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace#How to handle editors chronically misusing the warning templates?. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
04:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
As good as we've gotten at finding and speedily reverting vandalism, there's still inevitably some period where it exists uncorrected in mainspace for readers to come across. I propose that we do something like the following for edits flagged as likely or very likely problematic by ClueBot:
I see a few advantages to this:
What do you all think of this? Is it desirable, and if so, what would need to happen on the technical side to implement it? Sdkb ( talk) 06:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree with Elhef on this one. Galendalia ( talk) 10:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi... I just started yesterday, and the community help desk supplied me with a link to the help center in which I spotted a section for counter vandalism. I read a few articles regarding the topic and I found it to be pretty interesting. I'd like to get more involved with it. The only question is how do I join and how do I specifically use my user against internet vandalism. Juiceboxraider ( talk) 01:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Lately there seems to be a decline in human-reverted vandalism and an increasing reliance on robots to revert obvious cases. I've sometimes caught vandalism that was left on pages unreverted for days even weeks whereas this would be unheard of years ago. I wonder what steps are being taken to allow the current robots on duty to learn from machine learning (speaking as someone who uses machine learning for scientific and medical research), and what are the current processes in place to "feed" undetected positives (false negatives) and false positives so robots can better learn from these mistakes? Yanping Nora Soong ( talk) 20:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Unit,
19 February 2020 I corrected Wikipedia page of cosmonaut Aleksandr Samokutyayev. In the sentence "Samokutyaev and cosmonaut Maksim Surayev and cosmonaut performed a spacewalk outside the space station on 22 October 2014." I deleted words "and cosmonaut" which mean that EVA was conducted by three cosmonauts - Samokutyayev, Surayev, and some third - unnamed, unknown, or secret. This is plain error, evident for anybody with minimal knowledge of English language, just microscopical knowledge of the field, and that could be checked in 1 mouse click and 2-3 seconds of time.
User Rzvas, marked on user page as Counter-Vandalism Unit member, reverted this correction. The same date I asked user Rzvas at user's talk page to explain this reversion. Since then user did not answered or edited, so Wikipedia page Aleksandr Samokutyayev over 5 months bears ridiculous and disreputable error.
Not feeling that I have any obligations to correct such kind of user contribution to Wikipedia, I leave correction of this error to Counter-Vandalism Unit. Also I highly recommend the Unit to check all the other contributions of user Rzvas which could be of the same quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.35.130.139 ( talk) 13:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Counter-Vandalism Unit/Archive 7, there is an active RfC on m:WikiLoop/DoubleCheck/RfC:Levels_for_WikiLoop_DoubleCheck_Reviewers#Overview that we think you might be interested. Please join the discussion there. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 02:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can I help fight vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Lancelot of the Lake ( talk • contribs)
Sounds good! You've been very helpful! Sir Lancelot of the Lake ( talk) 21:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Started a Village Pump proposal here about a more formal task force to target undetected vandalism on Wikipedia, which is my main focus of editing; it seems like the kind of thing people here might have thoughts on. Gnomingstuff ( talk) 04:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
How do I actually tell you if I find anything? Bababeoy ( talk) 22:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
How can I become one? TigerScientist ( talk) 22:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok thank you I will try to learn that. TigerScientist ( talk) 16:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
How do I join this WikiProject? Iconman1 ( talk) 13:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm a journalist working on an article about counter-vandalism for Wikipedia Day. I'm hoping to speak to someone in a senior/administrative role in the CVU. Is there anyone here who might be willing to answer some questions about the project and counter-vandalism in general?
Thanks,
Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenLindbergh ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Anyone have a brief summary on advances in anti-vandalism in the past 10-13 years? I know the bots have taken a lot of the work humans do, but it seems like there's still a role for us. Specifically, do any of the tools have the ability to monitor a specific category, or pages in the remit of a particular WikiProject? Thanks, Abe g92 contribs 20:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to start a discussion to maybe exchange tools, tips, and tricks for finding and/or dealing with vandalism that sneaks through the various protections and ends up remaining in an article for a long time. I'm sure I'm not the only one to find vandalism in an article that has remained there for years. What, if anything, can we do to be more successful in ferreting these out?
My most recent example was from Historiography of the causes of World War I, where some college kid added his name, or his friend's name, into a list of famous historians of World War I. This happened in 2009, and was only just removed today. (Actually, the sequence was, that the user added it into the parent article, Causes of World War I in the #Historiography section, which was then split off in 2010 into the child Historiography article, where it remained until today.) It was first inserted in rev. 273335003 of 02:13, February 26, 2009 by 130.108.199.86, and then copied over in good faith by the creator of the new article on 21:08 May 23, 2010 in rev. 363797737.
