A second proposal would be to further differentiate CVU from the 24-derived devices. How about the name "Control Vandalism Unit"? The idea is based on the wrestling stable in Japan led by Jushin Thunder Liger, "Control Terrorism Unit". --Kitch(Talk | Contrib)18:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
May I suggest "Might Makes Right" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.239.48.141 (talk • contribs) 20:48, October 2, 2006 (EST).
This seems to be trolling from a user angry about being blocked on a company IP due to the fact that someone else in the company got the IP banned. Gdo0100:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The term "vanity" is frequently considered derogatory by the subjects of articles, who then complain about it to the Wikimedia Foundation. This is undesirable, and it is a situation we can alleviate by trying not to use the term "vanity" in deletion debates and such (there's a host of other terms that are not offensive, such as "unencyclopedic"). To give people the right idea, I would suggest renaming the {{nothanks-vanity}}. Since (assumedly) the CVU uses it a lot, I would like to hear suggestions and feedback about this. >Radiant<12:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
My Page has been Vandelised and I found a warning from you on it?
I looked at my artical to see what else i could add to it only to notice a large paragraph missing!
I have corrected this and dont expect it to happen again but one of your members names was on the edit so sort it out.
Lots of love
Vince
You're going to have to be a lot more specific about what you're talking about. Links, diffs, and names would be a nice start. EVula14:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe he may be refering to this revert by MER-C[1], which seems to be a revert from an automated tool, though it left out the section in mind, which is probably just a programming error.
That being said I'd like to remind Vince that he doesn't have ownership over the article in question, and moreover the CVU is not "responsible" for the actions of it's members. Also please Assume Good Faith when editing instead of levelling accusations. Canadian-Bacontce15:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
All the more prof that the CVU is a crock. You claim to be organized and have members yet take no responsability for yourselves. I cant wait for one of your automated tools to destroy half of Wikipedia in the name of "anti vandalism".
Oh please, it was a simple error. No need to get so hot under the collar. Why would the project be supposed to control its members anyway, it's not like they're the CVU Dictatorship or anything. --tjstrf02:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
There are maps in the geography section, but one of them has been replaced by a TechSpot ad! I can't track it down. When I click on the picture, I see the normal map.
Here's the image/link:
I think it is the replacement image that shows up when the specified size is too small for the image to be shrunk down. Trouble is, I don't know what that image is called.
I've tried to consolidate the information in the main page. It seemed a little busy, and it's current state should be a touch cleaner. Go ahead and fix anything I missed. I just felt it was a little on the messy side. --BradBeattie07:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I've noticed in a random sampling of articles that images which used to be displayed are no longer visible. I don't know whether this is a technical problem with the Wikimedia software, or if this is due to some vandalbot. Has anybody else seen this as well? --Kyoko03:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I noticed it on and off on October 18 and October 19 - just broken images, but enough to look into it to ensure it wasn't vandalism. Yankees7620:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been developing a little add-on program for CryptoDerk's VandalFighter. It's a small program that lets a number of users share their lists with eac hother (user black and whitelists and article watchlists) in a convienient way. Basically, any number of users can upload their lists and let anyone else see them (if you want the techincal details, it uploads it to an email-account, but everything is handled automatically, so you wouldn't ever know it what it was ;). It shows the users what stuff other people are watching and gives the option to import it into their CDVF configuration. I'm basically done with it, now I'm just finishing up the UI.
I figure it would greatly help if a number of users started sharing with eachother. I mean, you could pretty quickly build up a big list of "bad" users and everyone would watch them, similarly, it could build a pretty easily build a big list of "good" users so you don't have to see their edits. And it would highlight those articles that were being vandalised at the moment. I think it could be pretty useful.
My question is, would anyone want this? I'm asking you guys since you are the premier vandal fighters on wikipedia. Do many of you use CDVF? If so, would you be interested in this? Or am I just wasting my time :) Oskar03:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I've gone through the contributions of User:60.48.174.63, who has vandalised several anime articles. I had initially given the {{subst:behave}} warning because of this user's edits to Fullmetal Alchemist. Later on, I discovered other vandalism by this user. Is it fair to give warnings for vandalism that occurred prior to when you first noticed what was happening? Thanks. --Kyoko15:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
You can certainly step up the "warning level" a notch or two for an obvious habitual offender, even if the habit is discovered after the fact, and then wait and see if further vandalism is posted after that. See WP:WARN for example warning templates. --T-dot15:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe the determining factor would be how recent the vandalism was. Since it's an ip, if the prior vandalism was more than a few days old it may very well have not been the same person, and warning them for it would be pointless. --tjstrfNow on editor review!17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
In this case, the IP vandal vandalised within a 2 hour timeframe of my noticing it, and also had a cluster of vandalism a few hours before that (you can check the contributions yourself, if you're curious). I understand that there is little point in warning someone about vandalism from another day. Thanks for the advice. --Kyoko17:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Not warning old edits on IPs is only because IPs are frequently re-assigned to other persons. If a single person continues to vandalize, give them as many warnings as you want and block them. —Centrx→talk • 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I have proposed an amendment to the semi-protection policy, to improve the integrity of official policy pages by permanently semi-protecting them, thereby preventing much vandalism and many good-faith but ill-advised edits against consensus by new and unregistered users. Please see Wikipedia:Semi-protecting policy pages. John25401:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Should "problem user" watchlists be allowed?
The Miscellany for Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist may be of interest to CVU members. This MfD proposes deletion for a number of "user watchlists" which users have created in their userspace for the purpose of monitoring vandals, policy violators, and other controversial editors. The issue is whether such watchlists are acceptable on Wikipedia or whether they contravene policies such as WP:AGF and WP:PA. —Psychonaut16:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That seems to be a misunderstanding. The issue of the MFD is actually that some of these pages would seem to contrave both the spirit and the letter of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:PA in specific circumstances where there is negative personal commentary on specific named users. --Zeraeph17:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Vandals are vandals. Anyone I've listed is blocked in my list (see "Sockpuppetzen" under my user page). There is no civility issue - it's not a hit list. There is no AGF issue - Assume Good Faith is about assuming the edits are with good intentions unless they're proven not to be (innocent until proven guilty. There is no personal attacks issue - and if you posted to the PAIN noticeboard complaining about being on such a list, and you were there with good reason, then you'd probably not meet anything more than suspicion. (I'm posting this here, and there, since some watchers watch MfD and others watch here. Many admins keep such lists, too, you know. See HereToHelp, for example. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 19:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
That page looks like just a copy of this one. I think that it should just be merged here unless there is a special reason for keeping it.--Rouge RosadoOui?19:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
AOL banninated indefinitely
See this thread on the admin's noticeboard. Essentially, now that anyone can download AOL browser software, is that they've become open proxies and have been blocked indefinitely.
Here's the block log entries:
09:22, 18 November 2006 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) blocked "205.188.0.0/16 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{User:Naconkantari/aolproxy}})
09:22, 18 November 2006 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) blocked "152.163.0.0/16 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{User:Naconkantari/aolproxy}})
09:22, 18 November 2006 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) blocked "64.12.96.0/19 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{User:Naconkantari/aolproxy}})
Bobby has been on a rampage lately. What measures are in place to prevent this from happening again? Perhaps we should admit to the Arbitration Committee that our powers to fight the vandals have diminished? Mister Rudebaker20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I have nominated both the category and the template for deletion. Per WP:BEANS, advertising the vulnerability of an article seems to encourage vandalism. I also note that a page which performs a similar function to this category, Special:Unwatchedpages, is only viewable by administrators for precisely this reason. John25404:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Chuq/Longhair/ScottDavis vandal
Just a heads up (hope this is the right place): There's an aussie with a grudge against Chuq. Longhair and ScottDavis for reverting his POV edits to Internode and has decided to become an IP vandal. This is a typical edit [2]. He has bragged about using open proxies and hacking into networks that have not changed the factory default router passwords. He's based in Australia but his edits can be from anywhere. I've seen his IPs warned very nicely 3 or 4 times and then blocked for 24 or 31 hours. I'd like to suggest that IPs making this type of edit should be blocked on first sight, and for at least 6 months or even indefinitely as suspected open proxies or zombies. Thatcher13104:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I'm rather new to Wikipedia, so I'm not familiar with many of the policies on Wikiprojects and such. I've been looking for a project to join, and this seems to fit me the best. However, I don't know if the CVU is open membership (as in I just put the userbox on my userpage and I'm in), or if I have to get permission. Rob Maguire16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Over the past day or so Gary Danielson has been repeatedly vandalized by a wide range of IPs. I requested semi-protection but it was declined because the page had been unvandalized for a few hours when the admin took a look at it, but there was some more vandalism overnight, and I think it may be starting up again. If some people could check it every once in a while, it'd be great. Hbackman21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I boldly semi-protected it due to the large number of disruptive edits by anonymous IPs. This seems to be in reaction to current events, so it's a good candidate for temporary semi-protection. --Ginkgo100talk22:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hm, well, apparently according to some of the edits, there was some controversy over his commentary on a game on 2 December. It is all very esoteric to me, as I am not a sports fan, but that appears to be the cause. --Ginkgo100talk22:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
There is an apparent blogging delete war going on
Just got wind of this via digg, but apparently a group of wiki-users are banding together to delete and speedy delete blogging personality/site info entries on wiki. Not sure what everyone's opinions are about the topic, but it does make me uneasy that a group of users are targeting specific entries and trying to get en masse an amount of delete votes to ensure that they get their way. Researched some of the entries and histories of some of those involved and their actions on wiki have been questionable at best. Exchanging many insults with fellow users and being more nuisance than help. Just keep an eye on that if you can, it's raising a lot of ire around the topic right now. --LifeStar19:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Speedy deletes only require a nomination and a single vote by an admin. This sounds interesting though, can you point to a source for this story, or a particular article you think has been unjustly deleted? --Measure23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Mentaka has put AfD tags on about 14 articles most, if not all, of which are about internet celebrities. He hasn't bothered to actually list them on the articles for deletion page, nor has he given a reason. I can't tell if the user doesn't understand how to complete the process or if this is vandalism. I hesitate to complete the process for him because it seems like WP:POINT since they are all of the same basic subject. IrishGuytalk18:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism report
This page has been vandalised. But to my perplexity, I can't find the vandalism code (I think the code must contain "Image:Testicles marked.jpg", right?), nor can I find the one who did it in its history page. Could someone tell me, how the vandaliser managed to do so without explicitly adding any code? Please leave the answer in my talk page so that I can fix them myself in future. Thanks! --GnuDoyng02:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
It was likely one of the templates or images included on the page that was vandalized rather than the page itself. Template vandalism is slowly coming back into style... AmiDaniel (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Grrrr. What to do about an admin who basically ignores your request?
I don't make false reports. I don't cry wolf. I don't over-warn. When I see a pattern, and the user has been warned sufficiently; report them to ANI AIV. What's terribly discouraging is when an admin basically treats you like a silly child who "saw a monster under the bed", even when presented with compelling diffs. Meh. -- weirdoactort|c -- 01:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
A side note...are "wanted poster", er, posts like this one okay? My thought was that they would be useful, and hopefully not in violation of the spirit of WP:AGF. Let me know. -- weirdoactort|c02:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Law Enforcement Wikiproject
Hello
Having recently taken over leadership of the Law Enforcement wikiproject I saw what seemed to me as a good opportunity for reducing vandalism and fostering better community relations.
The Law enforcement wikiproject will eventually grow to cover quite a range of articles. Many of these articles can be common targets for vandalism, and many serve as areas for poor wikiquette, civility and so on. We have already set a reduction in vandalism and an increase in good community relations on the articles we cover as two goals for the project, and as many of our users are current or ex police officers we hope we have some expertise in remaining impartial, polite as well as efficient at sorting out conflicts.
In light of this, we wish to offer the services of our wikiproject as a tool for addressing vandalism and poor community relations on wikipedia. We have already set up a subpage on the project page where users can gain access to key wikipedia guidelines when it comes to wikiquette, and if there are any ways in which you believe the Law Enforcement wikiproject could aid in addressing the aforementioned problems in some capacity, please don't hesitate to contact via my userpage, or by a talk page on the project pages themselves.
SGGH15:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Studying vandalism
Is anyone compiling stats on vandalism? How long it stays up, most prevalent, sources of vandalism etc. I think this would be helpful in trying to figure out who is doing the most damage and the integrity of the wikipedia system. I was thinking of proposing a wikiproject on this, but I didn't want to do it if someone is already doing this. Remember18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't think you need any hardcore stats knowledge, just an interest in studying vandals and vandalism; know your enemy. JoeSmackTalk14:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
well, i did an informal tally of vandalism in anonymous ip edits some time ago (it's here), although i'd call it anything but statistically rigorous. i'm of two minds about compiling stats. part of me thinks it's potentially good data, especially for bot and anti-vandal tool writers and that information is never a bad thing. the other part of me worries that time that goes into stats collection could be better spent on clean up and dreads the day that some major media source does a (yet another) feature on how wikipedia is an unworkable idea, citing our very own stats against us. -- frymaster15:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The username is Shakirashakira92 and I want to know what to do now. I am a member of the CVU, so I believe I need to know these things. They vandalised the Eragon (film) article, in the reception section. That or it was Jigglypuff, in the characteristics section. I can't remember which. I'M ONLY HUMAN! Geohevy03:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
If you find a vandal, the first thing is to revert the damage and then warn them with an appropriate template on their Talk page. Make sure you're warning the actual user who added the vandalism, by examining the History tab to see when it was added, not when it was edited or removed. If it turns out they've already got a Final warning template that day, then you report them to WP:AIV for action by an admin. See here for more details. -- Kesh03:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Question on the red and green numbers next to our names
Is it me, or is because I haven't been to wiki for awhile, but I noticed that on my watchlist page, every person who makes an edit to a page has either a red or green number right next to their ID. What is that exactly? When I reversed a vandal edit, I noticed my name showed up with a red -3 next to it. Did I miss something? --LifeStar19:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Added or removed characters for the full details of this. Basically, the numbers represent the number of bytes added or removed in the edit. A negative number in red means content was removed, a positive number in green means it was added. If significant amounts are added or removed (I don't recall off-hand what "significant" means, exactly), the numbers are bolded (and possibly in a slightly different shade of red or green). —Krellis19:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there a way place a time limit before new users can edit?
I know that Wiki is supposed to be free and all. I know that it was a big deal when Jim was willing to limit creation of new pages to registered users. Yet, is it possible to petition wiki to put a time limit on when a new user can edit/create content, say 2 hours or so? I and a few others are having a major headache dealing with a user who has been registering multiple user accounts to vandalize wiki entries. Don't know how to deal with them besides to notify admins and have them block the accounts indefinitely. --LifeStar19:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Bam you jsut got wikislaped! This would never work unless we turned off anonymous editing, something thats not about to happen. — xaosfluxTalk03:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Irish Evil
I'm seeing repeat vandalism on the Evil article aimed at the Irish. I'm baffled why this particular edit keeps showing up, as it's from multiple IP addresses and one user. The user also created a page at Irish Evil which simply redirected to Evil (which has since been deleted per WP:ATTACK).
I don't think there's much that can be done, but it's just... weird. If other folks wouldn't mind keeping the article watched, or looking at the History to see if there's a pattern, I'd appreciate it. -- Kesh03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism is caused by a particular "Dinosaur Comic" in which t-rex speaks of adjusting a friend's essay on evil by adding "irish" before evil every time it was used. A link was also provided to a false Wikipedia page on which the same adjustments had been made. Some people decided that the joke would be funnier if the adjustments were made on the actual page, hence the repeated vandalism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.82.108.25 (talk • contribs) 22:53, January 23, 2007
Man vandalism has really shot up, I'm constantly cleaning up after a blanker named Eddie619, and anons are really cranking it up. What can I do to keep up? Killswitch Engage
Just a reminder, the warnings you are giving should be on the talk page of the user not the user page. This way, the person will get a message on their screen that tells them that a message has arrived (the warnings).
Initial reactions: requiring every edit to be validated would be cumbersome, annoying, (especially to users like 68.39.174.238), and would prevent many helpful IP contributions, like random spelling fixes. The next step backwards would be proving that one is human for a "session" of some short amount of time, yet if this were the case, this preventive measure would be easy to sidestep; the theoretical vandal would simply take the test, and then once validated, allow his/her bot to take over and begin vandalizing. Is there a way to avoid these problems? Additionally, what is the nature of your similar proposal? Dar-Ape01:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Question about Removing warnings from talk page vandalism??
This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:75.111.121.14 removed warnings from his talk page so I reverted and posted another warning to which he responds that I am the onw doing wrong and violating NPOV. So who is right?
