Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Before posting your message, please make sure you are in the right place:

To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see Administrator intervention against vandalism
To request protection or unprotection of an article, see Requests for page protection
To report edit warring, see Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
To report suspected sockpuppetry, see Suspected sock puppets
Articles for deletion This page was previously nominated for deletion:
Archive
Archives
  1. October 2005 – November 2005
  2. November 2005 – December 2005
  3. December 2005 – January 2006
  4. January 2006 – February 2006
  5. February 2006 – July 2006
  6. August 2006 – October 2006
  7. October 2006 – February 2007
  8. February 2007 – June 2007
  9. June 2007 – August 2007
  10. August 2007 – September 2007

Contents

[edit] hit 'em with a log not a pillow

I've noticed that some RC patrollers prefer to follow WP:AGF after the vandal has been given FIVE OR MORE WARNINGS!!! A fine example is this: 193.251.135.125 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)If they have been given this many warnings then report them to WP:AIV. I'm not saying you should report them after one unconstructive edit, or go to the level 4 warning right away, but respond with appropriate force. This assume good faith bullshit is only applicable for the first three or so edits, not the last five or ten or twenty. For the love of god people grow a pair. (NOTE: the last sentence is only for those who AGF after the first three or four unconstructive edits) --MKnight9989 14:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

While I don't agree with your tone, I do at least in part agree with your sentiment, MKnight9989. I think it proper to take into consideration an IP's history. Your example has 19 warnings on the talk page, all the way back to 2005. I went through their contributions at a quick glance and couldn't find anything other than unconstructive edits. So, yes, a stronger warning (yet still professional and civil, if not templated) would be appropriate. Into The Fray T/C 15:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
As a footnote, when you come across IP's like this (I'm saying this without having made a more in-depth study of their contributions), you might also consider opening a case at Abuse reports. Into The Fray T/C 15:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I'd add with IPs is that, on that long of a timeframe, it's possible that the user of the IP has changed (i.e. a college dorm room is reassigned annually, etc). Wouldn't matter in this example - but if there are fewer warnings over a long period, it might get stickier. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I was ignorant of WP:ABUSE, I plan on reading up on it soon. I reported this guy to AIV, but I don't think they blocked him. The reason for my tone is that I get frustrated with how cuddly everyone is with vandals, and the vandalfighters and villified for hitting vandals with logs instead of pillows. --MKnight9989 12:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