What could we have done better to find this sooner, instead of after eleven years? What about going forward—there are surely other little unexploded land mines lurking out there, not attracting attention on anybody's watchlist because they've been out there for so long, and the regular editors on the article are so used to seeing them they don't see them; they might even have been inserted not far before a citation, so they might appear sourced. How do we unearth these? Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 06:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I request your input/suggestions on Wikipedia:Delayed flagged revisions that proposes to add a time delay to IP/newbie edits; while also allowing reviewers/vandalism patrollers to approve those edits to go live immediately. It can be done by adding a time based auto-review feature to FlaggedRevs/PendingChanges. Delaying IP/newbie edits for few hours (~2 hours) would give a time window for patrolling those edits. All edits that are not undone by anyone would go live after the delay. Thus there will not be any backlog- Vis M ( talk) 20:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I wish to be included in the counter-vandalism projec Mrgamji ( talk) 04:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
{{User wikipedia/CVU-Vandal Fighter}}
![]() | This user fights vandalism. |
I know I'm in the wrong place. An IP had no talk page but had a pink box saying the IP was blocked before I posted a message. Now there's no pink box or any indication the IP address is blocked unless one goes to the contributions page, which has a long list of reverted edits. Is there a way to show the IP address is blocked? And my message might be pointless anyway since it was about an old Help Desk question I just now saw.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, hoping to draw some attention to the code withing
Template:whois. I started a talk section on
the template talk page, but haven't gotten a response yet (very inactive page as is). The template used to be used frequently, but it appears that the code has been broken for sometime due to URL changes and such. Its primary purpose was to alert IP users that their edits were being tracked to their IP addresses, in effort to prevent further vandalism by the user.
My attempts to remedy the code were unsuccessful; hoping that someone may be able to assist with this. Thanks! --
PerpetuityGrat (
talk)
22:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
on your talk page section to get a
template editor to take a look. If that doesn't work,
WP:VPT would probably be a better place to ask. ‑‑
ElHef (
Meep?)
12:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not sure who looks over this talk page but I just wanted to post a message to any editors instructing new editors about combatting vandalism. I often see newish editors whose vast majority of edits are reverts of IP editors' contributions. I don't see them reverting any user accounts even though, as an admin, I see plenty of user accounts committing vandalism and plenty of created user accounts get blocked for vandalism or disruptive editing. I'm wondering if the focus on IP editors is because they are unlikely to push back and complain about being reverted.
Having started my editing on Wikipedia as an IP editor, I don't think this focus solely on reverting IPs is fair and doesn't do much to combat vandalism by sockpuppets and other created accounts. Please take a balanced approach, don't discriminate and don't target IP editors as low-hanging fruit. Thank you for anyone who takes a moment to read this comment. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Other editors have already pointed out that the Counter-Vandalism Unit unintentionally encourages vandalism. Depictions of vandals as an enemy mob glorify vandalism. It does not help that we are role-playing as policemen and the military. I propose that we modify our vandalism warnings.
Compare:
This is your only warning; if you
vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
STOP VANDALIZING WIKIPEDIA!!! MR ADMIN WILL BAN YOU!!!
What is really the effective difference? Our warnings amuse and encourage vandals. Seasoned LTAs and vandals read out the second example in their minds when we give them the real warning. I propose that for the uw-vandalism
series of templates, we use minimal wording. We remove the stop sign template and boldface too:
If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be
blocked from editing.
What do you think? wikinights talk 22:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I recently stumbled upon 123.208.211.136, who has a prolific history of vandalizing and then usually but not always self-reverting, going back to August 2021. The contributions list has more than 500 entries on it! I've reported them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and presumably they'll be blocked, but there are now a very large number of suspect edits, not all of which have been reverted. This includes changes to various numbers in articles by small amounts, which can be tedious to revert since it requires care to not disrupt subsequent constructive changes. And, given there are so many, it would be a big task to do entirely myself! Yet, if not somehow coordinated, I could see a lot of duplicated effort and missed reversions. Any advice on how to proceed? Smcpeak74 ( talk) 15:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Can Vladimir Putins page be edited appropriately to highlight that he is authoritarian, commuting an illegal war and invasion? Perhaps paint him in the way we wish Russians would see him- lying to his people, killing women and children and lying to the young men fighting for Russia who are also dying.