A special request to the members of this group to keep a vigilant eye on this article through the weekend of February 10, 2007, when Obama is expected to announce his candidacy for the 2008 U.S. presidential election. The article has been running unprotected since January 31, and is likely to be linked from the Wikipedia main page "In the news" box starting Saturday. Thanks for your assistance. --HailFire08:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I've been making major reversions, but a group of intelligent users have messed this page up badly. Someone needs to go through this page and eliminate the remaining vandalism, and deal with the vandals themselves. I can't at the moment. --Black-Velvet13:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Did a lot of work today cleaning up/expanding/testing the bad word list. Appreciate any feedback on improvement or problems of the filtered recent changes as a result. I'm a little concerned about some changes I made to words that have different permutations - one word, hyphenated, or two words. (Example: pothead, pot-head, pot head.) I used the expression " ([- ])? " (initially tried without parentheses, which should work as a RegExp, but didn't). I'm getting hits on some words with the different permutations but not as many as I thought I should have - would like to hear any feedback or expertise. (After working on the bad word list for so long, feel like I'm covered in a light coating of scum.) RJASE100:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
How to Join
I whish to join. Where do I sign up? -- RedNeckIQ55
Splendid! You can simply add one of the userboxes to your userpage, or you may instead add [[Category:Counter-Vandalism Unit members]] to your userpage. Cheers, Dar-Ape02:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's an interesting look at ways in which people can manipulate the RC patrol system (see the first two comments). It's an interesting read and mentions some things to watch out for. Dar-Ape02:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The other way that really annoys me is when users type (revert due to vandalism) in their edit summary when they were hiding there edits that were actually vandalism. This confuses a lot of editors and a lot of reverts afterward to revert the original vandalism. And then there are the vandals who put fake warnings on user pages... These users should be blocked on site!User: Hdt83 | Talk/Chat02:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I pay little attention to edit summaries when checking for vandalism. I usually check the diff regardless of the edit summary when doing RC patrol. I haven't ever checked for fake warnings though. I'll have to try that a bit and see what I find. -- Dan D. Ric08:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
He then moved on to creating non-notable pages, several of which were removed. User talk:Duncanjonny. At last today he created the vanity page Duncan Wilbanks which was then tagged for speedy delete. Someone then came along and vandalized his page, (changed him from the sweetest guy alive to the sweatiest guy alive.) Duncan then reverted the vandalism and the page has now been deleted.
Question: Would it be appropriate to warn the vandal who vandalized him? -- Dan D. Ric15:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I would say so, yes. It is unlikely that the second vandal knew that the first was, indeed, a vandal. This means that the second vandal was editing with the intent to cause harm, and should be warned for doing so. It is still, for example, against the law to murder a murderer - 'two wrongs do not make a right' as the saying goes. Ale_Jrbtalk20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You might want to eye the two vandals closely; I got involved in an utter shitstorm over User:American Brit, a particularly loopy puppetmaster who had the curious habit of actively commenting on (and being harassed by) his own socks. EVula// talk // ☯ //17:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a strong probability that the second vandal knew the first personally, and the vandalism was a form of personal attack. Just a thought. Black-Velvet08:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
3(1) A person is guilty of an offence if
a) he does any act which causes the unauthorized modification of the contents of any computer; and
b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.
3(2) for the purposes of subsection 3(1)b above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing
a) to impair the operation of any computer;
b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or
c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.
3(3) the intent need not be directed at
a) any particular computer;
b) any particular program or data or a program or data of any particular kind; or
c) any particular modification or a modification of any particular kind.
3(4) For the purpose of subsection 1b above, the requisite knowledge is knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorized. 3(5) it is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether an unauthorized modification or any intended effect of it of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) above is, or is intended to be, permanent or merely temporary.
Thus my question is, do the policies and guidelines regarding the production of Wikipedia content make deliberate vandalism unauthorised? If so, I believe that vandals operating from the UK are guilty of a crime under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. If not, I suggest the Wikimedia Foundation explicitly unauthorises deliberate vandalism. Perhaps suing the worst of these offenders, will cause most to stop (I doubt it would even get that far and they'd stop after being sent the first legal letter).
I also wonder what laws in America prevent computer misuse and how they might be applied. Constructive criticism and support of my idea welcome. Note before you reply, that I'm not suggesting we sue people as soon as they put one foot wrong or dscourage newbies from discovering Wikipedia. --SeansPotato Business17:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
What you've just cited is a British law. The Wikimedia Foundation is located in the United States. That's just the beginning of the legal troubles that would come along if you decided to sue people. Even just identifying vandals would be arduous and difficult. Furthermore, the way I see it, there's nothing illegal about Wikipedia vandalism. The whole point of a wiki is that anyone can edit, and if you read the various legal disclaimers we have, most only deal with copyright laws. Read everything on the edit page next time before you make an edit, you'll notice there's nothing even saying that what you post should be true. Basically, your are only advised: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." Nothing about not vandalizing even. Cool302:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You know, in my very last paragraph I did ask what American laws applied. I think it's very likely that they'll have analagous laws. Besides which British law could be used to control British vandals. As for the legality of Wikipedia vandalism, I did suggest that if it's not explicity forbidden then it should be (how much of my post did you read?). --SeansPotato Business23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
New method of vandalism?
I recently took a look at the Honda article, only to find that all instances of "honda" had been replaced with the word "toyota". One quick reversion and it was fixed, but I'd never seen that before. I put a "vandalism3" on his talk page, and traced his IP to Hong Kong. Any suggestions on what to do next?
It was probably a search-and-change. I believe there are programs that allow you to search for words, and change all of them at once. Probably just a Firefox extension. If he keeps vandalising, keep warning him, and if he vandalizes after the final warning, report him to WP:AIV. Otherwise, not much else you can do. J-stanTalk00:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I want to join
Can someone please tell me how to join? -yomom0852
If you seriously want to join our WikiProject against vandalism, then you need to first demonstrate your willingness to not vandalize yourself; our members can't fight vandals and be vandals at the same time. Come back in a month or so after you've proven yourself to have "changed your ways." -- P.B. Pilhet00:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
found vandal
Sparrow1332 is a vandal reverted it
also can there be a site map somewhere. im getting lost wikipedia is harder to navigate than a 4dmaze. Agentheartlesspain21:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)agentheartlesspain
The article about Uruguay is being vandalised on a daily basis. I requested semi-protection for it and it was denied. Could someone keep an eye on it? Thank you. --~ ~ James Hetfield (previously Wesborland) ~ ~ 16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Sneaky vandalism, missed by the usual bots
Usually, something this obvious gets caught by the anti-vandal bots and I never even see it. But the vandal copied some of the templates at the top of the article, added their stupidness, and pasted it at the bottom. I guess the bots got thrown off, somehow. Obviously, I've reverted the change... just wanted to let someone (anyone?) know about this new(?) vandalism strategy. --Robertb-dc17:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The talk page comments for AntiVandalBot imply that there was some sort of problem that just got corrected yesterday. That 'splains a lot, Lucy. --Robertb-dc20:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at 'Rostrevor College' - I just don't know how to fix a whole page worth of vandalism (please check the history thoroughly, it hasn't been reverted properly)
thankyou
121.45.176.10613:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
With User:SelketBot now adding {{SharedIPEDU}} templates to school IPs, I think the templates would be improved if they linked the name of the school to the school's webpage. Iif possible, to their computer use policy which is sometimes online, along with linking to a school contact where if vandalism is really bad, someone might be inclined to contact and report abuse. In order for the bot to add links, Selket says he/she needs a list compiled of schools and websites. (and contacts) Is that something people are interested in? Would it be worth the effort of us putting a list together, or is there some better way. Alternatively, SelketBot need not add the links to school webpages; when we add subsequent warnings, we could manually put the links in. Thoughts? I left a message on the SharedIPEDU talk page, but it appears infrequently visited. This seems like the place to coodinate efforts. --Aude (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
From a technical point of view, making this change in the bot would be easy provided there is a list somewhere (possibly on wiki) that the bot can lookup the URLs to link to. There was a discussion on template talk:sharedip about posting additional whois information (e-mail, phone, address) a little bit ago. This also would be easy for the organization that use the longform whois (some use a short form that doesn't have this information) from a technical standpoint. The consensus there, though, was that many school admins, don't want their emails or phone numbers on Wikipedia. --SelketTalk20:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Just website links are good. From there, it's possible to find contacts should someone be interested in reporting abuse. What kind of list do you need? Something that can be copied and saved as a csv file? or what? I'm thinking there has to be a better way to do it though. I was able to get a csv list of all school districts in the U.S. from the National Center for Education Statistics, but I can't find if they also have urls for each. --Aude (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Here's a list for New Jersey. I just put "w" in the search box and got 536 results. (I think that's all of them?) Maybe we can piece together lists like this one? --Aude (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
How can we more quickly disover malevolent hoaxes, such as the Sinbad?
As you may already be aware, Wikipedia was recently the target of a malicious hoax where it was claimed in the Sinbad (actor) article that Sinbad had just died. Malicious individuals subsequently widely circulated a link to the particular edit in the version history, and Wikipedia then became object of ridicule in hundreds of news media all over the world [3]. The hoax was reverted by anonymous users within two hours (see Talk:Sinbad (actor)#Summary of events concerning the hoax), but had it been discovered immediately Wikipedia could maybe have avoided this media embarassment. We need to make sure when this happens next time, there is a lightning-fast response. Some suggestions for active CVU people to consider:
Focus countervandalism efforts on articles in Category:Living people, that are maybe most often the target of such hoaxes, big and small.
highligt all edits by anonymous users on pages in this category, also triggering on words such as 'died' or 'death'.
The WikiProject on Vandalism studies recently finished its first study and has published its conclusions (a full and detailed copy can be found here).
The first study analyzed a randomly sampled pool of 100 random articles. Within these 100 articles there were a total of 668 edits during the months of November 2004, 2005, and 2006. Of those 668 edits, 31 (or 4.64%) were a vandalism of some type. The study's salient findings suggest that in a given month approximately 5% of edits are vandalism and 97% of that vandalism is done by anonymous editors. Obvious vandalism is the vast majority of vandalism used.From the data gathered within this study it is also found that roughly 25% of vandalism reverting is done by anonymous editors and roughly 75% is done by wikipedians with user accounts. The mean average time vandalism reverting is 758.35 minutes (12.63 hours), a figure that may be skewed by outliers. The median time vandalism reverting is 14 minutes.
Anyways, I thought you guys would like to know given you're the CVU. If any are interested in further discussing Study 1 or any of the up and coming studies being planned, come 'round. Cheers. JoeSmackTalk05:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Wiki Project Fighting Vandalizm
Hi. i am Pendo 4. I just wanted to start a Wiki Project of fighting Vandalizm on the pages that are mostly Vandalized and are not locked. Can you guiys please help me out? I want to see if I should do it.Pendo 411:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't. The Counter-Vandalism Unit is a wikiproject. Setting up another one with the same (or a very very similar) purpose would only serve to divide the vandal-fighting community, making it harder for us to communicate and possibly stirring up a rivalry between the two project further down the line. I don't think that would be at all helpful. Waggers11:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
No. Wait. First, I am not going to set up a rivalary. That was not even in my mind. Secon, I said that the project will fight vandalizim on "PAGES THAT HAVE BEEN VANDALIZED THE MOST." Those would the only pages we will have. The only difference of the project is that it will focus "ONLY" on the "PAGES THAT NEED HELP."Pendo 420:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
What should we do about this dude? He has been vandalising since October 2006 to today, each time by replacing articles with a big Japan flag. Is there a way to block his IP instead of accounts that he keeps creating? Or if he has no single IP, is there something we can do still? Kariteh16:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm, reminds me of Squidward. Only thing we can do is revert and block as they appear. There's no need to go through the warnings though, obvious socks can be reported at AIV immediately. Eventually, he'll get bored and go away. CaptainVindalootce15:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Question: If the checkuser request succesfully blocks the IP address, will it block it across other language Wikipedias too? Kariteh20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You can add Super_Editor_1000 to the ever-growing list. As Kariteh has noted, this has been going on since October, isn't likely to go away soon, and IP blocks won't work on this guy. So I have a suggestion: Let's find a Wikipedian who's able to program a bot countering this. The pages Hinomaru vandalizes are themed around the Chinese language (I don't think he visits more than a dozen articles, two tops), and the damage he causes is always of the same pattern:
insert one of two Japanese Flags
remove the end tag of several in-text comments, thus making the text invisible
inserts "Chinese Language sucks".
Which could be easily detected and fixed by the right algorithm. Maybe it would even be enough to adapt one of the existing Bots against Vandalism. Teshik13:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone offer me some guidance on getting Vandal Fighter to work. I've installed the latest and greatest versions of JRE and of VF (I think ... I've got vf35b_17.jar, but I've also tried vf35b_3.jar). When I open the .jar file, it opens Vandal Fighter. The status bar at the bottom says "Ready to connect ....". I click Connect. The status bar says "joined channel". I assume that it's at this point that the window should start populating with possible cases of vandalism, but nothing comes up; even after letting it run for 20 or 30 minutes. Any suggestions?
I don't know if this is proper WP protocol, but I'm bumping this topic to the bottom of the talk page since I didn't get a response. Do people here generally use Vandal Fighter? If not, what do you use? --Sanfranman5917:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Not knowing who to turn to, perhaps the CVU can take a look at the rash of vandalism attacks by a number of users on articles relating to the TV series Kappa Mikey in the recent days. I've cleaned it up as best as I can, but it's a lot of work. kelvSYC08:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The power of anonymous users indeed. It's unfortunate that the trash these people produce is what has tarnished wikipedia's name in the mass media. It will be quite a sad day should the majority of good writers and CVU people leave wikipedia. This place would become filled with garbage in less than a week I'd imagine. --LifeStar13:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Encourage Vandal Fighter lurking
I mentioned this on the Admin board; but I'll do it again here.
Our CVU unit is doing a great job and is overworked, but I've noticed, and the recent vandalism study highlights this... blatant vandalism is getting through tools that are predominantly being used by RC patrollers, but it is easier to spot older stuff like this with VF, which you can have running in the background while you do other things and only have to scroll through old edits occasionally.
Here is my original post giving tips to VF newbies. I use VF 3.3 as newer versions don't work for me. Happy hunting, and don't be afraid to escalate warnings quickly for blatant vandals. - RoyBoy80001:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Warning for removing vandalism warning tags?
