Wikipedia talk:Most vandalized pages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Counter-Vandalism Unit
WikiProject icon This project page is within the scope of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, a WikiProject dedicated to combating vandalism on Wikipedia. You can help the CVU by watching the recent changes and undoing unconstructive edits. For more information go to the CVU's home page or see cleaning up vandalism.


There's a recent spate of vandalism against beverage articles (coffee, tea, Earl Grey tea). I don't know what it's about, or why people are doing it. Is this worth calling attention to on WP:MVP? EventHorizon talk 07:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I think that should be reported at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Javier Solana[edit]

This page suffers from vandalism by people who believe Javier Solana is the Beast. Much more disturbingly one or more of these people have made the site into one of the most blatantly POV sites on Wikipedia, obsessively pushing the thesis that Solana is a power hungry megalomnaniac. Said person/people do believe he is the beast, so making him power-hungry is designed to prove he is the beast. He has been compared to Hitler by talk contributions who is also one of the main culprits of other blatant POV, and who almost certainly operates from more than one computer, I think.

This POV is all well out of order, and has been out of hand. I have today put the article into a NPOV format by deleting the megalomaniac thesis, so far without a response, though I fear that one may be coming, --SqueakBox 03:10, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


Perhaps I am reading the diffs wrong but it looks like is vandalizing pages then reporting them here. Very strange. Dalf | Talk 23:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

"Sex themes" category[edit]

There are quite a number of pages listed under "Frequent vandalism from many people" that would qualify to be put under "Sex themes". What do you think is better: moving the links to the latter category or merging the sex category with the other one? My preference is the latter, as otherwise we would need more categories to be consistent (People, places, religions etc.) --IByte 19:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I solved the problem by adding new categories under "Frequent vandalism from many people", and then putting as many pages as I could under the new categories. I then added the "sex themes" articles to Sex Themes, and Current Events has become a subcategory. - Rickyrab, working from his craputer at 17:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

An Error?[edit]

The Geography category lists the entry, "Nigger" as a comonly vandalized entry. The CIA factbook spells that country's name Niger. Is the slur being confused with the country? Richard Daly 23:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC) a new user.

Indeed it looks that way. I moved it to a section 'Derogatory terms', since I couldn't find anywere else that seemed appropriate. MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip 07:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree too, it doesn't belong their either. I turned the new category into "Coarse Language" so stuff form other sections could go in their to make it bigger. Jareand 18:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

James Ruse Agricultural High School[edit]

I have added James Ruse Agricultural High School to the list under geography. I have noticed a lot of vandalism happening on that article, particularly from Australian IP addresses.JSIN 02:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Billy and Mandy[edit]

The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy has been vandalized quite a bit recently, but I'm not sure as to what category it goes under. -- PinkDeoxys 00:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Walt Whitman[edit]

Walt Whitman's page is vandalized at least twice a day. I think it should be added to the list. --The NeveR SLeePiNG 13:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Central processing unit has seen rather a lot of vandalism over the past few months. Can someone look at the history and indicate whether it is actually abnormally high and whether it is a candidate for listing here? Thanks. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-05-18 12:50Z

"Music" category[edit]

Music category added


Tosh.0 page was vandalized and blocked minutes after the show's host, Daniel Tosh, asked his viewers to do so.


I'd like to add Limestone because it is vandalized quite a lot. Which category does it belong to? Science? Frosty (sup?) 11:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Elephant et al[edit]

Time to list the articles that were encouraged to be changed by the Colbert Report yet? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Shared IP[edit]

As IP addresses can be shared by several hundred thousands of people, surely an article being "goofed around by one IP address" might be being goofed around by more than "one person". Of course, it is near-impossible to find out whether vandalism is being done by one particular user of the offending IP address or whether it is actually widespread among the users of the IP address. Just a comment, though. 08:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


As I found, Elmo is frequentily vandalized. Which section does it belong to? -- FrostytheSnowman ('sup?) 14:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Living Persons[edit]

Should there be a section devoted to living people here regardless of genre? It seems fitting due to the strictly enforced BLP policy. MrMurph101 19:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How often to be considered "Most vandalized"?[edit]

Average once a day? More? Much less? E.g., the effectively-disambiguation page Clinton has been vandalized about once every two days over the past month. --Wfaxon 02:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I generally consider vandalism by at least three different users in a month sufficient for leaving a page here (I don't add them; I remove old ones). It seems the list can be manageable with that threshold or one slightly higher. — Madman bum and angel (talkdesk) 14:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that vandals...[edit]

Is it possible that (some) vandals find pages to vandalize on this page, and if so, would that justify deleting this page? I don't think so, but who knows, and would an error in adding a page to this section without it really being "most vandalized" make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 12:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That's WP:BEANS.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The article on the letter "A" receives incredible amounts of vandalism[edit]

Just look at the history of the page...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Where do I report a page being frequently vandalized by several vandalism accounts and a whole bunch of IPs?[edit]

If you look at Bob Grimm (baseball) you will see that a blocked user grimlet and several variations, and a whole handful of unrelated IP addresses have been vandalizing the page in a consistent way for a while now.