Seems like a move that could be helpful to improve the flow of correct information to Russia. 81.96.7.66 ( talk) 10:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Is Template:CVU editnotice ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) one of your templates? It is a recently created template by a new user with few edits and a redlink userpage. The content of the template does not seem to make sense in the context of the CVU. -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 13:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I'm Ed6767, the original creator of RedWarn, now one of the most popular tools on the English Wikipedia that's been used by over 1,000 Wikimedians to make over 300,000 edits since mid-2020 that's been praised for its user friendliness and ease of use, but criticised for its limited functionality. I'm leaving this message as I think it may be of interest here - I left the RedWarn project in November to develop Teyora, my successor to RedWarn (alongside Chlod's UltraViolet). It's a new in development web app that uses some of the latest web technologies to create a highly extendable all in one editing tool with a focus on administration, counter vandalism and general patrolling - not to mention, it'll work on every Wikimedia project without any prior configuration and can be used by any user with at least auto-confirmed rights*. Now, I'm ready to give the Wikimedia community a first look at what I've been doing over the past six months and what to expect going forward.
You can check out the 20 minute first look at the in development version on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzlpnzXdLP4.
There's lots more to expect too! Why not read the full details page at meta:Teyora and leave any feedback, comments or wishes at meta:Talk:Teyora (please leave any correspondence there to keep discussion centralised). If you're interested, you can leave your signature
*with basic features, advanced features require configuration. To prevent abuse, auto-confirmed users will be in a restricted mode until approved by an admin or via rollback rights.
All the best, ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 22:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, after a few years hiatus I would like to go back to vandal patrol. I used to use Huggle extensively and I see that it's still around (possibly enhanced), but could someone advise if Huggle is currently the preferred tool for automated vandal fight - or if there are other tools I should also consider? Thanks. Hús ö nd 08:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Category talk:Wikipedia notability guidelines is seeing spam due to a Twitter link. HLHJ ( talk) 14:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Requesting talk page access revocation via AIV instead of ANI.
🐶 EpicPupper (he/him |
talk)
21:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
What is the most useful thing I can do if a newly-created AfC submission draft comes up in the recent changes feed I'm watching, and it is obviously a self-created article (for example Draft:BaguetteCayden).
Should I just wait for these to go through the AfC process, or is there something I should be doing to flag these when I see them to take some workload off the AfC reviewers? Exor674 ( talk) 02:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I do Wikipedia research at the University of Virginia. I am still sorting notes but I have this study to share -
In summary, the team used machine learning to examine Wikipedia users who have blocks, and used the analysis to try to predict which user accounts do not have blocks but are seemingly engaged in misconduct.
This research and practice raise all sorts of cultural and technological challenges. To advance the conversation on this I also started drafting documentation about the general concept at WP:Automated moderation. I am not seeking any particular response at this time but if anyone wants to develop our policy on human / bot interaction in moderation, then feel free. The social issues are more complicated than the technical ones. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for a rough estimate of the number of editors watching recent changes at any given time. Even an order-of- magnitude estimate would be useful. looking ideas? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 23:41, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi there,
While I’m new to Wikipedia, I have a particular subject matter on the the encyclopaedia which I want to start improving. I have spent a few attempts, the most recent being this evening, where I put one hours work into upgrading the article.
A contributor who has a profile for 13 years vandalised and undid all my edits even though I had not quite finished.
I would be considered a person of knowledge on the subject matter of this article in the real world.
I thought Wikipedia was interested in gaining knowledge and updates to articles. Is there something warning with the system, whereby a long term member of Wikipedia can vandalise a new contributors page because maybe there is a personal bias on the subject mater for example ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celtic Musician ( talk • contribs) 22:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Having made a complaint of vandalism. Where the edits I was attempting to make were being undone by someone who is a long term member of Wikipedia, I take onboard totally the points made in references being needed. My point is, in this particular case , the policing of the edits was carried out by the actual original editor of the article who had many inaccurate statements with zero backup from real sources. I was not even been given time to finish my edits so frantic was this writer to undo my corrections. If Matt genuinely believed in the accuracy of Wikipedia instead of some idealogical belief he was protecting Wikipedia or his own article, he would have sworn this energy engaging and working with me to correct the errors on his original piece. Anyway , I’m done. Wikipedia can keep the inaccurate state article and continue to erode the original reason it was suppose to exist. I will just pursue a more trusted destination for the quality information and accuracy I can bring to that topic. Ultimately the resistance to allow improvements to Wikipedia articles without this kind of harassment only spells one trajectory for Wikipedia. Sad for the carry on. I donated a lot of funds to Wikipedia over the years also. When I believed it was a force for actually using the power of mass knowledge to improve as many encyclopaedic articles as possible.