Is there some kind of tag we should add to user talk pages when they remove a vandalism (or other) warning from their talk page? I must say that the number of templates is pretty overwhelming and I find myself spending a great deal of time searching for the right one to use for different situations. --Sanfranman5903:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Through much discussion there has been no consensus that removing talk page warnings is itself something which can earn warnings/blocks. You can revert them and leave a {{Blankown}} message, but don't try to take them to WP:AIV over the warnings themselves. —dgiestc06:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
If people can simply remove these tags from their talk pages without consequence, why do we even bother putting them there? I've only recently gotten into the WP anti-vandalism business and have been deciding what level of tag to use based on the levels of other warnings a user has received. Is this what others do? --Sanfranman5900:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The warnings are always in the history. Also, the user has certainly read the message if they have removed it. You can escalate the vandalism warning levels as per normal even if the previous ones have been deleted. Vandalism after a final warning will be treated just the same at WP:AIV I suspect. Sancho06:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see the last part of your question... Yeah, I do base my warning level on the previous warnings of other editors. For anonymous IPs, I only consider previous warnings within the past 24 hours. So, this could be a cause of delayed reporting to WP:AIV if the user keeps deleting the previous warning messages. Often, however, I will look at the warned user's contribution history to see if there were any other recent instances of vandalism that should be reverted. I guess at this point, I would notice that they had removed previous warnings from their own user talk page and I could change my warning level appropriately. Sancho06:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Case in point, anon IP 70.109.193.53 has continuely blanked out the talk page and claiming that he owns this page. What I noticed as I restored the content that he blanked out was that there were several occasions in which his blanking of warning tags and other data allowed him to get away with it much longer than should have been tolerated. A system admin would look at the talk page, assume it was a first time offense and the anon IP would get away with a warning. Eventually people began to pick up on this and now the talk page is block from anonIP edits till may. The user asked me why I went through the trouble in restoring his blanked content and wanted to tell me how its still stored in the history section. I left my answer for keeping talk pages and not blanking them.--LifeStar20:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Nearly all the recent edits to Wind are either vandalism, or incomplete cleanup of vandalism, making it a substantial task to clean it all up. Help would be most welcome. --Krubo13:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
A guy named 12345ak has for the last 24 to 48 hrs been vandalising this page non stop, adding rubbish in and providing a link to his Ranjit Fernando hate site. Due to his frustration at me constantly getting rid of his vandalism he has sent me numerous threatening messages on my talk page. This morning I woke up to find that my last 30 odd contributions in this place has been reverted by this user and was greeted with another message implying that he would keep doing so until I stopped reverting his Ranjit Fernando vandalism. What is the best way of dealing with this? I think for a start the page in question should be protected but due to this guy reverting so many of my posts he may have enough to qualify past semi protection. All the evidence is in this users history so if a mod could block this guy he or she would be doing me a big favour because I am not too keen on waking up every morning and seeing that 30 of my fair and genuine contributions have been tampered with. —Crickettragic
Thanks for reporting it to us. It seems that the vandalism has been removed. Next time you can revert the edits yourself. Here is a guide to reverting and removing vandalism: WP:REVERT. -- Hdt83Chat23:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately its going to be hard to find out stuff like this. You will just have to check all the edits between reverts to make sure nothing bad gets in. -- Hdt83Chat23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
That's no ordinary anime character, that's Wikipe-tan! She's sort of the unofficial Wikipedia anime mascot (since we already have at least two other semi-official mascots that are rarely used), and she's used because the old CVU mascot had some copyright issues. The mop is to symbolise the fact that the CVU are here to "clean up" the mess made by vandals (there is, or was, another picture of her with sword and shield to represent vandal fighting). Confusing Manifestation05:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the sword-and-shield version is used in {{User CVU3-en}}. It's probably not being used as the main picture to try and avoid making things look too militaristic. Confusing Manifestation 05:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys, I found a vandal Blairshulman, I checked their contributions and they've vandalised other articles recently. So I'm handing him over to you guys, cheers Ryan431401:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
hey y'all, how do I join the CVU? Is there a application/review process? Or it is as simple as adding userbox to my userpage or adding my signature to some list? Could some either leave message here or on my talk page? Thanks --Nat Tangtalk to me! | Check on me! | Email Me!20:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Just start helping out, that's all! You can also put one of our userboxes on your user page if you want. -- P.B. Pilhet01:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Color Coded Vandalism Threat Level
I don't even know what to say about this. I mean, how is that useful. Its almost like this whole project is a bunch of kids playing cops.RogueTrick05:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It's useful in that it alerts those who want to use it that vandalism is increasing/decreasing at the moment. And some of us want to keep Wikipedia running smoothly by reverting vandalism. -- Kesh05:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Kesh. It informs us wheather vandalism is picking up or slowing down. I use it to see if I need to patrol recent changes or do something else like Afd's or Rfa's. Oysterguitarist~Talk21:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey all. I just signed up and I was wondering you guys had any tips on how to find vandals and vandalism. Thanks. --MKnight998913:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In my experience, the in-browser tools like Twinkle and Lupin's tool work much better than the stand-alone applications like VandalProof - but that's just my opinion. There's plenty of advice on the main project page. Waggers13:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It may not mean much when the threat level is '1', but when the threat level get up to '4' or '5', it may not be a bad idea for CVU members to have partners. One person could revert the vandalism while the other tags or warns the vandal. All opinions are welcome. --MKnight998913:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good in principle but can't really work in practice, since you'd have to track all of your partner's edits along with RC patrolling and all the rest of it. A lot of the anti-vandalism tools available now let you revert and warn in a single click, making any such partner redundant anyway. Waggers13:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
While checking for vandalism, I found someone had written titties!!! on the budhism talk page. I corrected it. After this, I checked the same page one more time and found this: 8=================================================D --- . Now, if you don't know what that is, you probably don't need to, but I just wanted people to know about this kind of vandalism. If anyone has any ideas on how to counter this new (or possibly old) kind of vandalism, then speak up mates. --MKnight998914:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The guy committed the above acts of vandalism is 66.89.216.222. I'd like to block him permanently from wikipedia, seeing as how he has warnings from December of 2005, and warnings as recent as February of 2007. How exactly do I go about doing this? --MKnight998914:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay I added his name to the list of repeat offenders (does that sound too dramatic?), so hopefully action will soon be taken. --MKnight998914:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Original, yes. Clever, perhaps. At least it wasn't something like "I'M THE COOLEST AWESOMEST PERSON EVER" or the names of who dies in the recent harry potter book. That's getting a little old. J-stanTalk14:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Would anyone be interested in creating task forces for this project? One for NP patrol, RC patrol, etc. I think it would be cool to work with other RC patrollers in watching articles that are repeatedly vandalized. Just a thought. J-stanTalk03:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
NOTE:I moved this section to the bottom cause it was on the top(that is why this section comes before the other one) Oysterguitarst07:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone done any significant work on machine learning for vandalism detection? I may work on this for my research. If anyone could point me towards what's already been done (algorithms implemented, databases compiled), I'd love to see it. Thanks.
Let me be perfectly clear that I absolutely do not want to be an admin, and it's unlikely I would get anywhere near passing an RfA because of my modest number of mainspace edits.
That said, I could really use the ability to impose a 5- or 10-minute block on another user. Too many times I've seen a blatant vandal run amok and create piles of cleanup work between the time I report to WP:AIV and when the block takes effect.
I know I'm just dreaming here, but it would be awesome if the Wikimedia SW supported the idea of a "Deputy" that would be something less than an admin but more than a normal user. Deputies would have the ability to impose a short (5- or 10-minute) block an any non-deputy non-admin user. The criteria for being a deputy would be:
Enough of an edit history to show that the user has a solid understanding of Wikipedia policies, particularly in regards to vandalism.
No serious complaints about the user from legitimate editors. (e.g. no history of extreme POV-pushing edits or petty revert wars)
A demonstrated desire to fight vandalism (based on the potential deputy's contribs)
Never abused deputy power, not even to block someone who is POV-pushing. Deputy power would only be used in the case of repeated blatant vandalism, and only as a stop-gap to plug the hole between WP:AIV reporting and administrator blocking of said vandal. Any deputy who abused the power even once would lose deputy power and never be eligible to get it back.
Like I say, I enjoy fighting vandalism, but the fact is that a dedicated vandal can destroy Wikipedia pages faster than I can fix it and report the vandal. I never want to be an admin -- too much responsibility, and anyway, I would not be very good at deciding how long a person should be blocked. But I could really use a 5-minute block power... --Jaysweet19:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Such ideas have been proposed before, but they generally are not accepted. The reason is that if you can trust a user to not abuse this, why aren't they an admin? Vandals have to be warned before being blocked, all the way to test4. Inevitably this power would be used before that more often then admins violate that rule. It also creates a whole new level of bureaucracy to go along with granting the right, etc. Prodegotalk19:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"Why aren't they an admin?" is an easy question to answer. Like I said, I, for example, would probably not succeed in an RfA because I have not contributed enough new material to mainspace articles, and from my experience that's one of the things people like to see from a potential admin -- that you've "paid your dues" so to speak. I just don't have the time to put together the kind of solid references I would want to see in a mainspace article, yet I think checking my contrib history makes it pretty clear I could be "trusted" not to abuse a 5-minute block power. I'm sure there are probably hundreds of users out there who fit the same criteria (i.e. they like reading Wikipedia and catch a lot of vandalism-in-progress as a result, but can't spend enough dedicated time to do the sort of research required to make quality additions to the mainspace).
The extra layer of bureaucracy you mention (not to mention the effort to implement such a feature in the software) I think is what ultimately kills the idea. But I wanted to float it anyway cuz it's always been on my mind. heh... --Jaysweet19:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think one could make an argument that there are certain situations that would justify a very short block (e.g. 1 or 2 minutes) even before reaching test4. If somebody sprays a racial slur over four pages at once, do you give them a test1 and wait for them to do it twice more (perhaps hitting far more than two more pages, maybe hitting 8 or 10) before you WP:AIV?
That's another problem I see with Wikipedia's anti-vandal policy, in an admittedly noble effort to not WP:BITE, the policy doesn't have enough teeth against blatantly malicious vandals. It's one thing if an elementary school kid blanks an article and replaces it with "I like pie." We'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But if somebody blanks a page with a blatantly racist or homophobic message, are we seriously saying that if we are patient we can reform this person into a serious editor?! heh... --Jaysweet19:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but the proportion of administrators to standard users is very small, and part of the problem is that a person could mass-vandalize a large number of pages before they can be brought to the attention of an admin.
Also, for this you wouldn't neccesarily need to have the whole bureucratic process of RfA, since you're only talking about the power to block someone for a few minutes(no article protection, modification of the UI, etc.). It seems to me that you would really only need a quick five or ten minute check to make sure that the person wasn't a vandal, wasn't liable to get into massive edit wars, etc. Nathanww15:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Whitespace
I hope no one minds, but I reformatted the barnstar recognition section to reduce the amount of whitespace added by the image. It's not vandalism!! ;) Dreadstar†18:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Another blatant vandal, I don't know what to do with
Might I suggest using Twinkle. It has a few buttons to rollback and report vandalism. It doesn't work in Internet explorer. In the meantime, I'll report xem to AIV. Thanks, Informant. We need more of you (But not really). Would you consider joining the project, and a taskforce for it? See above for a few details, but the basic idea is to create a small, loosely organized group of editors who take info like yours and use their preferred type of vandal-thwacking to combat it. If you have questions, then post on my talk page. J-stanTalk02:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I was using it for humor. By saying we need more of him, it was making it seem like we needed more sock puppets of him. Just a joke. J-stanTalk02:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a user User talk:TheNewHubris who has been vandalizing some articles. On July 10th he was given a final warning for vandalism. On the 17th he vandalized Scholarship. Over the past couple of days he vandalized Alex Kravchenko three times. At first I was willing to WP:AGF... the subject has just become notable so not much is out there. But looking at his other contributions and the fact that his edits have been garbage, I've changed my mind. Today he has cleared his page of all the previous warnings with a note, "ban me f'ers." With that in mind, what is the appropriate response?Balloonman21:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure he's a vandal only account? I can report him immediately, but I need correct info for the report.
In answer to your question, WP:AIV is where you want to be. I use twinkle so I can click a tab, type a few things, and it reports it. I strongly suggest getting it. go to the above link, and it will tell you what to do. J-stanTalk23:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Howere im quite poor when it comes to general computer skills and im afriad I may not be able to fight this empty handed, may you please lend some assitance?? Lephilippe21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh I thought you meant the Yoruba page. I don't know what to do on the yoruba mainpage. If you have an account there, you should contact an experienced editor there. J-stanTalk22:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Help/Advice for Gahanna article
I need assistance from this community. The History section of the Gahanna article is consistently being vandalized several times a day. The coward is doing this anonymously, but I read where the administrators of Wikipedia can block an IP address range. I don't know who to go to or contact, but I need help. Can someone help me or help stop this person? Thanks. OhioVanguard00:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Per a suggestion by Hdt83, I am requesting wider attention from the community on this talk page for a new taskforce of CVU, Operation: New Leaf. It is a proposed task force that will convert once vandals into valued contributors for the encyclopedia, through kindness, patience, and, ultimately, love. To discuss this idea further, go here. Cheers, Arky¡Hablar!01:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep, anybody can join, except vandals. Add your name and userbox to join. Also, new posts should go on the bottom. --Hdt83Chat02:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Calling up the reserves
I have an idea (it may already be in use, I don't know) on how to better control vandalism when it is at level 1. If we had a program that could automatically send out an alert to everyone in the CVU when the vandalism level is at 1, we could keep it in check. If this is practical (or impossible) let me know. --MKnight998912:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
That seems like something to feed the trolls. I know I wouldn't want an email every time that happened. I'm sure many others are like me in that respect. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe00:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
No no not an email, just a talk page message. Besides, how often does it get up to Level 1 (this is a genuine question warranting a genuine answer)--MKnight998912:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Inactive?
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
This page was recently marked as {{historical}} but I missed a disbandment discussion if there was one. I've changed it to inactive, though I don't endorse that. Are other project members still alive? — xaosfluxTalk23:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I just commented on there I didn't mean to wheel anyone (although it looks like wheeling was welcomed) after seeing this (never would have gone to find out why a project satus was changing on the admin noticeboard instead of right here first. Typically project endigns are Active Project --> Inactive Project / Completed Project ---> Historical Project. I think we should try out normal step two (inactive) first to see if the members are still interested in running this. — xaosfluxTalk23:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I still consider myself to be a member but I'm on an extended Wikibreak at the moment (only dropping in and out occasionally) but I intend to resume my duties as a member as soon as I return. AlanD00:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I am extremely active. If someone can summarize why the project would be disbanded, and what (if any) alternatives are being implemented, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold03:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Inactive, never - I am still poping in here every now and then when I am not busy making money. If "they" trying to disband us then obviously we are doing something right. The unit should remain Active.--Jcw6907:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There's not really any doubt that this project is still active. I think there are several misunderstandings among those who want to see the project disbanded, deleted, or redirected, so allow me to state a few facts:
This is a Wikiproject. Just like any other Wikiproject, the project page contains useful information for its members. Just like any other Wikiproject, that information is replicated elsewhere in Wikipedia. That is not a reason for closing the project down or redirecting the project page.
There are some users who don't like the name of this Wikiproject. That being the case, a new name can be proposed and discussed here; if/when consensus is reached, the project can be renamed. That's very different to closing the project altogether.
Stability and inactivity are two different things. The project page is fairly stable, and is not edited much at the moment. That does not mean the page is redundant, nor does it mean the project is inactive. As with a lot of other Wikiprojects, the talk page is where a lot of the action happens, and this talk page is pretty active. Waggers08:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe the name is an issue from what I understand. I remember in one of my postings recently I mentioned where the name came from. The only issue I remember that I had was the use of the Wikimedia owned trademarks, but that has been long solved now. User:Zscout370(Return Fire)09:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Inactive? CVU? Are you on another planet??? :) Although I no longer have a home internet connection, I am still very much active within CVU as a vandalism reverter, as well as on RCP. Having the CVU there gives "normal" members like myself a little bit of, how shall I put this (without making myself sound like a power hungry maniac)...steady ground, if you will, when we make warnings on user's talk pages. To mention the fact that there is a Counter Vandalism Unit puts the fear of $deity up some of the little weasels who see fit to destroy other people's work so mercilessly. The CVU is far from inactive, and I would consider it a liability to Wikipedia if it were marked so. Thor Malmjursson11:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You must be kidding about this project being inactive. The scope of the CVU goes far beyond that of just this page. The activities we engage in in regards to reverting vandalism and cleansing its possible long standing effects are what this entire project is all about. Making this project "historical", "inactive", deleting it, or renaming it is completely unnecessary and I wonder why it was even called for. Come to think of it, doing so is just plain silly. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ②talk17:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Whole heartedly. The idea of the CVU being inactive is quite comical. We had our laughs...time to knock off this nonsense. Ganfon17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Like pretty much everyone else has said, this project is very much active. Don't even see why this is up for debate, really... --Ratiocinate(t • c)17:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I highly doubt that this should be listed as inactive. Just because there is a lull in activity or a downturn in activity doesn't mean we need to stop. I still repair articles that are victims of vandalism whenever and wherever i see them. Sure, there may be LESS vandalism going on right now, and things are quieter...but we're still a vital part to maintaining at least SOME sanity on English Wikipedia. Remember: vandals don't take breaks. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm still here. Everytime I see someone vandalize an article, I go back and rever the vandalism. I don't see what anyone would want to get rid of this Wiki Project, it is such a vital project. El Greco (talk·contribs)18:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This project is nowhere near inactive. There's no good reason for this project to be labeled historical or inactive. If the project goes, I go. --Chetblongtalk to me19:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If it isn't already obvious, this project is most certainly not inactive. What the hell? Don't people have better things to do besides quibbling about the activity of Wikiprojects? Ya know, like this encyclopedia I keep hearing about? Charlie-talk to me-what I've done20:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, like everyone else who says it, it is not inactive at all. Still doing my duty, reverting vandalism as it comes. カラム20:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why it should become inactive. It has provided many Wikipedians with a sense of duty that cannot be made up for (IMO, of course). In addition, we've really got nothing to lose by keeping it anyway. -- Gravitan(Talk | Contribs)21:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been busy with college (summer classes even), but I work on it whenever I get a few minutes here and there. Personally, I like the name, too. I don't think it's inactive, and while I'm sure there is overlap between CVU and recent changes patrol, I don't see them as being redundant at all.--H-ko (Talk) 21:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, there will always be some form of vandalism on Wikipedia, and really we need to keep the Counter Vandalism Unit active to ensure that no one screws up everyone elses hard work. Thanks. Ilikefood22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think CVU is inactive, but right now it is not having a lot of coordinated activities. People are still fighting vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No way! I don't think CVU is inactive, there are many CVU member-Wikipedians actively fighting against vandalism and it shouldn't be shut down. --Cyril Thomas23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I am in the unit, I am active, I have gone after sock puppeteers and meat puppets vandals who were intending to spam or were trolling me and other users. My record speaks for itself (10 sock puppets blocked accounts in 2 months) and I am barely 4 months at WP. So I am counter-vandalizing as much as I am trying to contribute to articles. Do I need to say more? Please let's keep it strong. Jrod223:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I consider myself to be a member and I kinda freaked out when the page disappeared. This isn't inactive at all, which can be seen by the large number of Wikipedians with the userbox on their page. Please don't get rid of it.Silver seren01:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no way the CVU unit is inactive. I know alot of Wikipedians who are helping in the fight against vandalism and this unit should NOT be shut down.MOOOOOPS21:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't done too much of the "sit down for a while and revert vandalism", but I have done so, and I do correct vandalism. I say it should not be shut down.
