The Counter-Vandalism Unit (CVU) is a Wikipedia project whose aim is to help detect and remove vandalism on Wikipedia by using tools and experience, and to provide advice on dealing with vandals. All members of the Wikipedia community can revert vandalism at any time. Active vandalism patrollers who join this project will receive occasional newsletters with information on training, software updates, and new or modified policies and guidelines.
Some active members have volunteered to train other editors in countering vandalism. If you would like to learn more about the process or if you think you would like to train others, please see the Counter-Vandalism Academy.
A: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Some examples of typical vandalism are adding obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page.
Am I allowed to get in an edit war while reverting vandalism?
A: No. Reporting the vandal to an administrator is a better solution.
Technically, you are. But yes, seeking a sysop is much better.
Good to know that but edit warring kind of plays in the vandals desire to play a game. To me, vandalism is a kids game that I'd rather not play.
What should I do after I spot vandalism? (3 steps)
A: 1) Make sure it really IS vandalism rather than an innocent mistake, 2)Revert the vandalism by viewing the page's history and selecting the most recent version of the page prior to the vandalism, 3) Warn the vandal with the appropriate warning template.
Please list 3 ways how to spot vandalism.
A: 1) Keeping an eye on your own watchlist for suspicious edits, 2) checking the "user contribution" page of an identified vandal to discover other vandalous acts,
And the third? :]
Oooopps!! 3)Scanning "recent changes", looking for large changes or likely culprits. Some wild goose chasing but working toward increasing an ability to spot vandals.
If an entire article is vandalism, what should you do?
A: No. Users sometimes edit pages as an experiment. Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from vandalism. These users should be warned using the uw-test series of user warning templates, or by a talk page message including, if appropriate, a welcome and referral to the Wikipedia sandbox, where they can continue to make test edits without being unintentionally disruptive. Registered users can also create their own sandboxes as a user subpage. If a user has made a test edit and then reverted it, consider placing the message Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead, as someone could see your test before you revert it. Thank you., on their talk page.
IPVandal #1----[11] I would use a level 1 warning. Having said that, I just checked his recent contributions and found this [12] which he did at the same article a month ago and this [13] vandalism he also did about a month ago. This shows that I should investigate a bit first before deciding on the level of warning to be issued. I have issued a level3 warning and reported to WP:AIV.
This is silly. I just now realized that I have Twinkle and can use it to warn and report.
I'm travelling this week-end. Will find #2 when I get back. TC.
IPVandal #2----[14] Again, a level one warning. It is the only action, so far, by this user. While a bit crude, it seems childish. A Template:uw-test2 was issued by User:Materialscientist.
Why should new users be given level 1 warnings when possible?
A: A level 1 warning is the least "aggressive" warning. It is a gentle caution used for unconstructive edits. Hopefully it wakes the new editor up without the accusation of vandalism.
What level(s), if vandalism persists after the warning, can a user be reported to AIV and blocked for disruptive editing for vandalizing
A: Levels 3 and 4. Level 3 warns that if the vandalism continues you "may" be blocked. Level 4 makes it clear that if acts of vandalism continue you WILL be blocked.
What level warning(s) mention that an editor could be blocked?
A: Levels 3 and 4.
Please name which edit warning you would issue to a user in the following scenarios
A new user blanking sections.
A: {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-delete1}}. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, blanking should not necessarily be considered vandalism. Conversely, some blanking is obviously vandalism (a whole article, for instance) and should be reverted and the editor warned with level 3 or 4.
Nonsense/Repeating characters.
A: This may be just a test edit by a new editor. Level 1.
Replacing an article with obscenities.
A: Using obscenities is a conscious thought and act by the vandalizing editor. It is not a mistake and it should have serious consequences. At least a Level 3 warning.
How should vandalism be reverted (without Rollback)?
A: Use "Un-do" to revert the vandalism. If not possible because of subsequent edits, revert by deleting the vandalism and returning the article to its pre-vandalism state taking into consideration edits that followed it.
Should section blanking-edits be reverted?
A: Yes, of course. Whenever a negative change is discovered any editor should revert back to the last good or quality edit.
Should test edits be reverted?
A: Yes, of course. They are like litter and should be removed just as a clean-up of the article. They most likely are not vandalism. a Level 1 warning should do.
What is the difference between a test edit and vandalism?
A:A test edit is usually an experiment by a novice editor that either doesnt know how to remove it or just forgets to remove it. It's innocent and un-intentional. Vandalism is a conscious attack of the pages of the encyclopedia. It can be considerable or minor, but the vandal knows what he is doing.
Find a user that you think could be blocked for vandalism.
Fallentvd seems to fit the bill. His blanking of the page and then inserting new edits in a completely non-Wikipedia format seems to be more than just innocent religious fanaticism (if religious fanaticism can ever be innocent).