Clearly someone in Wikipedia thinks Wikipedia is right enough now to stop improving or no longer make it easy for people to improve.
I have no time for this. I need to get back to the real world and life of now. Celtic Musician ( talk) 01:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Are this user really a member of this unit, despite the account was created on 2019-02-08 ? It seem his edits were fishy. Matthew hk ( talk) 14:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Reviews Ganging together to protect each other’s policing. Who polices the police? As the age old conundrum question of corruption goes. Best of luck guys. Celtic Musician ( talk) 06:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Too bad they don't read before they rollback. Skalle-Per Hedenhös ( talk) 12:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if the members of CVU might be able to answer a question I have about Huggle. How do I filter the queue to just vital articles? Category:All Wikipedia vital articles is applied to talk pages, so if I add it to a Huggle filter, it seems to only include pages in the Talk: namespace and not in mainspace. Is there an "include corresponding namespace" switch somewhere I'm missing, or a script, or another tool that I could use? The only thing I can think of is to add the 38k pages to my watchlist, which doesn't seem like the best idea. Also, anybody know why we apparently don't have a mainspace hidden category for vital articles? Thanks for any suggestions! – Leviv ich 23:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
As Wikipedia begins with a W, and 'wandalism' is more humourous, I think that vandalism had ought to be referred to as wandalism when it is in the context of Wikipedia. -- Beaneater00 ( talk) 14:42, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
If i understood my experience just now with Shrovetide correctly, we should require bot owners to check for vandalism before running them to prevent bots from making vandalism much harder to detect and fix. And why was it not possible to click on undo on this edit? There didn't seem to be any later edits that affected the parts changed by that vandalism. -- Espoo ( talk) 23:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll answer both of you at the same time. In order to not use up too much of our time and perhaps result in some change that actually improves WP, i'll try to summarize the situation and my comments, whose main points both of you misunderstood:
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace#How to handle editors chronically misusing the warning templates?. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
04:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
As good as we've gotten at finding and speedily reverting vandalism, there's still inevitably some period where it exists uncorrected in mainspace for readers to come across. I propose that we do something like the following for edits flagged as likely or very likely problematic by ClueBot:
I see a few advantages to this:
What do you all think of this? Is it desirable, and if so, what would need to happen on the technical side to implement it? Sdkb ( talk) 06:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I have to agree with Elhef on this one. Galendalia ( talk) 10:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi... I just started yesterday, and the community help desk supplied me with a link to the help center in which I spotted a section for counter vandalism. I read a few articles regarding the topic and I found it to be pretty interesting. I'd like to get more involved with it. The only question is how do I join and how do I specifically use my user against internet vandalism. Juiceboxraider ( talk) 01:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Lately there seems to be a decline in human-reverted vandalism and an increasing reliance on robots to revert obvious cases. I've sometimes caught vandalism that was left on pages unreverted for days even weeks whereas this would be unheard of years ago. I wonder what steps are being taken to allow the current robots on duty to learn from machine learning (speaking as someone who uses machine learning for scientific and medical research), and what are the current processes in place to "feed" undetected positives (false negatives) and false positives so robots can better learn from these mistakes? Yanping Nora Soong ( talk) 20:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Unit,
19 February 2020 I corrected Wikipedia page of cosmonaut Aleksandr Samokutyayev. In the sentence "Samokutyaev and cosmonaut Maksim Surayev and cosmonaut performed a spacewalk outside the space station on 22 October 2014." I deleted words "and cosmonaut" which mean that EVA was conducted by three cosmonauts - Samokutyayev, Surayev, and some third - unnamed, unknown, or secret. This is plain error, evident for anybody with minimal knowledge of English language, just microscopical knowledge of the field, and that could be checked in 1 mouse click and 2-3 seconds of time.
User Rzvas, marked on user page as Counter-Vandalism Unit member, reverted this correction. The same date I asked user Rzvas at user's talk page to explain this reversion. Since then user did not answered or edited, so Wikipedia page Aleksandr Samokutyayev over 5 months bears ridiculous and disreputable error.
