Wikipedia talk:Cleaning up vandalism

message: Sorry if I´m wrong, but the Godmode Light link appeared RED on my WOT (Web Of Trust). I read all the comments and people say it´s a shock site with malware.
I'm just asking you to verify that link. Hope you can stop vandalism, Wikipedia. Thanks, the FinalMapler from the Spanish Wikipedia Wikinomo. --200.106.3.170 (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godmode light? 

message: There is a proposal to move several processes; among others, the proposal would move Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. If you would like to comment, please do so at WT:VIP#Schism. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 09:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schism 

message: *How about moving the "What to do if you spot vandalism" section to above the "Tools" section? The reasoning being that it would be useful for anyone visiting this page to know how to warn/report vandals, however only the more interested will want access to the dedicated vandal fighting tools. Petros471 10:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In light of no comment, I've gone ahead and made the changes. Petros471 13:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes 

message: Shouldn’t there be a mention of the Living People Category, Related changes page  (  see  Category:Living people and  Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people) here. This category was set up to make it easy to keep a look out for libel on living people it needs to be patrolled just like the recent changes list. Lumos3 15:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Living people

message: As you can see I've been bold and have made/will be making some further changes. I asked someone I came across reporting vandalism to WP:RFI what their suggestions were to improving this page. One of them was the focus is pretty much just a seminar on warning. Make a brief and then link to the outline. So I'm taking this and other ideas into account with the focus helping this page be a starting stop for people thinking "I've found vandalism, what do I do about it?".
Comments, suggestions, etc always welcome! Petros471 18:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further changes 

message: All those involved in "counter vandalism" or "RC patrol" should read WP:BLP. The Wikimedia Foundation receives many complaints from people who have seen their biography (or that of a family member) on Wikipedia, have found libellious or personal information in the bio, removed it, only to have the same information reappear.
Remember, removing content deemed undesirable as per WP:BLP is not vandalism. It is a legitimate act. Please do not blindly revert, especially on biographies or when a living person is discussed in a possibly libellious way. David.Monniaux 15:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read the instructions on biographies 

message: Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what if someone gives someone else a warning on their talk page for no reason (say, e.g. for the fun of it to increase the chance they get blocked later)? I used to have this problem, but it's gone now... Insanephantom 14:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if... 

message: Another step that should be included is to check the other contributions by that user, especially those marked top.  Perhaps it says this somewhere, but I didn't spot it. JMcC 07:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do 

message: As it stands now, one has to go through the last vandal edit to reach the contributions list of the vandal.   This would reduce the cost of vandalism identification, the better to warn the vandal and stop him.  If this proposal holds up to scrutiny, how can it be implemented?  Thx.   Thomasmeeks 12:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal:  ability to Watchlist contributions list of an editor 

message: The paragraph referring to WP:RFI needs to be reworked, since that page is now closed.
I don't know enough about what goes where and what the current distinctions between the different kinds of vandalism are considered to be, so I'll let someone more knowledgable do the reworking. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 16:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How's that? I've done a quick edit of the page, there might still be more things needing updating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petros471 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RFI]] gone 

message: How do we permanently delete sensitive information? I put someone's name in an edit summary at 4am that I shouldn't have, and he'd like me to remove it. — kwami (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permanent deletion 

message: I have been trying to determine if the minor edit button should be checked or not when reverting vandalism.  The section on "What to do if you spot vandalism" sub section "Revert" makes no reference to the minor edit button.  I do realize that Rollback does mark edits as minor. But is is rather confusing when the section dealing with cleaning up vandalism makes no comment on the subject. Dbiel (Talk) 03:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit 

message: It seem that when the title of a page is vandalised, the changes are not just reverted, but instead are completely deleted from the change history. I've read that this is because people erroneously "revert the revert".
Our company (like many others) relies on [DBpedia] to notify us of changes to a node, in order to update our controlled vocabulary system which is based on Wikipedia pages. The lack of a consistent revert history means that we cannot easily revert vandalism to page titles, the titles in question remaining vandalised on our dependent systems until we manually fix them.
I might not have all the details correct here, but you get the general idea.
Please could someone at Wikipedia consider how to help alleviate this problem for users of DBpedia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.123 (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a consistent change log 

message: I have a swell idea. How about this. It would have a scrolling list, like huggle, but, if an edit was made by a user/IP that has been warned before, it would show a red icon. Those who haven't been warned, give out a white icon. How is that? rtucker913 (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A recommendation for a new tool. 

message: What the hell does this mean? -- Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: It says it works only in Monobook. That is a lie. I use Vector and it works just fine. Antiv31 discuss 04:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lupin's anti vandal tool 

message: Can I add a link to my "Wikipedia army", the Anti-Vandalism Corps? - ZLEA  (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  AVC 

message: I would like to suggest a change to Bullet Point #4 of the Introductory box, which is currently very confusing and reads as follows:
:*Edits that appear to be in bad faith should not be considered vandalism until they can be proven such at a later time.
How about something clear and to the point, like: 
:*If you aren't sure if an edit is vandalism, then assume 'good faith' and leave it alone for now.
Thoughts anyone? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up vandalism/Intro