All 4 warnings should generally be within 24 hours of one another, the IP you point to had 5 warnings spread out over a whole year, if you repoprted it, quite simiply it wouldn't get blocked as there is not enough vandalism coming from it. Blocks are preventative, not punative and we only issue them as a last resort. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
All 4, Ryan? I've reported to AIV without 4 warnings in a 24 hour period, which was what I was getting at above. If I come across an IP like the example above, I won't generally start with a level one warning, but will most likely start with a level three, then a four and then report to AIV, which seems pretty successful in getting them blocked. Into The Fray T/C 12:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I block without 4 warnings if the vandalism is obvious, but generally I always wait till a final warning has been given. What annoys me is seeing AIV reports when the last warning was from 2 months ago and most probably the IP has switched to a different person by then. You have to have a few warnings within 24 hours for us to consider blocking. Don't just jump in with a test4 for a really minor piece of vandalism. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand frustration completely. Things like this [1] are about as frustrating as it gets. Happy vandal fighting, Into The Fray T/C 12:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion it is best to start with a Level 1 warnings for ips unless the vandalism is blatant or directly offensive. Alot of new users don't understand policy and wikipedia itself and may make unconstructive edits as a result. I don't believe a user should be blocked without a final warning or only warning. Vandals are not blocked as a punishment but to protect Wikipedia and therefore force is unnecessary in this community, in my opinion. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 17:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'll block for less (accounts at least, I try to avoid IPs). If you're not here to help, I can show you the door. All of this "block for 24 hours, play nice, ask them to tea, show them the rules, hope they turn into good contributors" mentality is a load of crap. We need to stop babysitting vandals. Block them, forget them, move on...don't waste breath on someone who's first edit was to George W. Bush and said "I like balls". ^demon[omg plz] 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that with accounts it is usually clearer if the user is here to make constructive edits or to cause trouble and so they can be blocked more easily if they are making alot of unonstructive edits. But with ips it is more difficult to determine. However I do believe that all users, ip or registered, should get at least one warning. In general I believe that a user should receive a general note on contrbuting to Wikipedia constructively unless their edit is offensive or blatant vandalism. However I also believe that a full set of warnings is not necessary for users who simply contribute unconstructively. I also don't agree with users who mark one test edit as blatant vandalism. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 18:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I hesitate to start with a level 3 warning and usually start with a level 2 unless the ip doesn't have any contribs, but there are certain instances where appropriate, as noted above. I do have a question about the blatant vandalism warning. What would constitute using that tag instead of a level4im?-MBK004 18:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I assume you mean a test edit tag. While the difference between vandalism and test edits can be blurry, often things like "can I really edit this page" show test edits. Most of the time, IPs removed their test edits, in which case, I don't warn them. J-ſtanTalkContribs 18:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was asking the difference between the vandalism tags (4im and blatant vandalism). The distinction between the two seems rather vague.-MBK004 20:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
If I understand what you don't understand, you're just confused about wording. I assume the comment in question is the above "I also don't agree with users who mark one test edit as blatant vandalism." Blatant vandalism is something like blanking the page or attacking people or other editors (who are also people). There is, as far as I know, no separate tag. Just the vandalism set. J-ſtanTalkContribs 02:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think he's asking when you choose to use level 4im warning, which is a first and only, and when you decide to go up the ramp from #1 before reporting. (Or from #2 or what have you. :)) The most egregious vandalism I personally ever remember encountering from a first time vandal got me started at #3. I might be inclined to use 4im if encountering a recent repeat offender, say a day or two after returning from block. I could imagine a situation where I might run into vandalism so horrendous that I'd go straight there, but I've seen many a vandal give up after level #3 and not need blocking at all. Some of them just don't seem to understand that there are consequences and onec they realize it go find something else to do. As far as which warning labels I use, I prefer to go as specific as possible off of Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, at least for the first warning. I might start with {{subst:uw-joke1}}, but I don't think I'd continue up the chain. After the 1st or 2nd warning, I'd switch over to the basic vandalism line. :) --Moonriddengirl 18:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We need to stop coddling vandals. This is getting ridiculous. I shouldn't have to warn a guy 4 damn times and let him off the hook so he can stop after the 4th edit and return when I've stopped monitoring his contributions and some bot gives him a level 2 warning again and he ends up going on. The system needs to be retooled. Instead of it taking 5 edits to get blocked, it should only take 3. You can tell who's being a douche bag after the 2nd edit. And for the argument that he might become a constructive editor if you show him the right path, so what? Do we really want a guy whose first edit was "BOb smith iz a HOMO!!" to be editing this thing 'constructively'? I'm not saying we ban the account forever. 24, 36, 48, even 72 hours is good enough. If they're being a dick right now, I doubt they'll stop their dickery in the next few minutes and be a good little boy. Maybe a good editor will show up to that IP in the next few days, and by then it'll be unblocked. I'm just sick of treating vandals like they're eight year old kids who keep kicking their five year old brother and we're Mommy telling them to play nice. They're more like criminals who in real life have a 3 Strikes rule, and so should we. F-402 16:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not obliged to issue warnings in the sequence 1-2-3-4. The system is not that rigid, and personally I usually start on a level 2 warning if the edit is blatant vandalism. Admins will block vandals provided that you give a final warning and they carry on after that warning (in the case of IPs, if they carry on within 24 hours or so), and the number of warnings you give doesn't usually matter. Hut 8.5 17:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I mostly do start my warnings on a level 2. I only use level one when I feel it really is something innocent and that they'll probably go away if you speak nicely. But even having to go 2-3-4 is tedious. For blatant vandalism you should only need 3-4, but I've seen it before where an admin would take the IP off of AIV because the IP only got warned with 3-4. F-402 17:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

What tools go best with Twinkle? Manually refreshing Recent Changes when I spend some time trying to help out seems awkward and unhelpful. • Lawrence Cohen 06:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Lupin's Anti-vandal tool. It helps you filter recent changes to better detect Vandalism, or you can just get all recent changes without manually refreshing. It can also be configured to rollback and warn, but twinkle is better for that. Just look out, because it won't tell you if someone reverted the edits already. J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, that is nice. It looks like it will take some getting used to, though. Thank you! • Lawrence Cohen 15:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
You may have done this already, but if you click the box "Automatically expand new content", it shows you the change being made. J-ſtanTalkContribs 17:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning time frames