Just because vandalism may be down like others mentioned is no reason why we should disband the project. There are still many Wikipedians fighting vandalism that are involved and more that will join when they find the project. There is no way the project should be shut down. Xtreme racer02:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
This project is no way inactive. The CVU's goal is to assist in the formation of tools and the removal of vanalism. You don't close the Police Force down when crime rates drop, do you? Martin Porcheron talk to memy edits07:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It is NOT INACTIVE. Check Lupin's vandal tool. Most of it is vandalism right? Right before your very eyes. Vandalism is still up and active. Metalflame14:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Obviously Active. The only change that I think should be made is to turn it into a more dynamic page with direct tools. Inhuman1423:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
"Are other project members still alive? — xaosflux" - I am alive and declare the project to be exactly that as well. Avb03:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the sheer response shown in this talk page to the allegations of this project being inactive and the response to the possible deletion of this project more than proves that this project is quite alive and well. Moreover, I will re-iterate what I stated earlier:
"The scope of the CVU goes far beyond that of just this page. The activities we engage in in regards to reverting vandalism and cleansing its possible long standing effects are what this entire project is all about. Making this project "historical", "inactive", deleting it, or renaming it is completely unnecessary and I wonder why it was even called for. Come to think of it, doing so is just plain silly."
Well this project page might not be continually updated, but does it need to be? I feel the project is still active, as I and many others go out of our way to revert vandalistic "contributions." 141.154.232.2919:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why it should be considered "inactive" counter-vandalism is a big thing for lots of editors here at wikipedia, I, personally, have not been active due to the busyness of summer, but I know that many, many editors are actively involved in counter-vandalism. I don't see why there is a need to delete it. --♫Twinkler4♫(Talk to me!)02:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I will have to say that there is absolutely no question that this project is active. I myself have been repeatedly correcting vandalism to pages I encounter with any such problems. Clint06:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Can anybody join? Is there a criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupid2 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 10 August 2007 BST
Anyone can join - there are no special criteria for joining this project, provided of course they abide by Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If you're new to counter-vandalism, I suggest you read up on it a fair bit first. It's especially important to remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground and Don't bite the newcomers. In other words, take things easy to begin with and ask for advice if you need it. Hope this helps, and welcome to the CVU! Waggers09:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The nom is just abusing the process that's all. He already took unilateral action against the project and then claimed consensus (WP:AN). Hopefully it will all be cleared up in about 5 more minutes after the flood of keep votes.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh come off it. Nobody's disrupting Wikipedia. It's a nomination made in good faith, with no disruption. It's not a POINT violation. --Deskana(banana)11:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Nominating an active and notable WikiProject for, after three previous discussions, a fourth deletion without discussing and considering other users' opinions is not disruptive? I mean, its not vandalism nor was it made in bad-faith, but using deletion procedures without consulting the community does disrupt the spirit of consensus in Wikipedia, IMO. - Mtmelendez(Talk|UB|Home)03:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This is inherently a good project for coordinating countervandalism activities, however it has an action-adventure theme it really shouldn't have. What if we were to cull the spicyness and make this into a "WikiProject Vandalism management". MessedRocker (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how it has an 'action-adventure' theme. Except for the name -- which is succinct and accurate -- the entire page for the project describes the principles and guidelines for fighting vandals. This is summarized in the second paragraph of the page. --Ratiocinate(t • c)00:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I do agree that the name of the project should be changed. The current name gives the impression that it is a vigilante organisation and that it has authority over others. It may also lead to people biting newcomers and easily marking edits as blatant vandalism. However the project itself is active and should definitely be kept as it encourages and aids in vandal fighting which is essential for maintaining wikipedia. The project could also include spelling or grammar fixing in articles, although this may already exist as a separate wikiproject.Tbo 157talk01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The project has very clear statements for assuming good faith and not biting the newcomers. The name "Counter-Vandalism Unit" is an excellent description of what it does: it counters vandalism. I don't see how it can be interpreted as a vigilante organization, since vandalism is not tolerated on Wikipedia and everyone can (and should!) fight it. --Ratiocinate(t • c)01:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
So the word 'unit' implies a "paramilitary" or "vigilante" organization? I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. --Ratiocinate(t • c)01:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps "WikiProject:Anti-Vandalism". It conveys exactly what we're doing: we're a bunch of wikipedians who care about the well-being of the encyclopedia enough to organise a resource to help others to take action against pests. J-stanTalkContribs01:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The word 'unit' is closely associated with military and authority. It does not really seem like the name for a group of volunteers reverting vandaism.Tbo 157talk01:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but, everyone seems to forget that there are blatant vandalism acts on a daily basis at WP. As far as I am concerned, there can never be too many "Counter-Vandalism Unit" members doing the rounds. Jrod201:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Jrod2. Also, I'm the last person to argue about nomenclature and semantics. If others think that CVU should be renamed -- well, I can't stop consensus. :) Cheers! --Ratiocinate(t • c)01:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, the name "Counter-Vandalism Unit" was chosen because it was snappier than "Wikiproject:Anti-vandalism". If we choose a new name, I think it should be similarly snappy.Iain marcuson02:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
(Formatting) We should wait a bit to see what other people think regarding a proposal and what name should be proposed.Tbo 157talk01:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
This whole thing just seems a bit inane to me. Who on Earth is going to think that the Counter Vandalism Unit is some kind of paramilitary organization? Or for that matter some kind of authority or overseer? Does anyone think that the League of Copyeditors is filled with superheros? I doubt it. This just seems like a complete waste of time and energy, who cares if vandals think CVU is going to come to their house via an air assault mission. IvoShandor04:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no beef with the name at all. I know where yall got it from. I do remember it was a bit militaristic when it got started, but most of those folks are "gone." Though I would like to see some merging of both this and the RC Patrol, mainly of activities, programs, IRC channels and things like that. I know yall focus on vandalism more than anything else, but it could give some of the RC Patrol people some new tasks, like new image patrol, new article patrol, etc. Look, I even starting to doubt my restore of the page; I have been kicking myself all afternoon. I have no beef with anyone here, and despite the exchanges I have with Duvora on the AN, yall do a great job. But I personally feel that it would be best to combine some (not all) of the CVU resources so we can lighten the load on the RC Patrol and perhaps expand on new areas (as some eluded to at the top). User:Zscout370(Return Fire)07:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I feel we forget that there are daily vandal assaults to WP and that we are discussing something that it boils down to branding. If the name CVU is too intimidating and could potentially drive away new comers then why not just call it the "Anti-Vandalism Volunteers".or if the Counter still OK then CVV. This way, it would state your intentions even if you made an edit revert without leaving any comments or an explanation to vandals or misguided users. Jrod216:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not against the CVU, I am a member of it and it is needed to maintain Wikipedia. I dont really mind if the project is expanded into new areas which would probably be better. My main concern is the name of the project. In reply to what was said above, both the League of Copyeditors and the Article Rescue Squadron dont perform activities such as warning vandals and so there is no way they can be associated with authority. However in the case of vandal fighting, the name can change the image significantly. I can understand that "The Counter Vandalism Unit" is a good reflection of what the project does but so is "Wikiproject Counter Vandalism" which sounds less authoritarian. Why is the word "Unit" so important?Tbo 157talk16:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have very strong feelings about it, but I did feel some concern over the name. That's why I went with the CUV box instead of the CVU. Again, not very strong feelings, but I feel more comfortable with the label that identifies what I'm doing rather than identifying specifically as CVU. :) --Moonriddengirl16:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Nah. It's really like a pitbull with no teeth but the yuppies next door want it put down because their baby which has 7 months until it is born could try to stick its head in its mouth. We're trying to reach a compromise by renaming the pitbull. J-stanTalkContribs16:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment What's in a name? Well, in this case, I think it's a bit of humor and whimsy. To the extent that humorous things are accepted both in real life and on Wikipedia, that's a good thing. Absent any showing of pratices that would cause me concern, I don't care. Besides would anybody prefer the name "Society for the Rehabilitation of Spammers, Vandals and COI" with a group that considered rehab to involve the water drop torture??? I've never been involved in this group, but through all of this, I've yet to see a demonstrated problem. FrozenPurpleCube17:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
A number of people have suggested merging the CVU with WP:RCP as if they're the same thing. There are some important differences. CVU is a wikiproject - in other words, a group of people - while RCP is a process. CVU members carry out RCP, but there's no such thing as a membership of RCP. The proposal to merge the two is akin to merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Music with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music) and Wikipedia:Notability (music). There's a big difference between a Wikiproject and a description of a process or convention. Waggers07:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
And we don't just do recent changes. There's way more ways to fight vandalism than just doing the recent changes. The other ways are more affective in my opinion.Silver seren14:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Honestly regarding the name change discussion, I don't feel there is any real problem with then name. The points that have been raised are certainly valid, but remember a newbie is probably not going to come in contact with the CVU unless they are vandalising or planning on joining it. In a sense the seriousness of the does somewhat help to discourage vandalism, at least in my opinion. Also remember the main page of WP:CVU does explain why the name is used. No real problems here. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Vandal Fighter 3.3 Preconfigured
I have uploaded pre-configured Vandal Fighterhere. Admin list loaded, important columns and options set; great for new and veteran vandal fighters alike. You can let it run in the background while you do something else and then scroll quickly through the backlog to spot the blatant vandalism missed by our first line defenders. - RoyBoy80023:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow! That is really great! I use a proxy and was never able to get those lists before. Thanks a lot! --Mschel20:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
First-Responders
I had a idea just yesterday and thought perhaps I would list it here. We all know what first responders are, in case you don't I have a linky. Well why not have CVU First Responders. When I say this I mean a established task force not just the Vandal Fighters who we typically assume to be in the front lines. My suggestion would include a task force where you would agree to be available for a certain part of the day to fight a sudden outbreak of massive vandalism. We could have 2 hour shifts were you could sign up to be involved in one of the shifts. To inform you when it was your time perhaps we could create a bot to leave messages on the users talk pages when there shift began.
Because the force would not need to be that big we could have say a limit of 5 people a shift. Once again you have to be available during that shift. If you could not be available that day you would have to inform someone who could take your place during the day. If that is to confusing, how about have the task force just to contact first responders when vandalism was over level 3 so they be ready to immediately combat the threat. Just a thought. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I've been pushing for a task force like this for a while, didn't seem to get much of a response. I'd be happy to help out there. Maybe instead of shifts, we could just have a larger amount of editors (like 10 or 11) on it. Maybe we could have a template to notify taskforcies of who's online. I don't know how to create something like this. I could also help with the administrative part. Contact me, J-stanTalkContribs00:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It is a good idea and I certainly don't object to it. However, I wouldn't want to be involved personally since, although I edit Wikipedia a fair bit, I do so on a voluntary, ad-hoc basis and often between other activities which have a higher priority. In other words, I don't personally have the will nor the ability to commit to constant RC patrolling for 2 hours on a regular basis. My fear is that you'll find the majority of editors have similar a similar mindset, and so won't want to be involved. The thing I love about Wikipedia is I can do as much or as little as I want, when I want - I for one would hate to lose that flexibility and this would tie me down too much. So again, in principle this is a great idea but I can't see it working in practice. Waggers13:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I have similar concerns, though, of course, I also think it's a good idea. :) What I'd like--and perhaps this already exists--is some way to communicate with others actively on RC patrol. Once in a while, I've run into vandals with whom I could use a little help or advice. Is there a sign-in sheet anywhere? :) --Moonriddengirl13:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That's sort of what I tried to propose with my template Idea. If someone could make a template that shows what Taskforcies are online at any given time, we could communicate more efficiently. J-stanTalkContribs14:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the best idea has sort of already been inspired by J-stan. Perhaps someone should create a tool that could be added to our monobooks. The way the tool would work is when one user was having trouble with a series of IPs would report the vandals to a special page. Then the tool would send up a orange message bar saying "Your help is requested on the CVU First Responders page" where you could view current attacks by a series of related vandals. Just a thought. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 16:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Finally if nobody likes that what about a tool that does the same thing except it just informs users when vandalism is at level 3 or higher instead of telling them to go to a page. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 16:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my idea was just to make a tool that alerts everyone as to what taskforcies are online. The CVU is unorganized; the only way to request help is through the talk page, but the taskforce should be organized. Users would be able to request help from the TF, and members could request help from other members. This would improve organization, coordination, and efficiency. J-stanTalkContribs17:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. That would improve the coordination of the CVU but I dont think there should be any commitments to anything since Wikipedia is entirely voluntary. There could also be other task forces, dealing with different types of vandalism or disruption on Wikipedia.Tbo 157talk18:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I am so down with this idea! I think it all sounds great, you will have a problem with commitment though. I think small steps would be best at first e.g the idea of sending a message to all "first response" registered members once vandalism hits level 3 or 2 or whatever sounds fanstastic and do-able. Although I gotta ask how are the vandalism levels worked out? Ryan431423:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent)
In setting up an elite squad of on-call vandalism snipers, we should be careful not to A) Set such first-responders above regular non-first-responder members of the CVU, and B) ensure that enough members want to participate in what would amount to extra, focused vandalism-sniping. A sign-up page might work for that, to gauge interest.
Second, in advance of a fancy pager-type notice system, maybe we can start a page for the members of this first-responder team. Whenever anyone wants to come "on-duty", they can simply edit that page to indicate that they're on-duty, available, or otherwise on the case. Anyone with an issue or request can message any on-duty member via their talk page, and can avoid waiting for help from a member who isn't there. This also has the virtue of being something we can do right now. Thoughts? ZZClaims~ Evidence00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely with what you have stated. I thought that we had already decided about having a page for the first responders. The only purpose of the pager like tool would be so that if one user is having particular trouble with lets just say a group of related IPs that they could contact other FR so that could help combat the outbreak. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you as well Ultra, But the problem with having an "on duty" that needs editing to "clock in", ppl will inevitably forget to "clock out" and leave themselves on the list. Think baby steps ppl Ryan431415:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a very bad idea, that runs counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. It once again draws undesirable parallels to the military, and it is an overly bureaucratic solution to something that isn't in fact all that problematic. >Radiant<11:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this topic is still active, but I, a lowly new guy, like the idea, and could possibly be one of these First Responders. Please get back to me. Leonard^Bloom 22:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonard^Bloom (talk • contribs)
IRC
Moving this to a new header as the old one is getting clogged. Would it be a good idea to have an IRC channel for this project? I know about #vandalism-en-wp, but it would be nice to have one just to discuss vandalism, #vandalism-en-wp is flooded with RC so it is not really be possible to use it for discussions. --Mschel19:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this is better suited for the task force idea. There are many lone wolf members of this project, and the CVU is really just about cleaning up vandalism, not making vandal fighting an RTS. I do think it would be a wonderful backbone (or at the very least, vertebrae) for the First responder idea. J-stanTalkContribs19:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It could, I'm not ruling that out, I'm just saying the CVU is more about just getting in there and fighting vandalism, and a task force would be an organized team who would get more use out of it. J-stanTalkContribs19:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I would get more use out of something other than IRC. I'm not particularly technologically savvy, so I'm not sure how the whole template thing would work as far as making clear what other CVU folk are active, but I could easily tack something onto my user page to show when I'm around. --Moonriddengirl19:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
First off, I would like to say that the first responders thing sounds like a great idea. I would prefer it if it were not on IRC since not everybody can access it and it would be easier if everything was within Wikipedia itself. --Hdt83Chat22:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, lets establish a few things, first of all we all like the idea of a CVU First Responders Task Force. Second, a issue that needs to be decided is how the task force will be able to communicate as a unit. IRC is a option, however something on wikipedia would be better. The template idea by J-stan is awesome, now is the question on how to make it. Any ideas? Is it even possible? --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay I will look into that momentarily. Now another issue that needs to be addressed is how is the TF going to communicate quickly? By the way, before I make a active request for a template, let's make sure that is the way we want to go. I made a straw poll below. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes to clarify the subject of the poll it is regarding the template proposed by J-stan to work in conjunction with the first responders task force proposed by me and whether or not we should create a template for creation request. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 00:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
See my solution below. I don't even think we'd need a template, unless editors want it in their userspace or something. I think we should let First Responder go live before we create it. J-stanTalkContribs02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm contact at #wikipedia-de-rc where normally 20—30 vandal fighters or admins are online. … If there's a questionable edit you're able to discuss it; if you really need an admin you're able to find one there quickly. … On #wikipedia-de-rc we have a bot which displays new reports to the AIV and new inappropriate user names. A good bet: Don't tout it, so that you're making it to easy for IRC vandals to find it. Regards, —DerHexer(Talk)00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Survey
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Proposal: To devise and request a template which would permit members of an as-yet-to-be-formed Task Force to easily indicate their online status and determine which other members are also online. As proposed, such a template would take the place of an IRC-based system.