This looks to me like one guy with IP sock puppets, so according to the page heading doesn't belong here. But everyplace else also seems to have rules that exclude listing this form of vandalism. I'd like to get more people than just me watching this page, but I don't know where to ask! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loren.wilton (talkcontribs) 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Other unrelated links[edit]

WP:MVP links several other unvandalized pages like WP:AIV that appear in the Special:Recentchangeslinked - shouldn't we not include unrelated pages to watch only the MVP? -- Mentifisto 11:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Break into subpages[edit]

I suggest this page to be splited under several subpages. Because there are more and more pages being listed here, making this page being too long and thus being very slow in loading, comparing with other pages. So we shall create subpages like "/Geography", "/History", "/Politics", "/Sex"... What do you think? --אדמוןד ואודס自分の投稿記録 16:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


I'm not trying to be offensive, but there is a great deal of contention in relation to Scientology's definition as a religion in this page... There are many countries where Scientology is not legally regarded as a religion, and many that do recognize this. Are we looking to The Creator's country of origin, the United States of America, for the defining point of view? I suppose that out of the choices given that this would be the most reasonable grouping, but I would like another opinion on this matter. Asperger, he'll know. (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the following...[edit]

... Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, African American, John F. Kennedy, John McCain,God, Jesus, Pope Benedict XVI, Christianity, Judaism Pope, and Abortion. Kennedy is completely protected, meaning that users who aren't admins can't edit the page, and abortion is semi-protected until October 2013, that's more than four years from now. Everything else I removed is semi-protected, but there's a whole lot more on the page I can't update by myself. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed a few recently myself, I'll have a look and see if there's any others that ought to be removed. Hadrian89 (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust is miscategorized[edit]

It's in the history section but really belongs in the religion section, since evidence for it is somewhat dubious. Remember the Armenian "genocide" ultimately turned out to be false so it's important not to trust the controlled media too much here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The belief that 'evidence for it is somewhat dubious' is a fringe one. It belongs, and is staying in the history section. Hadrian89 (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Holocaust deniers are generally considered uncredible. I have been unable to find any supporting evidence for the position from a verifiable or officially recognized source. As to the Armenian "genocide", I looked around and it seems that there is debate over whether it should be considered genocide or a mass killing, not about whether or not it happened. According to what I found, Turkey doesn't deny the killings, they assert that it was necessary for security purposes to dispose of the sympathetic Armenian population and simply resent the genocide label.[1] Shamooga (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi ! I didn't see the "Smiley" article listed, it seems to be continuously vandalised with bearly no real amelioration, and it's way from being finished... (same goes for "Emoticon" but "Smiley" is the main article) I don't know what you consider as 'Most' (though I did check links proposed on this page) Excuse me if this articles not worth mentioning. Thanks - Cy21(talk) 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Adam Lambert[edit]

I removed Adam Lambert from the list, since his page is now semiprotected, and I don't see any of the vulgar homophobic vandalism that used to be common on his page even listed in the recent edit history. (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC

St Paul's Grammar School[edit]

Could you please add St Paul's Grammar School to the list? It is vandalised regularly (several times per week) by different users, typical vandalism comments relate to the school's facilities, IT department and slanderous remarks about staff members. Silly, nonsense vandalism is also common. Eric klebold (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

ḏ== Asterisk Next To Bin Laden ==

The asterisk at the end of the mention of Osama Bin Laden in the politics section needs to be removed, as he is not a living person, and hasn't been for a few years now. Gerokeymaster (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Fraggle81 (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Tools to identify most vandalized articles[edit]

As research sociologist, may I pls ask you, what are the tools or technics were used to identify 'most vandalized wiki-articles' and any criterias? thanks pals! Jim Fitzgerald post 22:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Time for an update?[edit]

Given some of the items listed (John Kerry, Karl Rove), I wonder if this list is actually from circa 2004. The absence of Barack Obama makes me this primary lists come from earlier than 2008. Could it be updated more regularly? (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

List of bombs[edit]

Add List of bombs. (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A Sociometric Index ?[edit]

An astute observer would take careful note of what was being vandalised on Wikipedia, and what was being deleted and inserted, then measure the heat and cogency of the debate which followed such emendations. This would amount to a sociometric index of... well, just think about it.

The rhetoric of Wikipedia 'edit wars', the comments on YouTube that follow some video offering, spiced with spoonsful of eBay negative feedback, adding the book/movie 'reviews' on Amazon - these elate and inform me about our age beyond all other words. These may be the only sources that subsequent generations cite when summing us up. (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC) (talk) 07:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


Add Speartooth shark. It had been vandalised 6 times by 4 different users in march of 2016. --Co z psem (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I've come across an article (GoAnimate) that has had a few vandals, does that count towards this page?[edit]

I've seen maybe five or six individual vandals in the version history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uvular (talkcontribs) 21:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

North Carolina[edit]

How is the page North Carolina NOT in the geography section of this page? Captain Obvious 1827 (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^