Not feeling that I have any obligations to correct such kind of user contribution to Wikipedia, I leave correction of this error to Counter-Vandalism Unit. Also I highly recommend the Unit to check all the other contributions of user Rzvas which could be of the same quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.35.130.139 ( talk) 13:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Counter-Vandalism Unit/Archive 7, there is an active RfC on m:WikiLoop/DoubleCheck/RfC:Levels_for_WikiLoop_DoubleCheck_Reviewers#Overview that we think you might be interested. Please join the discussion there. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 02:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi, can I help fight vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Lancelot of the Lake ( talk • contribs)
Sounds good! You've been very helpful! Sir Lancelot of the Lake ( talk) 21:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Started a Village Pump proposal here about a more formal task force to target undetected vandalism on Wikipedia, which is my main focus of editing; it seems like the kind of thing people here might have thoughts on. Gnomingstuff ( talk) 04:06, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
How do I actually tell you if I find anything? Bababeoy ( talk) 22:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
How can I become one? TigerScientist ( talk) 22:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Ok thank you I will try to learn that. TigerScientist ( talk) 16:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
How do I join this WikiProject? Iconman1 ( talk) 13:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I'm a journalist working on an article about counter-vandalism for Wikipedia Day. I'm hoping to speak to someone in a senior/administrative role in the CVU. Is there anyone here who might be willing to answer some questions about the project and counter-vandalism in general?
Thanks,
Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenLindbergh ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Anyone have a brief summary on advances in anti-vandalism in the past 10-13 years? I know the bots have taken a lot of the work humans do, but it seems like there's still a role for us. Specifically, do any of the tools have the ability to monitor a specific category, or pages in the remit of a particular WikiProject? Thanks, Abe g92 contribs 20:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to start a discussion to maybe exchange tools, tips, and tricks for finding and/or dealing with vandalism that sneaks through the various protections and ends up remaining in an article for a long time. I'm sure I'm not the only one to find vandalism in an article that has remained there for years. What, if anything, can we do to be more successful in ferreting these out?
My most recent example was from Historiography of the causes of World War I, where some college kid added his name, or his friend's name, into a list of famous historians of World War I. This happened in 2009, and was only just removed today. (Actually, the sequence was, that the user added it into the parent article, Causes of World War I in the #Historiography section, which was then split off in 2010 into the child Historiography article, where it remained until today.) It was first inserted in rev. 273335003 of 02:13, February 26, 2009 by 130.108.199.86, and then copied over in good faith by the creator of the new article on 21:08 May 23, 2010 in rev. 363797737.
What could we have done better to find this sooner, instead of after eleven years? What about going forward—there are surely other little unexploded land mines lurking out there, not attracting attention on anybody's watchlist because they've been out there for so long, and the regular editors on the article are so used to seeing them they don't see them; they might even have been inserted not far before a citation, so they might appear sourced. How do we unearth these? Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 06:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I request your input/suggestions on Wikipedia:Delayed flagged revisions that proposes to add a time delay to IP/newbie edits; while also allowing reviewers/vandalism patrollers to approve those edits to go live immediately. It can be done by adding a time based auto-review feature to FlaggedRevs/PendingChanges. Delaying IP/newbie edits for few hours (~2 hours) would give a time window for patrolling those edits. All edits that are not undone by anyone would go live after the delay. Thus there will not be any backlog- Vis M ( talk) 20:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I wish to be included in the counter-vandalism projec Mrgamji ( talk) 04:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
{{User wikipedia/CVU-Vandal Fighter}}
![]() | This user fights vandalism. |
I know I'm in the wrong place. An IP had no talk page but had a pink box saying the IP was blocked before I posted a message. Now there's no pink box or any indication the IP address is blocked unless one goes to the contributions page, which has a long list of reverted edits. Is there a way to show the IP address is blocked? And my message might be pointless anyway since it was about an old Help Desk question I just now saw.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, hoping to draw some attention to the code withing
Template:whois. I started a talk section on
the template talk page, but haven't gotten a response yet (very inactive page as is). The template used to be used frequently, but it appears that the code has been broken for sometime due to URL changes and such. Its primary purpose was to alert IP users that their edits were being tracked to their IP addresses, in effort to prevent further vandalism by the user.
My attempts to remedy the code were unsuccessful; hoping that someone may be able to assist with this. Thanks! --
PerpetuityGrat (
talk)
22:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
on your talk page section to get a
template editor to take a look. If that doesn't work,
WP:VPT would probably be a better place to ask. ‑‑
ElHef (
Meep?)
12:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not sure who looks over this talk page but I just wanted to post a message to any editors instructing new editors about combatting vandalism. I often see newish editors whose vast majority of edits are reverts of IP editors' contributions. I don't see them reverting any user accounts even though, as an admin, I see plenty of user accounts committing vandalism and plenty of created user accounts get blocked for vandalism or disruptive editing. I'm wondering if the focus on IP editors is because they are unlikely to push back and complain about being reverted.
Having started my editing on Wikipedia as an IP editor, I don't think this focus solely on reverting IPs is fair and doesn't do much to combat vandalism by sockpuppets and other created accounts. Please take a balanced approach, don't discriminate and don't target IP editors as low-hanging fruit. Thank you for anyone who takes a moment to read this comment. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Other editors have already pointed out that the Counter-Vandalism Unit unintentionally encourages vandalism. Depictions of vandals as an enemy mob glorify vandalism. It does not help that we are role-playing as policemen and the military. I propose that we modify our vandalism warnings.
Compare:
This is your only warning; if you
vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
STOP VANDALIZING WIKIPEDIA!!! MR ADMIN WILL BAN YOU!!!
What is really the effective difference? Our warnings amuse and encourage vandals. Seasoned LTAs and vandals read out the second example in their minds when we give them the real warning. I propose that for the uw-vandalism
series of templates, we use minimal wording. We remove the stop sign template and boldface too:
If you
vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be
blocked from editing.
What do you think? wikinights talk 22:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I recently stumbled upon 123.208.211.136, who has a prolific history of vandalizing and then usually but not always self-reverting, going back to August 2021. The contributions list has more than 500 entries on it! I've reported them at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and presumably they'll be blocked, but there are now a very large number of suspect edits, not all of which have been reverted. This includes changes to various numbers in articles by small amounts, which can be tedious to revert since it requires care to not disrupt subsequent constructive changes. And, given there are so many, it would be a big task to do entirely myself! Yet, if not somehow coordinated, I could see a lot of duplicated effort and missed reversions. Any advice on how to proceed? Smcpeak74 ( talk) 15:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Can Vladimir Putins page be edited appropriately to highlight that he is authoritarian, commuting an illegal war and invasion? Perhaps paint him in the way we wish Russians would see him- lying to his people, killing women and children and lying to the young men fighting for Russia who are also dying.
Seems like a move that could be helpful to improve the flow of correct information to Russia. 81.96.7.66 ( talk) 10:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Is Template:CVU editnotice ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) one of your templates? It is a recently created template by a new user with few edits and a redlink userpage. The content of the template does not seem to make sense in the context of the CVU. -- 65.92.246.142 ( talk) 13:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I'm Ed6767, the original creator of RedWarn, now one of the most popular tools on the English Wikipedia that's been used by over 1,000 Wikimedians to make over 300,000 edits since mid-2020 that's been praised for its user friendliness and ease of use, but criticised for its limited functionality. I'm leaving this message as I think it may be of interest here - I left the RedWarn project in November to develop Teyora, my successor to RedWarn (alongside Chlod's UltraViolet). It's a new in development web app that uses some of the latest web technologies to create a highly extendable all in one editing tool with a focus on administration, counter vandalism and general patrolling - not to mention, it'll work on every Wikimedia project without any prior configuration and can be used by any user with at least auto-confirmed rights*. Now, I'm ready to give the Wikimedia community a first look at what I've been doing over the past six months and what to expect going forward.
You can check out the 20 minute first look at the in development version on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzlpnzXdLP4.
There's lots more to expect too! Why not read the full details page at meta:Teyora and leave any feedback, comments or wishes at meta:Talk:Teyora (please leave any correspondence there to keep discussion centralised). If you're interested, you can leave your signature
*with basic features, advanced features require configuration. To prevent abuse, auto-confirmed users will be in a restricted mode until approved by an admin or via rollback rights.
All the best, ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 22:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, after a few years hiatus I would like to go back to vandal patrol. I used to use Huggle extensively and I see that it's still around (possibly enhanced), but could someone advise if Huggle is currently the preferred tool for automated vandal fight - or if there are other tools I should also consider? Thanks. Hús ö nd 08:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Category talk:Wikipedia notability guidelines is seeing spam due to a Twitter link. HLHJ ( talk) 14:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Requesting talk page access revocation via AIV instead of ANI.
🐶 EpicPupper (he/him |
talk)
21:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)