Support, I think. That is, I think I'm offering my support of some kind of template that will allow CVU members to let other CVU members know when they're online and available to help out with issues that come up on vandalism patrol. If it's a task force that signs on for specific times, I'd also support that, I suppose, but probably wouldn't be able to participate that much, since my time periods on Wikipedia are not that predictable at the moment. :) If I'm mistaken in the purpose of hte poll, please let me know, and I'll change my position if needed. ;) --Moonriddengirl23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Support as proposer of the idea on which I believe we are being surveyed. Addition I do not believe the CVU should be changed. If we use this system, it should only be for the task force, although other users can see which TF members are online, not CVU members altogether. J-stanTalkContribs00:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Support though scheduled times might not be a perfect solution (particularly for those of us with young children or other concerns). I also formulated the idea into a formal proposal, since there seemed to be some uncertainty on what we are discussing precisely. Please fix it if I misunderstood the question on the table. Best, ZZClaims~ Evidence00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Support, but this can be teamed with status templates and user Javascript to make it even simpler. I'm pretty sure one of the javascript gurus can figure how to do it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)01:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, I do not like status changers because my status keeps changing, and I hate to make an edit every time it does. If there was a way to make it so an edit is not required to change your status, I would gladly support. --Mschel02:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe that if you do it right, there are buttons at the top of the page, Next to "Log Out", and you should be able to change your status without making needless edits. I haven't gotten it to work just yet, but hopefully soon. J-stanTalkContribs02:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Support, If I am understand this correctly. CVU remains but sub-divisions or Task Forces will be implemented to deal with the different types of vandalism. For instance: people who blank other user pages, revert vandalism, page vandalism (people who write nonsense deliberatedly) etc, etc. Am I right? Jrod202:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Support Definitely a good idea. Interesting that you can get a template to do that. It would be very useful. Besides the First Responder Task Force, what other Task Forces will we have? More specifically, what jobs?Silver seren02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
By George, I think I've got it! I have an idea for the template. All members of the TF get the status changer, and then we (I could do it too) create a template with each user's status page in brackets ({{}}). Might I also recommend that membership into the TF be exclusive, so as not to stumble over eachother. Anybody can join the CVU, and aid in the FRT's (this just in: First Responder Team acronym looks like "fart") mission, but actual membership be only a few editors who take info and feed it out to everyone else. Other task forces (as suggested by others) could be created, and the FRT could work in conjunction with them. J-stanTalkContribs02:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
In general I like the idea. I have a few questions, however. One, how does one get into the task force. Two who is the everyone that the info is being fed out to. Finally, are you sure that the exclusiveness of the TF will not become to exclusive like the SLG did? --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 02:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
A) I think it should sort of be on a first come, first serve basis. I just don't want it to become so huge that everyone trips over each other, but not small enough so that only 1 or 2 editors are online at any given time. FRs should be vandal patrolling, watching and waiting for vandalism, which brings me to B) info would be reported on Wikidefcon templates, AIV, and perhaps an announcement template, which I think I could create. C) I have never heard of the SLG. J-stanTalkContribs02:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Why on earth do you need a vote to create a template? Just design it already, if people don't like it they can choose to not use it. >Radiant<09:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be also choosey?
I want to raise this point independently from the survey so as to keep visually clear all the users vote. Am I to understand that there will be some sort of tools that will be written and handed by J-stan? If so, shouldn't we (the members) of this present CVU, be selective of those who join these task forces (The CVU)? Just by making sure a user has had at least 3 months at WP and has not engaged in spamming activities, sock puppetry or too many times getting into irrational disputes with other members (3RRs, trolling, etc, etc) we can eliminate potential problems and run smoother the Task Forces. That's my opinion. It's not like the way admins get chosen, but maybe we should always vote to include new members according to their contributions and behavior. Especially, how they regard or treat others. All I want is to make sure that there will be integrity on those who will be trusted with those duties. Any comments? Jrod204:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
There actually isn't such a thing as CVU membership right now. Anyone who wishes to join it is a member, as the organization wishes to be as approachable as possible. I'm not sure what adding those restrictions would accomplish. While they look nice on paper, how can a non-existent membership elect candidates for a new task force? I think it is better to make it, check if it works, and then analyze again. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)04:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. I was just making a suggestion. But, in answering your question (how can a non-existent membership elect candidates for a new task force?): If you presently are CVU and already with 3 months as a volunteer, then you should qualify to vote to include or exclude the newe members. It's just a thought that I had. The last thing we need is users making a mockery of these activities. Jrod205:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
But the thing is, we went away with the whole idea of membership a while ago because it grew to an unmanageable size. While task forces are smaller, they should again be voluntary and open-ended, like WikiProject task forces. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)05:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
As said before there should be no strict membership or commitments. Everyone on Wikipedia is editing voluntarily and some people will not be available all the time but will still volunteer when they can. For example I won't be available daily for a while now but will do what I can when Im on Wikipedia.Tbo 157talk08:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
While I worry about abuse as well, I don't believe that closed membership is a good idea--at least not to begin with. I don't think your run-of-the-mill vandal is going to be that insidious. I am concerned that exclusivity will discourage fresh and eager participants. It didn't take me three months to hop on the CVU bandwagon. I'm with Titoxd in thinking we should "make it, check if it works, and then analyze again." --Moonriddengirl12:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree. FR should be comprised of a number of volunteers. They should be required to be more active than others in terms of vandal fighting, but this should not become to exclusive. My only concern is the fact that we need a cut off point in terms of the number of volunteers. How do we do so without making it permenant. One idea I had was to have let's say a wikipedian have at least 500 reverts and 3 months on the wiki as the minimum requirement. Since that is going to encompass a lot of people, maybe we should create rotating 1 month activity teams of 15. That way if 100 people meets the bottom requirement and 90 want to joing we can have 6 different teams going on one month shifts before rotating out till there next term. What about that. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 13:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should have requirements, that makes it a bit too bureaucratic. I am also against shifts. We should have enough members so that everybody helps, but not too many that it gets cluttered. I think 90 is too much. We should just get some startup members, and then just be selective of who joins after that. J-stanTalkContribs14:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I Think I am able to create some basic templates, nothing too flashy. If we are going through with this, maybe we should get a few members first. I'll give more details later.
With regards to membership, I think we could get some members (maybe like 20), and then be selective about who joins. My idea also proposes that anyone can aid the FRT, but there would only be a few actual members. I propose that other TFs be created, for whatever reason (RC patrol, things like that), so that we could organize ourselves further. J-stanTalkContribs14:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Whats the difference between an actual member and people aiding the FRT. They can both do the same thing if what you suggested is no shifts or bureaucracy.Tbo 157talk15:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Members actually look for vandalism to report it, while non members could report some stuff to members of the FRT, and then they could decide if it is appropriate to put out on reports.
By George, I'm on a roll! New idea: There are only a few members of the FRT who would sort of act like dispatchers, and the rest would be run like the CVU: sort of like a membership, but sort of a loose one. J-stanTalkContribs15:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't really understand what your trying to say. And anyone can make reports about vandalism to admins on the relevant pages.Tbo 157talk15:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, so let's implement something. I've set up luna's template at Template:CVUUsers, and created an IRC channel at #wikipedia-CVU - do we want to use this one or is #countervandalism sufficient? It would be nice if IRC users could sign in and out of RC patrol using a bot, this allowing users to differentiate between active RC patrollers and users available to assist but who are working elsewhere. --ST47Talk·Desk16:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Even if all users can't access it, it's a valuable way of getting instant feedback and it has much easier ways to check activity. --ST47Talk·Desk17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
As with any Wikiproject, anyone who wants to be a member is by default a member. It is not a good idea to set criteria, or inclusion votes, or anything else. Esperanza tried that, and look how they turned out. >Radiant<11:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that it was suggested to merge CVU in to RCP, how about the other way around, since a lot of reverting vandalism has to do with "patrolling" recent changes, shouldn't RC patrol be part of the CVU and become a taskforce of something under the CVU? --Hdt83Chat05:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Their scopes are not the same. The RC patrol deals exclusively with recent changes, including vandalism as well as other areas such as gramatical errors, typos, spelling, uncited statements, innacuracies, formatting errors, etc. The CVU deals exclusively with vandalism, including that in recent changes, but also in identifying vandalism patterns, watching specific articles, finding old vandalism that was missed, and preventing vandalism with warnings, protections, blocks, etc. While there is some overlap they are seperate, and I'm sure a proposed merger in the other direction would meet just as much resistance as this one did, if not more. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@20:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Parallel proposal
After consulting with a few people about the technical feasibility to do this, I'm bringing this proposal about the proposed First Responders task force here. In a nutshell, it doesn't do away with the advantages that IRC brings, but it allows on-wiki users to have access to the same real-time listings of who is online and who isn't. It determines online status either via StatusBot, or via logins to an IRC channel to be determined. Thoughts? Comments? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)06:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. Although I would prefer it if the available box was a light shade of green rather than blue but thats just me. --Hdt83Chat06:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Titoxd, that's exactly the kind of thing that I was hoping for--something that would allow me to just find help if I run into problems. Great job, Luna Santin. I think. Being technologically clueless, I'm not really qualified to judge. ;D --Moonriddengirl12:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
CVU (and presumably FRT members too) don't only fight vandalism. We need to ensure that a distinction is made between someone who is online working on Wikipedia, and someone who is online fighting vandalism on Wikipedia as a first responder. While we need to do that without requiring too much user input, using Statusbot will only provide an online/offline status not an FRT-active/FRT-inactive status. Waggers08:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say without user input, I just reiterated what was said above, that ideally we need to keep it to a minimum. Adding a tab to the top of the screen sounds sensible (and is certainly doable - WP:TWINKLE does it). The alternative is a slightly more intelligent bot that distinguishes reverts and user talk warnings (in other words, counter-vandalism edits) from other edits. Waggers09:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I like everything about the proposal except in terms of detection of if a user is vandal fighting or not. The idea of a more advanced bot sounds like a great idea and mayber should be pursued. Great idea Waggers. I think finally we are getting somewhere. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 13:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
My idea was that such an "unavailable" tag could be accomplished via a JavaScript toggle, such as User:Topaz/statuschanger.js. Perhaps it can be made the other way around, default to busy and then tag oneself "available". But either way, it is doable with JavaScript and the StatusBot framework or a similar framework. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)18:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think it's a good idea at all to call some people "first responders" and make their status clear. Wikipedia doesn't have ranks and hierarchies like that, and the net result of giving some people a title is always to exclude other people from certain activities that they may want to participate in. >Radiant<11:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the Counter Vandalism Unit just an organization for the sake of it? I mean really...First Responders? Just watch Recent Changes or what have you and then revert. No caring about number of reverts, no shifts of who works when, no membership. This stuff is senseless and only seeks to glorify the vandalism removal process, which we shouldn't. ^demon[omg plz]14:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
CVU is more than just watching RC and reverting vandalism. To more effectively remove vandalism, we're trying to coordinate our efforts and work together, notifying each other of persistent vandalism and so forth. --Ratiocinate(t • c)14:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Organization is a very good thing. You're free to watch RC, no one's going to force you to sign up, but increased coordination can support the encyclopedia. --ST47Talk·Desk14:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The problem is, a lot of vandalism slips through the net. Having a more coordinated response to vandalism will hopefully minimise that, and will help to flag to editors when extra help is needed on RCP. At present, everything is left to chance, and we need to work smarter than that. That's what the CVU is all about, and I can't see what's "senseless" about it. Waggers14:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
We already have the defcon, and no, most blatant vandalism is caught. Yes, things like trolling and BLP violations do tend to slip through, but that's beyond the capabilities of most RCP patrollers anyway. This proposal is just instruction-creep. MoreschiTalk14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there's a lot of vandalism that doesn't get caught by RCP. And, again, there is a difference between CVU and RCP. Plus, we're talking about a group of people against vandalism who want to be a little more coordinated. I don't see any 'instruction-creep' about it. --Ratiocinate(t • c)14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with demon. Alot of this is just arbitrary fluff. Very few of the ideas presented have any real value, and it seems like alot of members of the CVU are more concerned with looking and sounding good than actually being good. I think wikipedians take this too seriously. It's only a big deal if YOU make it a big deal. Just RCP sometimes, and things will be fine. HOnestly, who wants to come home from a shift at work in the real world, to have a shift at home on wikipedia. It's rediculous. --MKnight998914:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
In response to "CVU is more than just watching RC and reverting vandalism.", no it isn't, really. Recent changes patrolling hasn't changed in years and hasn't failed as far as I can tell. Putting people on shifts, creating "first responders" and other nonsense creates and unwanted bureauracy. Limiting editing times and making shifts aren't going to encourage vandal fighting, it's going to drive people away from CVU and revert on thier own time, like they should be. — Moeε14:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't think it's ridiculous -- again, we're not asking everyone to sign up. If you don't want the shift on Wikipedia, that's fine, but there is sufficient interest in such a cooperative organization to defeat vandalism. For one thing, I would definitely like to know who else is actively fighting vandalism at the time, if only so I could say something like, "Hey, I have to go now, but there's been a spate of IP vandalism on X. Do you mind keeping an eye on it? Thanks." --Ratiocinate(t • c)14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. This is an idea I've been thinking of to myself for a while, it was implemented to a point in vandalproof 2, but now we can actually set up a collaboration of online users and administrators. --ST47Talk·Desk14:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of creating a task force and a template to improve coordination but everything should be voluntary. There should be no compulsory membership or shifts. This is unnecessary. It just needs some organisation so that vandalism can be cleared up better. It does not need a military style structure.Tbo 157talk14:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone's proposing compulsory shifts, but rather a table of who is available at a certain time, which would allow people to more evenly distribute effort. --ST47Talk·Desk14:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
That's the kind of thing I was thinking about, too, Ratiocinate. You can always count on somebody else to find the page blankers, but some vandals are more insidious. The way I do RC Patrol, a notification system of the sort being bandied about isn't necessarily going to do anything for me, but being able to locate an editor who is also on vandal patrol and willing to interact would be very useful. --Moonriddengirl16:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I certainly believe that the ability to communicate during a high level of vandalism, and act as a unit would be beneficial. I agree though, shifts need to go. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 16:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I am in favor of templates, no commitments and good coordination through a special information channel (script). However, at some point, membership should be implemented with other members voting to either include or exclude the new comer. If this new CVU organization is successful, it's inevitable that it will be over-staffed (Too many FRs) and a suitable editor selection could never hurt. I guess we will discuss it when we cross that bridge. Jrod216:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Moe, you may want to have a look at my third law of Wikipedia: Telling others how to stop wasting their time is a good way to waste yours. No one will force you to RC patrol for a certain amount of time. There are no penalties for not enrolling in the task force. The suggestion to make mandatory shifts boiled down to simple brainstorming. However, the fact that there are users who want to do it and organize better make it sound like a good idea to my ears. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)18:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between posting about an article that is frequently vandalised and setting up task forces just to put the 'U' in CVU. --MKnight998912:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Tito, if no one bothered to criticize the judgement of others and better guide them in something, Wikipedia wouldn't move foward. I just wanted to make that absolutely clear, because what I read didn't seem to dismiss the idea, so I wasn't sure there was consensus to move ahead with shifts and times of editing idea. If it were that would be a little much, which is what I was commenting on. The template thing to generate active users is a good idea for the most part, and I didn't say anything about that. If users voluntarily do the shifts thing, thats thier choice. I was stepping in to make sure that everyone wasn't placed on a schedule for editing is all. — Moeε13:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Discussion of potential interest to RC Patrollers
There's an ongoing policy discussion of guidelines for lists which may interest some of you, specifically in the question of whether redlinked additions should be permitted. I have my own opinion, but am not canvassing for supporters. :) I think the conversation could use more input from CVU even if you disagree with me. Healthy debate = good. --Moonriddengirl16:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
let's move the discussions
Since we're pretty much set that we want the FRT, i've created a subpage for it. Let's discuss proposals for the TF there, instead of cluttering the CVU Talk page.
