Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Subtle Vandalism Taskforce

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 4.

WT:SVTWT:SVT

Number changing

Twister 1287 seems to specialize in changing numbers, at least some of these appear to be false. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage in Denmark

The page has been apparently vandalised. Yeowe (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeowe, yes and not very subtly either. Somehow, a picture of a 'sober' Paul Stanley was incorporated in the addition of the category listing, but I have reverted and re-added the category. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is just weird. Now the image does not display when going back in the history to view it. Further, the file on WikiCommons says it is also in use on Stone Age, Freiburg im Breisgau, and Multicellular organism, but it does not display on those articles (or their page histories) either. Loopy30 (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loopy30, thank you very much. I've tried to edit out the vandalism by myself but I couldn't find where it was hidden. I suspected that it probably was incorporated into either a category or a template, but finding it was beyond my Wikipedia skills. Again, thank you. Yeowe (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change of name?

I suggest that in "Subtle Vandalism Taskforce" the label subtle is inappropriate and counter-productive. It is inappropriate because most of the instances are not subtle at all. They're just tediously boring to detect. It is counter-productive because the label when known is guaranteed to feed the vandal's ego. (Look at me, I'm subtle! They even had to call in the Subtle Vandalism Task Force!) Can anyone think of an alternative name?Ttocserp (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current name is fine. It's about subtle vandalism, not subtle vandals. It's better than "Sneaky Vandalism Task Force", and "Tediously-boring-to-detect Vandalism Task Force" just doesn't have the same ring to it. - BilCat (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Status / query

1. Is this project still alive and if not should it be revived?

2. I’m looking at a bunch of edits from a /64 IP range and trying to determine whether they’re in good faith or bad. Would someone (preferably not working on a mobile device) care to review it with me?

Many thanks. Nick Levine (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Levine: Can I be of any help? Lotje (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lotje:Yes please. I’ve been looking at the contributions from the IP range 2601:283:C202:5930:0:0:0:0/64. Many of them are link removal; it’s really hard on a mobile device to tell whether these are appropriate or not. Nick Levine (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see the oldest contribution dates from July 27 2021, with warnings. Lotje (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think maybe I should report to AIV. Nick Levine (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the contributions on commons. Seems like a strong interest in primates. Lotje (talk) 12:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that. Anyway have reported and now it’s up to an admin to decide. Thanks again. Nick Levine (talk) 12:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep Lotje (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Range blocked for one week. Simply cannot face reviewing hundreds of changes but will come back next month to see if old ways have resumed. Nick Levine (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll be hanging around

Lotje (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]