Has anyone considered whether The Community feels the need for first responders
I'm all for enthusiasm, but has anyone asked whether the greater editing community (or, heaven forfend, the admins who will still need to push the buttons) whether this is desired? It might be useful to get some input from outside parties before you present your nice new shiny proposal. There is already a few people with misgivings about the amount of WP:CREEP potential here, and I am very wary of potentially creating cliques where an aspect of maintaining the encyclopedia starts driving practice. I think people here need to chill for just a little while, and consider the wider implications. For the record, I think the CVU does an excellent job - as I am one of those who is currently active at AIV - and would support any effort that helps it providing it doesn't violate the principles of WP. LessHeard vanU20:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, when you think about it, the proposed task force is just like any other WikiProject. It needs a critical mass of interested users to get started. Apparently, there are many users interested in something similar to this, and it has been proposed several times in the past... so why not? It isn't mandatory... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)20:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
First Responders is kind of a misnomer. We are, in essence, a group of editors who want to have a more centralized manner of communicating and fighting vandalism. Also, I hope we're not being too clique-y -- anyone can join, but nobody is obligated to do so. Furthermore, we don't intend to increase the amount of WP:CREEP, seeing as how this is completely optional. Cheers! --Ratiocinate(t • c)20:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Since it was brought up here I'll just respond here. As far as WP:CREEP is concerned, I don't see a huge threat to instruction creep considering that this would be done on an entirely at-will basis. Editors who would prefer not to be a part of it will not be affected by it. They would still be able to edit and deal with vandalism on their own terms, within the overarching Wikipedia policies and guidelines. All this will do is provide a tool for those who wish to make use of it. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@20:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm quite sure I could be wrong, but as it stands now I don't see much grounds for objection. :) Currently, it's a way for CVU members who want to participate to be able to contact each other, right? (At least, that's what it seems to be.) The name might be off-putting to some, I suppose, given that some folk have expressed concerns already over the name CVU. The idea as it seems to be evolving seems to me to be innocuous otherwise. --Moonriddengirl20:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Taking it to The Village Pump (policy), as discussed elsewhere, will likely get you a range of opinions. Remember, having the police enforce the rules is a good thing, but having the police make the rules is generally considered bad. Also, proponents very rarely see the downside of anything since they are more concerned with the benefits - it sometimes takes a dispassionate opinion to point out potential problems. LessHeard vanU21:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm with you on that, particularly since the village pump proposal was, I believe, mine. :D (At least I made one; maybe somebody else did as well.) I would like to get more feedback on the name question at the bottom of the page, though, since I think it's likely to be the most confusing part of the proposal. --Moonriddengirl21:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it was, but I am posting here as it is likely to be seen by more eyes. ;~) Um... the naming doesn't really concern me, it is something to be resolved once the need for such a group establishes consensus. LessHeard vanU21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Threading gets confusing. I thought you were specifically addressing me. :) (But as an aside, I feel like it's better to settle the question--if there is a question--of the name before taking it to village pump. The last village pump conversation I got involved in quickly became huge and sprawling, and I feel like as concise a proposal as possible will facilitate smooth discussion.) --Moonriddengirl21:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed if we bring it on to village pump the discussion will become huge. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to create a post at Village Pump (proposals) linking here. We could have a discussion section on this page and then a survey section. From there we could really start establishing this Task Force. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
(reply to Moonriddengirl) I mean the name thing doesn't bother me, but if it is believed that a suitable name would not divert discussion over the core issues over at the Village Pump (or elsewhere) then by all means have it decided upon before posting there. LessHeard vanU20:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm really not convinced that this needs to go to the wider community. I'm all for open discussion - but this discussion is open. We're just a Wikiproject, putting together some ideas. Does every Wikiproject need to put every idea they discuss on the village pump? No. I don't see why the CVU should be subjected to special treatment in this way. What we're proposing is no change at all for non-CVU members, and nothing that would have a major effect on Wikipedia as a whole, so why the big fuss? Waggers08:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I've seen two posts saying this won't effect other people. If this is true, then you're doing it only for yourself, in which case it's just masturbation (figure of speech). All people need to do is RC patrol and report serious cases to AIV. This is not a real police force. You cannot arrest vandals. You cannot make them stop doing what they do. You cannot coordinate fire teams to cover different exits. I think this idea started out as some people wanting to play cops and robbers online, and it got a little out of hand. Go play SWAT 4 or something. --MKnight998912:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the system as proposed has value. I recently ran into a vandal who broke Twinkle--attempting to reverse the damage he did crashed Firefox twice and my system a third time before I was able to figure out a work-around. If I had been able to reach a more technologically savvy vandal patroller, it probably would have been dealt with more swiftly and without a hard restart. There have also been many occasions when I've been on RC patrol and needed to leave but hated to stop monitoring the activities of a particularly insidious vandal--the kind of guy who inserts a few character racial slur into an article. Having someone to whom I can say, "I have to put my kid to bed; can you watch this guy over at Tiger Woods?" would be handy. For these reasons and others, I think a system allowing CVU to locate other CVU has merit. --Moonriddengirl13:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
MKnight9989, if you have anything useful to contribute other than making infantile analogies and patronizing everyone with videogame references, perhaps you can find something better to do yourself than sit here and massage your ego.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@13:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) To MKnight9989: we are not the vandalism police. We have no interest in 'jailing' vandals (indeed, we cannot); we are not asking for privileges to block or ban them, and we are not being exclusive, bringing WP:CREEP, or negatively affecting valuable contributors. All we're trying to do is to improve cooperation by writing a tool to coordinate CVU, which is due mainly to the (blatantly false) claim that we're 'inactive'. To that end, our proposal is to have a template that is coordinated via IRC and wiki to notify other members who else is online, so we can help each other in a fashion similar to what Moonriddengirl has described above. The claims that Moreschi have made over at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Thou shalt fight vandalism - fight, I say! (Bureauracy watch) are in response to a proposal which has since been revised. Please, please take a look at what we're actually trying to do before telling us all to "go play SWAT 4". Thanks. --Ratiocinate(t • c)13:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
User MKnight9989 has the right to form an opinion, but perhaps he should consult with his Dad (User:Jmlk17) as well? Maybe he'll have the patience to read all of this and explain to him, what is being discussed here and why. Jrod214:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
One: I made no video game references. I said maybe some people should play SWAT 4 because it seems to me that the CVU has become a clubhouse for fans of cops and robbers. And I said masturbation because as everyone know you probably won't get anyone pregnant by partaking in it. Hasn't anyone here ever read Tom Clancy (specifically Red Storm Rising)? He uses that expression alot. It's not infantile, as most infants would not be able to masturbate, and either way, I was trying to prove a point. And what I said is true. If this won't affect anyone, then you won't accomplish anything, hence the use of the word masturbation. And Ratiocinate when you said "All we're trying to do is to improve cooperation by writing a tool to coordinate CVU, which is due mainly to the (blatantly false) claim that we're 'inactive'.", it made it seem like this discussion only exists to prove the CVU still has worth, and there are MANY more ways to actually do that than what you're doing. Instead of reacting to the vandals who shut down firefox, take the initiative and make them react to you. Make a counterporgram that does something similar to them. Don't cut the leaves off the weed, pull it out of the ground. It's not the idea itself that I have a problem with, it's the reasoning behind it. Hey Oki, remember when you said "Editors who would prefer not to be a part of it will not be affected by it."? That proves my point even more. What is the point of this if it won't effect other people? You guys keep contradicting yourselves in an effort to see this through no matter what. Change the plan according to the situation, not the situation according to the plan. --MKnight998914:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
MKnight9989, you're not understanding what we're trying to do. We won't be affecting other users -- that is, those who don't wish to participate. However, those that do wish to participate will have a new tool to help them fight vandalism by increasing cooperation. Yes, this came about partially because people thought we were inactive, which we're not. CVU is not -- and should not be -- a lone-wolf operation. To that end, we're trying to encourage and enhance cooperation even further by introducing a new tool. --Ratiocinate(t • c)14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent) I'm confused by your suggestion: "Instead of reacting to the vandals who shut down firefox, take the initiative and make them react to you." First of all, I don't think it would be Wikipedia policy to make a program that would break a vandal's computer. The reason we give them multiple warnings is because we don't automatically assume that they're lost causes. Secondly, I would have no clue how to make a program to break a vandal's computer. If that were the right response, a CVU online template would be perfect for me to find somebody who did know how. And, yes, that would only impact people who choose to be involved and still be very helpful. And my part in this conversation didn't come about because people thought CVU was inactive; it was because before this discussion I was unaware there was any direct way to interact with the community. --Moonriddengirl14:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Let me add one more thing. MKnight9989, when you say, Instead of reacting to the vandals who shut down firefox, take the initiative and make them react to you. Make a counterporgram that does something similar to them -- this is exactly what we don't want to do. We're trying to make a tool that helps us protect articles from being vandalized; we are not trying to shut down vandals, because that would be stepping outside of our bounds. --Ratiocinate(t • c)14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting a new paragraph,
I just can't see this being very useful. I mean, suppose I'm dealing with joe, who is a vandal. He keeps vandalising the page cow. I tell jimmy, who is alos in the CVU, about joe. Jimmy continues to warn Joe, then reports him to AIV. Joe is banned forever and ever, and hence the problem is solved until Joe creates a sock puppet. So please, explain to me how your idea would be anymore effective, because I think I might have missed something fundamentally important. --MKnight998914:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflictresponding to MKight, 2 comments above) I am reluctant to involve people without the initiative on their part, so I won't use names, but I have a number of editors I know of who are highly active on pages on my watchlist. When one or more or them are on, since they are generally more effective at patrolling vandalism than myself, I will be more conservative in investigating in reverting, focusing my attention on pages that aren't being covered by active users at the moment. When I don't see any users on, I would be significantly more scrutinizing on my watchlist with edits to those pages, especially by anon-IPs and new accounts.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@14:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
My last edit was made before radiocinate and moonridden's last edits, so let respond to them. I'm not saying you destroy their computer, what I'm saying is the CVU is all bark and no bite. You can have the best communications and supply of any army in the world, but if your men don't have guns, then what's the point? We need to focus more on giving the CVU more bite that more communications. Comm is important, but second to actually getting the job done. --MKnight998914:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
That too, wwas after your most recent edits. I keep getting edit conflicts.
Now that I understand the actual idea, I'm not as opposed to it, but it still seems like the CVU is lacking in prioritization skills. --MKnight998914:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, we do have some kind of guns. I don't believe the process is broken. Sometimes it takes a while for an admin to block a vandal, but usually it seems longer than it actually is, since vandals can work pretty quickly. I'd be a little worried about giving CVU more bite because I've run into some folks on vandal patrol who don't seem to get the basic concept. Recently, I found an individual warning off folks doing good faith edits on his pages. No, I think more power is not the answer. :) Just a more efficient way of working with the tools we have. --Moonriddengirl14:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Except that my kid's got to go to bed (or I do) and Joe has had his "final warning" and is vandalizing pages at a rate of once per every five minutes. Or, as I said, when somebody's crashing my computer and it takes me three tries to figure out that if twinkle can't handle it, I can still go in the old fashioned way and do it. There are times when input is helpful. --Moonriddengirl14:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, posting here is like playing russian roullette right now, edit conflicts galore. Joe may have a ban that is about to lapse, joe may not have had the proper vandalism warnings for an effective intervention by a moderator yet. More than one person may be making those edits. Recent events and news coverage have a tendency to incite vandalism. I can recall at least one case where several users vandalized an article because it was mentioned on a forum. Knowing who's online will be good for finding who's talk page would net you a quick response if you feel you need to consult with someone else on an issue, i.e. "Is this blatant vandalism or do you think its just a good faith edit / misunderstanding?" "Do you think Xyz may be a sockpuppet for ABC?". --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@14:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me first reply to Moonriddengirl and MKnight9989 a few comments back, as I also keep getting edit conflicts:
It would be a good idea to find out what we're trying to do before criticizing it. Moonriddengirl is correct. But why do we care if Jimmy is online, you ask? Because, like I said, CVU is not a lone-wolf operation. The example that Moonriddengirl has raised on several occasions: Having someone to whom I can say, "I have to put my kid to bed; can you watch this guy over at Tiger Woods?" would be handy. Another issue we run into are edits that may appear to be vandalism, but are in reality good faith edits, or vice versa. It would be very helpful to get a second set of eyes to look at a particular edit, which can be done nearly instantaneously with our proposed tool. --Ratiocinate(t • c)14:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
One of the main arguments against CVU is that it has too much "power", that we're a bunch of "vandalism police" (which, I believe, you yourself raised). However, like I said earlier, CVU is not about punishing vandals. It would be unwise to let CVU be judge, jury, and executioner when dealing with vandals; our job, as the first sentence of WP:CVU, states: The Counter-Vandalism Unit (CVU) aims to help in cleaning up vandalism on Wikipedia by producing tools to assist in removing vandalism, providing advice on dealing with vandals, and sharing information with other Wikipedians dealing with the same issues. We clean up vandalism; we don't punish vandals. --Ratiocinate(t • c)14:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought I understood what you were trying to do. That is why I criticized it. I misunderstood and for that I apologize. now that I understand, I am not as opposed but I still think there are better ways to go about doing it. I proposed something similar (see 'calling up the reserves). --MKnight998914:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I admit, when I see someone commit twelve acts of vandalism in a row I read 3, give them the sternest vandalism warning, and if they vandalise again I report their ass. I'm sick of vandals fucking shit up. (pardon the language) --MKnight998914:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Question, what really else needs to be done to get this thing rolling. A WP:TOOL needs to be created to allow for a button thingy that would let you sign on to the TF volunteer network. Anybody no how to create this kind of tool? --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
(\r) Before that, we need to figure out who wants to volunteer. Ideally, how about we start a list here? (We can always move it around, depending on the name we end up picking.) Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)17:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
...that people are too cuddly to vandals. Saying "I've been watching and warning this guy for an hour, can you take over?" is the wrong approach. If someone's been warned, that's enough incentive for a block in my book. Requiring n number of warnings, then a report, then possibly a block? Far too much work for someone who's not here to help. They vandalize, you warn them to stop, they don't, you block. Plain and simple, always has been. ^demon[omg plz]16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not our place to change vandalism policy. Also, there is a major bug with MediaWiki with regard to anonymous users, which is where the majority of vandalism comes from. This bug is described here in greater detail. --Ratiocinate(t • c)16:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:RBI is an essay, neither policy nor guideline, whereas WP:VAND is policy. Of course, you can say that WP:RBI should be made into policy, but that's not the debate at hand. Plus, this discussion is not entirely relevant to the proposed tool, which contradicts neither WP:VAND nor WP:RBI. You can say that it does not promote the spirit of WP:RBI, but it is not forbidden by WP:RBI, either. --Ratiocinate(t • c)19:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Not looking for a fight here, but in my opinion, no one, not even a vandal should be blocked after just one warning. Blocking someone after a {{uw-vandalism1}}, {{uw-vandalism2}}, or even {{uw-vandalism3}} is a bit much. This, of course carries over to the uw-spam, test, etc. etc. templates. Cheers, Arky¡Hablar!21:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Arky, you should block after 3rd warning if this editor's contribution is dedicated solely to a particular article or has only a few edits (all RVs), has no user name, or, a continuous amount of war edits from anon IPs appear to be from a similar location, and are acting in conjunction with the user. Another reason why you should block is if the user only contributes external links without adding content to the articles. Jrod221:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, understood. However, I was (unclearly, I might add) talking about blocking after a third level or less warning that is the first warning the user received. Happy editing, Arky¡Hablar!22:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Part of it is simply that in the time it takes you ask to someone to watch a vandal for you, you could have just reported them to AIV, and it would have ended. --MKnight998912:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
But you can't report them until they've had a final warning, and Wikipedia's policy is to AGF, using escalating warnings. Some vandals are quite slow. Once I identify somebody who seems to be up to something, I tend to watch them for a while. As an example, I encountered one yesterday who vandalized at 17:44; 18:06; 18:29; 18:45 and 18:53 (at which point he was reported & blocked). With that guy, there'd have been a whole lot more time to ask somebody to watch him than to wait to report him as appropriate. :) --Moonriddengirl12:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
That's never happened to me. I'm not saying your lying or anything, but you have to admit that's probably pretty rare. --MKnight998912:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Report
Good day Counter-vandalizers , i'd like to report someone who have recieved all the levels of vadalism warnings , and still removing contents Ammar (Talk - Don't Talk) 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, talk pages can certainly handle being long while significant discussions are occurring. I now have no idea what was discussed, and going into archives for recent events is counter-intuitive and unnecessary. I am un-archiving my recent subject. - RoyBoy80023:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to express my apologies for archiving. I thought I had removed a section that was relatively quiet, but it is clear that others wish to view and discuss that material. I will wait until the entire discussion finishes before re-archiving. Cheers! --Ratiocinate(t • c)01:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Not just finishes, but expires - I'd wait at least a couple of weeks after the last comment in any section before archiving it. Waggers08:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I would definitely call recent freshly updated events worthy of remaining on the active talk page. Wait until they are somewhat dormant before burying them in the archives to gather the cobwebs of time forgotten. Valley2city05:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Vandal Fighter 3.3 Preconfigured
Note this has been unarchived to provide a resource for patrollers; and was done in part to provide a counter-argument to the notion the CVU serves no useful function.
I have uploaded pre-configured Vandal Fighterhere. Admin list loaded, important columns and options set; great for new and veteran vandal fighters alike. You can let it run in the background while you do something else and then scroll quickly through the backlog to spot the blatant vandalism missed by our first line defenders. - RoyBoy80023:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow! That is really great! I use a proxy and was never able to get those lists before. Thanks a lot! --Mschel20:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
This really isn't that complicated.
If you don't think this is the best way to fight vandalism... then don't fight vandalism this way. All the "Revert, block, ignore" folk are fine by me. If you want to do it that way, then do it that way. If someone wants to do it this way, then they can do it this way. We are all fighting the same vandals, so why is so much breath being wasted on irrelevant squabbling? Let's do something productive and get back to reverting, blocking, and ignoring. --causa suitalk05:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Invitation for Comment
I'd like to invite the members of CVU to have a look at an essay I developed a few weeks back, with the valuable input from several administrators and respected editors. Initially, the project was aimed at general "template" issues and the etiquette related to their use, but as I wrote, it really turned into more of an essay that would be aimed towards new editors who wished to get into vandalism fighting, or recent changes patrol. It is a very thorough essay that covers the types of vandalism, the response, the proper use of templates, when not to template, and other areas. It is not public. It is in my user space, and it has been reviewed by a number of administrators, but I'd like the opinions of the members here, whether they feel it is useful to put it up as a resource for new folks, or if it is really not needed.
I do realize that there are some who just think everyone should "revert, template warn, block" and that's all there is to it; while that may be fine for those editors, there are also those who may prefer to go about it in a more personal way. So this is aimed towards those who would like more background, or more options.
Please be gentle, this is a second draft, and again, is an essay, so it should not be taken as a guideline or policy, it is neither. It is simply a collection of opinions, experiences, and examples.
(That's probably not the name it would end up being, but a temporary name in the absence of anything more catchy). Ariel♥Gold07:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a good start. The more experience that can be infused into it, and the more prescription that can be taken out of it, the better. GracenotesT§13:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, length is one area I think it needs help with, so maybe if Gracenotes (or anyone else) can identify areas that could be taken out, that would help! Thanks for looking at it! Ariel♥Gold10:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks fine to me. Great point about the use of a more visual content depicting positive images on warning messages. Jrod210:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
(UI) Yes, that's something I really believe in, the medium of pure text is just all too easy to "read wrong" (pun intended), and adding even a tiny smile on a talk page, or when commenting, can completely change the way something comes across. (Okay so my degree in Psych did come in handy, lol) Ariel♥Gold10:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
CVU warning template
Hey People,
A while ago, I had to deal with a sock puppeteer and his meat puppet who were vandalizing the Audio mastering page. They simply wouldn't let up and created a lot of disruption. They used multiple socks and anon IPs as well. It came to a point that the need to protect the page was the sensible thing to do, but this would have meant a stop to the page development. While at some point after the initial attacks, there were some heated debates by me, the sock puppets, and a couple of other users who were in essence, keeping a watch to the page and not letting it be vandalized, there were a few new comers who got "hit" in the crossfire. For this reason, I think a template that basically says: "Do not edit this page at this moment as we are fighting vandalism", may actually help fight crime while inviting new comers to come back a little later when things are under control.
So, obviously this needs your feedback and approval first. Now, everything can be modified and improved upon member suggestions/requests. This is just an initial template for your review. Thank you. Jrod221:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment I'm concerned about the community wide reception of this. Generally, I'm afraid this is likely to be an extremely controversial idea simply on principle. While I understand what you're trying to do (and definitely sympathize!), I doubt it will fly. I have no doubt that people will point out that if an article is under attack, we have the power to RPP. That said, more specifically, "first of the day" is nebulous given that Wikipedia has international contributors and "day" could be almost anything. (I tried to post this below the template, and my comment got swallowed in black. Is it working properly?)--Moonriddengirl21:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a little overboard, but I do sympathize with the idea. Specifically mentioning "CVU" is probably unnecessary. I would consider scaling it back more to basically just say, "This page is being heavily vandalized, so be aware your changes may get lost, particularly if they are not well-sourced." I dunno... --Jaysweet21:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
oops, Moonriddengirl I thought i erased that part "first of the day". I certainly realize that is naive. How about I try what Jaysweet suggests? And, yes i hope the template is working properly. Jrod221:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The whole idea might run into problems. There's already a hearty school advocating starving vandals of attention (that whole deny recognition thing), and tagging pages in this way might be perceived as encouraging rather than discouraging vandalism. I'm not sure any kind of label will meet community approval, but, then, I tend to be cautious rather than bold in general. I might not be the best one to weigh in on this. I will say that if you are going to try to introduce a template, you might want to keep it simple and very low-key. (Like Ariel said, the black is very visible.) Jaysweet's suggestions are nicely abbreviated, but I'd consider taking it back even further: "This page is being heavily vandalized. Edits may be lost." Something like that. Anyway, good luck with it. :) People get very passionate over these kinds of things. I'm currently engaged in a conversation about the guidelines for lists that has gotten a tad bit heated here and there. --Moonriddengirl21:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I do like the cooperation & contributions line, though I'd probably just make it "contributions" and not "future contributions." They might well choose to edit the page anyway. :) --Moonriddengirl22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
|}
While I understand the concern, and I do believe that the intention is good, the fact is, the above notice box is really disruptive, both with the way it is colored (Black is not a good background color for any notice), and in the way it is worded. It makes it sound much more "police-y" than I think is called for. I would agree with Moonriddengirl that while it would be nice to have something like this, the fact is that if there is a real issue, a temp protection could simply be granted and solve the problem. Also, the banner is not formatted properly, you have left the script open, so as Moonriddengirl mentioned, replies get swallowed up. I fixed this by adding |} before my comment, so I think you need to go add that to the template, to fix it, or anything written after it would be obliterated. Ariel♥Gold21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, well, according to you, the colors were too much police-like, so it's changed to a bright basic color. The view image icon has to remain black because is an image and conveys that we are watching. As for RPP, like i said before, that would hinder any article development. My goal is to create a "marker" that doubles as a warning, so that other CVU members can see it as a page in trouble (sort of) but gently let new comers know that editing at this particular time, may not be the best thing to do. Jrod221:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the good pointers to all of you. It does read better. All we have to do s if we need it or if anybody would use it for those "special" situations. Please comment. Thanks. Jrod222:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
New section for editing ease
Well, the colors are a bit better, but I personally don't equate that black "blob" (that's how it looks to me, sorry, lol) to "being watched". I think something more effective would be something that conveys a sense of humor, as well as the indication of "Ooops, stuff has happened here!", or "don't do that!". The image of the Wikipedia page in all that black, is really so small it isn't immediately identifiable, and the black part, well, it doesn't really look to me like something being "watched". Also, the 'external links' link should be in wikilink-markup. Please don't take this as a negative at all. However, compare the immediate, visual, psychological clues of something like this:
Caution: This page is currently seeing heavier than normal activity. Edits may get reverted or removed if they are not properly sourced. If you are new to Wikipedia, please make sure your edits are referenced to a verifiable source, and you provide an edit summary. If you are adding external links, please read and understand "Links to be avoided". Thank you for your cooperation and contributions! We appreciate your edits! If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.
However, all that being said, I still think that such a banner is not going to really get approved, for the main reason of WP:DFTT, because in a way, it could encourage vandalism, and also because the resources for vandalism already exist, in WP:AIV, WP:RPP, and WP:ANI. I do admire your WP:BOLDness and initiative, however! Ariel♥Gold23:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ariel, great example. I have revised the template as per your example, however, it's important to point out that tools like WP:RPP, maybe a bit too extreme and it will disrupt the article page development to a halt. The only thing left to discuss is, whether the template will encourage vandals to do further damage or not. What is your comment? Jrod200:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Lol I think that smiley face has a big black blurry nose! . The image originally is in .svg format, which doesn't blur no matter how large it gets, but it looks like something happened to it with yours, as it is very blurry (to me anyway). I think the binoculars are distracting, as they aren't immediately identifiable. Keep in mind with things like this, you are basically talking about literally a split second upon which to convey an idea using an image, before the person either rejects it, or accepts it for the intended meaning. I don't think that your revised image does that. (And again, I really feel like you'll see this as me being Miss Negative, and honestly I'm not trying to be, but as someone who has done graphics professionally, I just have to voice my thoughts in those areas). As for whether it will feed trolls... eh, I personally think it would. You have to consider some of the motivation behind vandalism. We're not talking about some editing tests, if a page is repeatedly, destructively vandalized, enough to warrant a notice like this, it is usually because someone has thought it out, designed a plan to disrupt, and therefore, shows premeditation. Are they likely to be stopped because of a banner saying "don't do that"? No, I doubt it. Will it provoke them even more? I'd probably say yes. But ultimately, my opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans. lol. Ariel♥Gold00:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't say that Ariel. Your points are well taken. I guess, no matter how you dress it , this template will not discourage vandals. But, what about innocent newcomers? If they see it, maybe they'll come back to edit later on and not get discouraged to contribute. Let's say the page is undergoing vandalism at 10:am 10:10 and 10:20. and you are reverting and reverting, then at 10:30 a newbie comes in and places an external link. It's not referenced so you delete at 10:32. At 10:35 newbie posts again, because he thinks that something happened with his entry. You revert and warn at 10:36. The newbie might have added a whole bunch of unverifiable text content as well. He might have been waiting all week to do this contribution. All he knows is that, it didn't stay not even 10 minutes online! He never read rules, and now he knows that there is more to it when you contribute to WP. So my point is, if an article that's being very much scrutinized by many editors is not warning newcomers that the rules are fully in place, wouldn't this template only help encourage them to come back to contribute to WP? So, it's not so much to discourage vandals (We know nothing will stop them) but to encourage newcomers to edit correctly. I can certainly change the image, if you don't like binoculars on the funny face, we could use the surprise face, right? Thanks for your attention. Jrod200:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, okay let me address these things as I personally see them, and how I take action. First, for a page to have a "heavy vandalism" warning, I think it would be more like 20+ intentional, deliberate actions within a 10-15 minute period, by multiple IPs or editors. If it were just 4-5 instances, there is no need for this kind of notice. Second, everyone doing RC patrol should always review the editor's contributions, and talk page prior to reverting, and prior issuing any warnings or notices. If the person is obviously new, has no warnings on their talk page, (or is a shared IP with no recent warnings - must assume GF and assume it is a "new" user), then there is no reason to warn them, a welcome with helpful links will suffice, or the use of the first "warning" level, which welcomes them to Wikipedia, providing helpful links as well, and explains why their edit was reverted. This goes along with my tendency to not like the standard warnings, and I prefer to use my own, or type a quick note instead with obvious new editors. The onus is on the RC patrollers to correctly identify vandals vs. innocent contributors that made mistakes. But again, the bottom line to me is, if a page is being heavily vandalized, and I'm talking 30+ reversions in the matter of an hour or less, then protection is needed. Yes, that disrupts genuine IP editors, but some protections are only a few hours, enough time for the vandals to get tired of "playing" and go away. 24 hours is fair, and it is explained when a new user tries to edit. Also, again, AIV is there for that very reason, if someone is doing intentional disruptive editing more than 4 times, report them. Within a few minutes, trust me, they'll be blocked. Honestly I truly do respect your ideas, and I think your heart is in the right place, but I also don't think you're going to get the approval to do something like this. Again, that's just my own, tiny, irrelevant opinion, but I have done probably 2,500 or more reversions due to vandalism, and I've only once asked for page protection. AIV has solved nearly all the issues I've run into so far, and I have faith in that system, and in page protection. As for the image, you can use whatever image you want, I'd just suggest that you keep in mind the psychological cues of first impression, and use something very clear, and simple to convey your message. Ariel♥Gold01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I honestly have to say that, while I admire the effort to fill a niche in wikipedias vandal fighting world, I do wonder what use this kind of template will have. For explaining to new users whos edits might accidentally be wiped during vandal fighting, as good user/admin will note that he or she has done this and leave the user a casual note, that is if the edit was indeed helpful. If it wasn't and was removed due to no sources or so on (as this new template mentions) there are plenty of messages and templates for that already. Furthermore, in terms of notifying that the page is protected due to vandalism, cursory notes by the admin on the talk page have always been sufficient. I am just concerned that this is a case of over-templating when a simple home made sentence or two by an admin can explain the situation just as easily, and be more tailored to the situation. That's just my two cents, if I have misunderstood anything please point it out to me :) SGGHspeak!01:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it all seems reasonable. I just thought about the thousands of new editors who will get deleted on their very first edit at WP because they didn't know about those basic rules mentioned in the template. Thanks for your input, Guys. Jrod201:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It's a neat idea don't get me wrong. I'm just not sure about "thousands" I do genuinely believe that most editors let new users know nicely if they do something wrong, and also with the new "undo" feature, its easier to pick and choose what edits to revert. Furthermore, the welcome template is used often, and wikipedias rules are out there in reasonably plain sight. I don't discount your efforts though please don't get me wrong! :) SGGHspeak!01:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
While I agree on pretty much everything said here, I must say that, an anon IP editor who is never been to WP and naturally has no user account, can't see a WELCOME template and therefore, makes an edit going on the assumption that the word "Edit" on the article's page means "help yourself". It's only later and IF he decides to stay (By opening an account) that he might get a chance to read the WELCOME template. IP address visitors who edit an article for the first time, never see WELCOME templates. Many times their contributions are great. Sometimes is just to correct information, but they don't want to be users. My guess is that this happens thousands of times a day. Anyone care to comment about this? Jrod212:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
So why would this warning template be important?
I think that it would be important to pages that are undergoing an hourly watch by users and CVU members to let new comers (Mainly anon IP addresses, of course) know that their edits maybe deleted if they are not well referenced. It could also be good warning for an IP address contributor who never edited a heavily watched page before and might have been making, up to that point, lots of mistakes when editing other pages that were not scrutinized. Do you know as to whether most IP address visitors understand that by clicking on their IP signature, they could see their IP user page and therefore, possibly see a WELCOME template? I am curious. Jrod212:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Am I understanding this correctly when I say that this template supplements the IP user's talk page in letting him or her know how to edit properly? Is there anything else it is intended to do? --Ratiocinate(t • c)15:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Do anon IP address new visitors know that there is even a talk page made to them automatically? Can you navigate as an IP address and not even notice for a while that you have an anon IP address talk page? In my own personal experience, it took me a whole day and a half to figure it out and that's because I was interested to become a contributor, not a one time user. Jrod215:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Another possible use (with the help of the bot programmer, of course) would be as a marker. Wouldn't it be nice that, just as I can see my status online, that I could see on that same page a list of pages that have been tagged or "marked" for vandalism by CVU members and other editors? Just a thought. Jrod215:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
When people leave messages on an anon IP's talk page, a yellow bar should show up and say, "You have new messages! (last change)". However, bug 9213 prevents some IP users from receiving the message. I see how this template can be helpful, but it doesn't seem consistent, especially since all of the instructions on it apply to all articles, not just the ones that CVU is watching. --Ratiocinate(t • c)15:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Ratiocinate, I did a test. I logged out and went to an article. I clicked on "Edit" and got the edit window with the following:
You are not currently logged in. While you are free to edit without logging in, your IP address (which can be used to determine the associated network/corporation name) will be recorded publicly, along with the time and date, in this page's edit history. It is sometimes possible for others to identify you with this information. Creating an account will conceal your IP address and provide you with many other benefits. Messages sent to your IP can be viewed on your talkpage.
Please do not save test edits. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox.
So, I could have made an incorrect edit and if this article was not being watched all day, I could have continued to edit and edit away for hours and after that, never come back. Or, If I did come back and , say, I am using a dynamic IP address, or a laptop with a wireless connection that changes IP depending on my location, it would have taken me a long while to learn that there is more to know before editing articles. A template like this could, in effect, save to CVU members and other editors, time reverting and to anon IP new comers, the disappointment of having all their contributions erased from Wikipedia. As far as the instructions, I think that we could trim or expand it to apply to something that CVU members are watching as you said. Am I still not making sense? Please let me know. 16:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Another point, although there is some controversy on it, don't you think that if vandals see the little boy, that they will know that we (CVU) are heavily watching and any vandal editing, or war editing and what not, is futile? That's something worth to test in my view. We should implement the template as a test and see what results it brings. That's my opinion. Jrod216:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I definitely see what you're saying. Communicating with IP users is more difficult than it ought to be. My only concern (minor, at that) is that it seems that the banner applies to every article: all articles on Wikipedia should be sourced, and unsourced material may be removed. Should we place this notice on every article that has unsourced statements from a new editor? Nevertheless, I'm not against testing it out -- though it may be good to get some more input on it first. --Ratiocinate(t • c)16:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Ratiocinate, thanks for being open minded. I am not sure I am answering your question "Should we place this notice on every article that has unsourced statements from a new editor?" correctly, but I guess the answer would be: No, new editors (Anon IPs) would be already gone from Wikipedia or off to (maybe) another article by then. This template does not replace leaving messages to new users. This template could be used to put on pages where problems have been reported to us and maybe to other editors, so when the anon IP new editor finds that article page (The one we are watching), he will know that there are basic but very important rules he still needs to know. The outcome is, I guess, that he will read the importance of verifiability, go out (Perhaps on the web itself) looking for references and comeback at a later date to make his contribution. So, CVU members and other users who are watching for vandals on a certain page, didn't have to make yet another revert from a naive new user entry and the new user will be encouraged to continue to contribute. Again, the only way to know, is to test the template.Jrod217:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess my basic question is this: why are we putting this banner on pages we're watching specifically? That is, how are the pages we're watching any different from the other articles on Wikipedia? If I understand you correctly, the goal of the template is to tell new users about certain policies that we have, so that they can make constructive edits. I agree that such a banner could be useful; I'm just not certain why it's specifically tied to CVU. --Ratiocinate(t • c)18:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's suppose I am an anon IP new visitor. I found an WP article on Google and I want to edit it. That article happens to be undergoing disruptive vandalism which you have been made also aware, so you've already placed the template there. Now, I come to the article, see the template and go: "hmmm, maybe I should read up this instructions before I edit this article". So what happens then? I read the instructions about references and go to the WWW to get those references, and let's say I came back the next day. So, I make my edit to the article and because is well referenced, it didn't get deleted and that gave encouragement to continue to contribute to WP. Meantime the fact that you never had to revert me, gave you and others, more focus on the vandal edits.Jrod218:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it can be useful. I'm just uncertain as to why this banner is specifically for pages being watched by the CVU. Imagine the same scenario, except that Google isn't under heavy vandalism: it would still be good for that user to read the instructions before making edits, because otherwise his/her edits may be in violation of policy and then we'd have to revert. Basically, my point is that this banner seems to be more general than CVU. It's a good idea, and may be very helpful and useful, but I'm just not sure that it should be part of CVU. --Ratiocinate(t • c)18:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I apologize Ratiocinate, it's me who's not explaining it well. I meant, if I am, for example, a sugar cane grower and I am doing a search at Google.com for "Sugar Cane", and wikipedia has an article on Sugar cane, and it comes up probably on the first page, so i click on that result link on the Google.com results page and now I see the WP article. Next, I find myself at WP Sugar cane article, If I found something is not correct, for example, "white sugar is not very processed, but the purest from the cane". Knowing that brown sugar is less processed than white, I would probably change it if I see the "Edit" link on that article. So, the point was that, as a new Anon IP address visitor who's not yet familiar with rules, I don't know that changing that expression is not enough because it lacks of references. So You, who is watching the page, now has to take action and revert it. Therefore You had to take a step that could have been avoided if this anon user had only seen the "funny watching boy" template urging him to read first the instructions to edit, that wouldn't have happened. Most importantly, this user could have gone out on the web looking for an adequate reference to his edit and come back to execute the edit perfectly within the WP guidelines. I think the result will be that he will feel Wikipedia is fun and organized and therefore encouraged to contribute more and not feel ever disappointed that his first edit was deleted by a diligent CVU or any other member. Is it getting a bit more clear now? Jrod221:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
(Reset indent) Specific point: both of the first two wikilinks point to Wikipedia:Citing sources. Did you mean for one of them to point to Wikipedia:Verifiability? Why does edit summary link to Help:Minor edit instead of Help:Edit summary? As it is, I don't think the template is quite as alarming as it started, though it's still more obtrusive than I would probably go. (Minimalist, me, in everything but writing style.) :) I can't personally foresee a situation where I would use the template. In the situation you described, I'd probably put the page on RPP and straighten it all out once the dust cleared. In any event, I would probably suggest you seek wider community feedback before utilizing such a thing. I'm not sure where. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)? There's nothing inherently objectionable about the text that I can see, but as Ariel points out, WP:DFTT#Not_feeding_the_trolls makes me feel that such a thing will face opposition regardless, particularly given that at least the maintainers of that essay advocate "slow revert". --Moonriddengirl21:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Moonriddengirl, I didn't see your comment. In order for the "sugar cane grower is an anon Ip address new contributor" analogy to work in the example, Ratiocinate and other CVU members must to have been alerted of dozens of vandal edits involving maybe 2 or vandal editors, and thus, the reason why he (Ratiocinate in this example) placed the template at the "sugar cane" article, which prompted the Anon IP address new user to be aware of the editing rules. Now, I can change the wiki links pointing exactly as needed. Do you have any other questions? 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrod (talk • contribs)
Looks like you're doing too many tildes, too. :D I didn't really have any questions per se other than the wikilinks (and whether village pump is the place to go). Now I kind of do. It sounds like what you're addressing is more a problem of needing to teach anon IP editors how to edit properly. That anon sugar cane editor isn't any more or less likely to properly edit an unvandalized article to be any less permanently discouraged from editing because of reverted edits on this article than an unvandalized article. Is there any reason why the usual approach of {{subst:uw-unsor1}} wouldn't be appropriate for them, both for vandalized & unvandalized pages? I know about that awful bug that keeps editors from seeing these notices, but I'm not sure I understand, if the purpose is to educate new users, why this template is specifically for vandalized pages. --Moonriddengirl21:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
(EDit conflict)
You probably wonder: what about the zillion pages that exist and are hit by these anon Ip address new users everyday? Well, We can't stop them from being deleted due to lack of references or what not. Besides, when pages are not watched as intensively, like those under CVU member watch, they will find out (as a member pointed out) on their talk page (If they even bother to find out they have one) The goal is to minimize reverting these kind of newbie edits while watching pages and in effect help those new users know what to do and not be disappointed of Wikipedia. Jrod222:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, You asked "Is there any reason why the usual approach of {{subst:uw-unsor1}} wouldn't be appropriate for them, both for vandalized & unvandalized pages? " The answer would be: you would post that template at the Ip address talk page, correct? Well, in the case of the sugar cane grower, he may not come back until much later to see that article on "sugar cane" again. What's worse, if he never saw the "funny watching boy" and he surfs the web with a wireless laptop, his Ip address will continue to change and he'll never see a warning a message or nothing, so he will continue to make the same mistakes one and on. In a way we could say that we are downsizing "nuisance editing". As for being distracting, maybe so (cute no?) but, it would be important that it's visible (while other members fight crime at the sugar cane page or others) so the anon IP new user recognizes the need to read the template's content. Jrod222:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I've hardly finished writing to you, and all of you rushed to see what was going on. That was impressive!
Thanks very much for the decisive action. Jrod220:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl's comments about the wrong wiki-links should go to me, those are my mitakes, lol. I was just using examples, didn't realize that it would get transferred over. Sorry Jrod! And I like the lil boy picture much better, but still agree with Moonriddengirl, I think it is distracting as well. But I hope that you don't think I have a closed mind, because as I said earlier, I think your intentions are good, I just am not sure this would get approved. Ariel♥Gold21:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I surely didn't mean it as criticism, to either of you. :) I just noticed the wikilinks and thought I'd better point it out. It seemed likely they weren't where they meant to be ultimately. --Moonriddengirl22:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh no, It's cool. the template can be formatted to say and to link whatever we agree on. But its application I hope it can be understood by all. I know these templates are hard to pass consensus, but many forget how many edits are reverted because of anon Ip address users doing unreferenced edits. If a page that is not watched or maybe occasionally like 3 times a week, and it's edited by an anon new user the wrong way, big deal, someone will revert it eventually and then if the anon ip user wants to know how his contribution is doing at WP, he'll come back and find out that it's deleted and he'll read the message or see a template and know why and what to do. But, in the "Sugar cane" article page, which is (in our example) heavily vandalized and thus, CVU members are keeping watch and yes, the lil boy picture is there, our "sugar cane" grower who wants to contribute to the article has no choice to think, Hmmm, maybe I should read these instructions first". That would be great because, he won't edit hastily and you wont need to revert his edit, who knows maybe this "sugar cane grower" will come back many weeks later when all vandalism has been dealt at the article and the template as well has been removed. He won't even remember how he learned the instructions, the point is, he now makes the edit like an experienced editor. Am I boring everyone at this point? Jrod222:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the wiki links on the template, Jrod. Sorry about that. And no worries Moonriddengirl! I wouldn't have noticed if you had not mentioned it, lol. Ariel♥Gold23:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is a summary of this template's application or potential use:
A Marker for Vandalized Pages (Needs code)
Helps New Anon IP Address Visitors Know That There Are Rules To Observe
Lets Vandals Know That Everyone Is Watching The Article, So Vandal Editing Is Futile
1) A Marker for Vandalized Pages (Needs code).- It would be nice to go to the CVU/Task Force page and not only see our online status, but on a separate table, see also what pages have been marked for vandalism. So, when a member tags an article (Using {{Anti-vandal-notice}} on top of the article page) it would also show on the CVU/TF page (As shown on the table example below). This would help members go to where help is needed and get involved. This feature requires the help of one of our script writing members, so that the code can be implemented on CVU/TF page.
Sugar Cane
(discussion)
(history)
Akai
(discussion)
(history)
Hillary Clinton
(discussion)
(history)
Loudness War
(discussion)
(history)
Kate McAuliffe
(discussion)
(history)
Russia
(discussion)
(history)
Theoria
(discussion)
(history)
Angeline Jolie
(discussion)
(history)
Hollywood
(discussion)
(history)
Barnbarian
(discussion)
(history)
2) Helps New Anon IP Address Visitors Know That There Are Rules To Observe.- New visitors (Specifically from anon IP address users) will clearly see on the template, instructions to make a correct edit. This will save time, and cut or reduce significantly the amount of "nuisance" edits while the vandalized pages are being watched. (Please, read example as to how this works on previous discussions at the last 2 sections above or read this at my talk page).
3) Lets Vandals Know That Everyone Is Watching The Article, So Vandal Editing Is Futile.- Although many editors feel this could never work, there really isn't any statistics of a template that can proof beyond any doubt, that it is impossible to discourage vandals from doing vandalism. This template doesn't attempt nor address that, it simply expedites the process of CV as the psychological impulse of a "troll", a "sock puppet" or a hostile "anon ip user" will probably be the temptation to blank the little boy's template or ridicule it. Therefore, all activities (Vandals and fighters) will be reduced to within few hours of the initial vandalism and not spread over a period of weeks of repeated vandal attacks. So, I think the use of the template will prompt admin intervention much quicker and therefore, we could all watch more pages.
Coments:
I think that we should try to see if any template at all, can indeed help address any of the issues above and make the duty of the Task Force a little better. The distraction of having a little boy watching with binoculars on 1 or 2 pages that are being vandalized, out of thousands of article pages at Wikipedia, outweighs (In my view) this inconvenience. In addition, it will probably be useful tool if the code I suggested above is implemented. Naturally, any editor at WP can use it as well as the template does not spell: "For Use of the CVU/TF Only". But, maybe it will promote enlisting to the TF as well, who knows? Again, we should test it at the very least. Thanks for your attention. Jrod212:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment A couple of notes--I think that your point #1 is excellent, but I believe that instead of marking the page, it can also be accomplished through a manual table. For a little while, I was overseeing the slow vandalism of Clark Bar (the page is now protected through November), with one individual adding the same misinformation once a day. It would have been nice to get another editor watching that one--not so much because I couldn't manage the workload, but because when I'm the only reverting I feel uncomfortably close to content dispute rather than vandalism reversion (in this case, the insertion of false information, somewhat subtle). As for #3, many editors would not just feel its useless, but might perceive it as actually harmful, as rewarding vandalism by excessive attention. I do not come down heavily on either side of this issue, but I point it out because from your note I'm not sure if you're taking that into consideration. Such editors, in view of WP:NOFEEDING and Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose, are likely to vigorously object to the use of your template. I think before trying such a template it would be a very good idea for you to take it through Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). I'm not saying this to discourage you, but because I hope that it will help you avoid any controversy you might encounter from using your template without community consensus. It's obvious to me that you are passionately dedicated to improving the project, and I share that goal. :) Good luck with it, whatever you do with it now. --Moonriddengirl13:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it would be feeding the trolls. Also, little brothers grow up to be big brothers, so it has a little bit of a forthcoming "Big Brother is watching" connotation. This one's getting a head start! The Transhumanist01:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. But even, if you were right, why are people like you so worried about "feeding a troll"? In my view a "troll is what a troll does" and nothing will stop him. I think we are better off knowing sooner than later who they are. We can then focus our efforts to fight vandals in an organized manner and if the case or cases call for it, an admin can intervene. This concern of FTT by users like you, is in my view, outweighed by the utility of the template. Jrod201:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:CUV is basically the same as WP:CVU, and it is pretty much inactive (the new announcements bulletin's most recent addition is from Sept. 2006, for example). The page seems redundant to me, or it at least needs attention/cleanup.--68.91.192.17319:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The Anti Vandal Template for articles (or whatever)
For some odd reason the template is not rendering properly on my computer. I was wondering if it was my browser or some error in the box. ÆonInsanity Now!01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Can you open up a FireFox browser? If it looks the same way then you must have an issue on your end. Otherwise, it looks fine. Jrod214:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
New warning template
I have created the template {{Vandalanduser}} (shortcut: Template:Vau) as a means of providing a double block summary, including both a block for vandalism and a separate block reason for username. The other block templates for username or vandalism that I've seen only cover either or.--Avant Guard22:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the template and also have a question. If say a new user has an account and their first edit is blatantly offensive, swearing, that isn't grounds for a ban is it? We assume good faith ie they are testing and then after 4 warns they can be banned perm correct? Or do they need to be banned for time periods first ie 24hrs, 2 days ? Phgao16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
A level 1 warning tag it's all you could do, depending on the seriousness of the case, however, you could give him a level 3 or even a final warning. Then after that, you can call cavalry :-) Jrod220:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a policy I disagree with, but if it's a new user, you never get a ban, no matter how blatant the vandalism. But you don't need to go the full 4 warns necessarily. I typically do 2 warns + a final warning (so 3 total) before reporting to AIV. If it's really mild, I might go the full 4; if it's really really offensive, I might do 1 and then a final, but probably not. The administrators like to see at least three even in extreme cases. --Jaysweet21:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added ~~<includeonly>~~</includeonly> to the end of the template's text, which automatically adds the blocking user's signature when the template is substed. Cheers, Arky¡Hablar!21:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to add to the discussion above - the rule of thumb I use, and I believe most other admins use, is that if an account has been used for nothing but disruptive edits and has four or more such edits, it's a vandal-only account and is worthy of blocking on sight, regardless of whether they've received any warnings. But if they've only made one or two edits and they're minor tests rather than replacing a page with "*** is gay" or whatever, then of course we assume good faith. Waggers08:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Unit
Though it's not currently embroiled in an MfD discussion of some type, I thought I'd ask this anyway:
With the concerns that people have, in the past, had about the name of this page, how about just changing the word "unit" to something else? (See Military unit#Units, formations, and commands.) Even "team" would be less controversial, I would think. (I don't think that this could be considered a "WikiProject". For one thing, there might be confusion with an encyclopedic topic.) These days the word "task force" has come into vogue usage. How about that? It still has a semi-military connotation, and it's in usage on Wikipedia. The Counter-vantalism task force. - jc3719:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I realise this sounds like an obvious question, but isn't this project "on Wikipedia"? And by your statement, you imply that this is a WikiProject? Could you clarify? - jc3705:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
There is also a discussion surrounding the title of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. I see no problem with the name. There have been discussions on this before, and we have decided to keep the name. Most people abbreviate it to "CVU", so we don't even really use the "unit". J-ſtanTalkContribs20:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear What I meant was that the Counter-vandalism unit is a WikiProject, and so calling it a task force wouldn't make sense because "task force", on Wikipedia anyway, is a reference to a "sub-project" of a WikiProject, which is not the case here. Hope that clears things up a bit, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR!20:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:IAR aside, if this is a WikiProject, then shouldn't the name of the page beWikipedia:WikiProject Counter-vandalism, or something similar? I could potentially see an issue with confusing this with a mainspace topic such as Graffiti#Government_responses, so perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Counter Wikipedia vandalism, or some such? I don't have a really strong preference (or concern), but I think discussion of bringing the name of this WikiProject in line with the rest of the WikiProjects would probably be a good idea. - jc3717:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree wholeheartedly. Calling this project "Counter-Vandalism Unit" sounds like a "24" reference, and probably is -- lending the project a very paramilitary feel. Even if that wasn't the intent in the "Unit's" creation, it's certainly being interpreted and acted out as such by many of the CVU's members. A change to something more neutral, such as "Wikiproject: Counter-Vandalism" would maintain the integrity of the project while simultaneously reducing the militaryesque connotations of the project that have been its biggest points of contention in the previous MfDs discussions. Thurston Weatherton17:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi just Joined!
Hi everyone here, I've just joined CVU by placing the needed templates on my User Page. Is there anything I need to do to confirm me joining CVU? Is there anything I should know about before embarking on my journey to clean up vandalism? Anyway, happy cleaning! JTBX15:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, welcome. :) My main piece of advice would be to assume good faith where possible and use the most specific, most polite template for most first offenses. Many new editors might not understand what they've done improperly with {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}, but {{subst:uw-npov1}} can make it clear and keep them from accidentally re-offending (or being too scared to edit again. :)) Be warned that cleaning up vandalism does not make you popular with vandals. If your page starts getting vandalized, don't sweat it too much. Trust the process (vandals will be blocked), and request page protection if the vandalism gets out of hand. (Last time I counted, my page had been vandalized about 30 times, and that was a lot of water under the bridge ago. :)) If you use WP:Twinkle, consider waiting to be sure that you're the reverting editor before leaving the warning label. More than once I've placed a warning label only to find that somebody else had reverted the change and Twinkle had not told me. It's kind of bad form when multiple editors leave warnings for the same edit. :D Happy editing, and thanks for taking up the job! --Moonriddengirl15:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl (not surprisingly ;D) covered nearly everything I would say here as well. Beyond what she's said, though, I'd encourage you to read up on the criteria for speedy deletion, particularly if you decide to install Twinkle, which I see you haven't yet done. There are a variety of anti-vandalism tools out there but, frankly, Twinkle is my favorite. It's a little buggy sometimes, as Moonriddengirl points out, but it's still under development and hopefully the bugs will be worked out. Welcome! Into The FrayT/C15:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I would caution against giving new users tools like Twinkle right out of the gate, however. Folks should learn the ropes and get the lay of the land before trying to rush out and police it. :) I'm aware of the irony of writing this as a "new user" myself, but I'm actually an old vet who lost track of his account from several years ago. At any rate, welcome to Wikipedia and the CVU, but please take care to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy and practice before installing vandal-reversion tools. Thurston Weatherton17:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, especially Moonriddengirl, but I want to know if there is anything I need to do to confirm my membership such as placing my name somewhere, etc. Anyway thanks for all the help! JTBX18:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You don't need to do anything to confirm your membership. Membership is open to all. Just put a CVU tag in your user profile and that's it. You're a member. Hope this helps, and best of luck to you. Thurston Weatherton18:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