What is best for the four warnings before sending someone to AIV? Is it always 4 in 24? What if they have 4 spread out over a few days? A week? Individual judgement call, or is there a common practice? • Lawrence Cohen 06:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, at what point should you restart the counter? • Lawrence Cohen 13:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If they vandalized recently (within about two weeks or so), I give them the next warning up. If they were blocked within the last month, I use a 4im. If they vandalized a few months ago, then I choose to jump from level 1 to level 2. Hope this makes sense! J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I wanted to make sure I was doing it the right way. • Lawrence Cohen 15:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see how you'd be confused with all the discussion going on. The only difference between level one and level two is that one says "welcome to wikipedia", and admins won't usually complain if they don't see a level one. It isn't always about the number or sequence of warnings so much as the intentions or ignoring of the warnings. The multiple warning system was created to overcome a bug that prevents IP addresses from seeing a "New messages" alert box. J-ſtanTalkContribs 18:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] blocking

wait so we (users) can't block ip addresses only the administrators can to that right? -- Vdub49 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, only the admins can block IPs. F-402 01:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
K Thanks -- Vdub49 01:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP Vandals removing warnings from their talk page

When I used to edit here a few years ago, IPs weren't allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages and if they did they would get a warning to not do it again. When I came back here last week, that warning wasn't in the list of warning templates and that was a bit confusing. This one vandal also told me that I should update myself with the rules and he was allowed to blank his page. So can somebody please clarify for me whether or not they can blank their talk page? F-402 18:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my interpetation of the rules is that blanking your own talk page is technically allowed now (although I don't think you are supposed to blank block notices until the block expires, or something like that). I think it stinks. --Jaysweet 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:User page#Removal of comments, warnings, deleting warnings is allowed. That said, if the person is deleting the warnings and continuing to vandalize, then you can obviously take that as a sign of bad faith. This was implemented since people were getting into over-the-top edit wars over retaining those warnings, and it's not worth the trouble. Any administrator at WP:AIV can peruse the talk page history of the vandal without significant effort. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Does that apply to logged in users and IP users? I thought that IP users didn't have any control over their own talk page to remove warnings for tracking? • Lawrence Cohen 18:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, I find blanked IP talk pages suspicious. Always check the history. J-ſtanTalkContribs 18:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
While I understand how difficult it would be to keep the vandals from blanking the pages, it does make it difficult for the random users who only occasionally make reverts of vandalism. If the vandal had received a final warning and then blanked the page, a novice might start with a level 1 or 2 warning instead of reporting to WP:AIV.-MBK004 19:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Which is why you should always check the history :) J-ſtanTalkContribs 19:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I do ... I'm just saying that not everybody does, and it could cause problems via the hypothetical situation I've put forward.-MBK004 19:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and it probably does, but there doesn't seem to be much way around that. :/ --Moonriddengirl 19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no way in hell I am going to always check the history of a Talk page when issuing a warning. That would like triple the number of clicks it takes to rollback and warn. Sorry, but that's the practicality of it. --Jaysweet 19:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Why make us work harder when it's just a vandal shit disturbing? Look at this guy I had to deal with the other day - Special:Contributions/86.138.190.45. He blanked AIV 3 times and then I found out I wasn't even allowed to revert his blankings of his page because it was his 'right'. We shouldn't be coddling these vandals and playing nicey nice. We should be allowed to revert blankings because the blankings only help them vandalize longer. If they want a clean user talk page then they can feel free to sign up for an account. F-402 19:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
If the page has been blanked, though empty, the discussion tab will be blue. If you see a blank page with a blue discussion tab, you know something's going on. Where it gets complicated is when they remove some of the warnings, like the most recent or severe. In any event, if you want to dispute the policy, the place to do it is Wikipedia_talk:User_page#RFC. There have been a number of efforts to overturn this policy, but so far these have not been successful. --Moonriddengirl 20:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The flip side to the coin of keeping the warnings is that when users legitimately attempt to remove the warnings in good faith (in other words, they've read them and are removing them since they're clogging up their talk page, and there's really no point in archiving them). Take the hypothetical situation where a rather overzealous editor reverts these warnings anyway, and we have an edit war for practically no purpose. It is a given that the removal of warnings is a tad bit more common, but this is something to consider. And as Moonriddengirl pointed out, the presence of a blank talk page with a blue tab always raises flags. I agree with the above that checking page histories is a complete annoyance, and that we're all guilty of not doing it. However, I typically check the page history when a second warning is about to be given. At that point, if there is a history of recent warnings, feel free to attach a level three or level four warning. For any vandal that would require you to revert like the wind, they'll reach a level four warning very quickly (whether sequentially or immediately), making checking ultimately unnecessary. That's my two cents - I'm sure everyone has their own methods that work for them. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't care if a anon user removes warning tags. I look at his contribution history (where I could see whether he blanked or removed tags, obviously). If I can't find enough real acts of vandalism or violations on him, I move on. Eventually, if he is a vandal he will make a mistake(s) and that's when I get him blocked (See example [2]). If he is not vandalizing WP, then I don't have to neither want to deal with him in the first place. My only advise, use good anti-vandal tools. It's that easy, folks. Jrod2 17:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading this and tossed out the question here also. • Lawrence Cohen 18:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The question is already being discussed further up the page, Wikipedia_talk:User_page#RFC. :) It's a frequently discussed question. --Moonriddengirl 18:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The other reason I don't care for the rule is that, when a long-time editor does something that I think is out of line, it is sometimes useful to see if other folks have had trouble with them in the past too. There is a particular user I won't name (because even though he is indef blocked, he has cronies everywhere that will defend him to the death) who went around calling people pedophiles with little or no evidence -- and when people warned him about it, he blanked their warnings. That really ticked me off, because people would come in and say, "Oh, this looks like a good-faith editor based on his contribs, but he just violated WP:CIVIL so let me give him a very gentle warning," when actually it turned out that this person was a habitual violator of WP:CIVIL, and extremely disruptive. It took about two extra months for him to get blocked than it should have, and in the meantime, a lot of innocent people get defamed.
That said, I don't have any hope of overturning the current rule, so I'ma just live with it. But that doesn't mean I can't complain here ;) --Jaysweet 20:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
No, no rule (that I know of) against complaining. Venting can sometimes make it easier to put up with stuff. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so here is an example of why I wish that all users, vandal or no, were forbidden from removing warnings from their talk pages for a certain period of time. This guy has made only two edits that required warnings, they were not explicitly vandalism (in both cases, there have been some legitimate questions about the content he removed) but the problem is that he is masking controversial edits by saying "typo" in the edit summary. He's only done it twice, so that is not nearly enough reason to block... but now, the warning I gave him will be much harder for other editors to see, and he'll probably get away with this shennanigans in the future. --Jaysweet 18:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd call that "sneaky vandalism"—the definition at the vandalism guideline even mentions deceptively using edit summaries to hide behavior. I guess it's possible that he removed the warnings because he realizes he's been caught and won't try that approach again. In this case, if I were you, I'd probably keep an eye on the pages he's edited (since he's very focused) and bring the matter up at WP:ANB if he persists. But, yes, it would be helpful in such cases if there were a policy against removing warnings for a specific time. I guess previously consensus has been that this only leads to edit warring on user talk pages and is more trouble than its worth. --Moonriddengirl 18:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
That's my plan :) But I'll probably forget about the user by tomorrow. Ah well... --Jaysweet 18:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I am beginning to reach the conclusion that it's probably necessary to make it a violation the deletion of (specifically) vandalism warning tags on IP user talk pages. The reason is, if they delete all warnings, the next time someone will be more likely to use the wrong vandal level warning and therefore extend the vandal's online presence to do more vandalism at WP. Especially, those silly pranksters that only get a slap on the wrist for their actions. I guess, the same should be for user accounts. Now, I am always checking either their contribs or their user talk page history. But, does anyone know what I mean? Jrod2 20:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm just a new guy here so forgive me for thinking logically, but doesn't the bulk of the vandal problem lie with Anonymous IP's? At least 90% of it I see is done by an IP not a reg'd user. The logical solution is to make registration with a valid email mandatory no reg, no edit. It's that simple. I don't think anyone with honest intentions would have a problem with that. Granted, this isn'nt going to cure all the problems but it may stop some of it.Seems like the people with honest intentions get chased off with harsh criticism, over redundant rules or just plain fed up with their efforts going to waste. Meanwhile vandals get away with a smile on their face and a ticket to come back tomorrow for another round of laughs. Whomever is in charge of making the rules needs to be a harsher on the real culprits and make the honest editors job easier. If it were up to me I'd block a school IP with a bunch of kids pounding the site with disruptive edits without second thought. Then leave them banned until the school administrator gets their act together. There are allot of good people here on Wikipedia with allot of good information to share yet these vandals are somehow allowed to roam free or get away with a pleasant warning making the good people look bad. Just my 2¢. I'll save the rest of the change in my pocket for later. --DP67 talk/contribs 00:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
And also when you analyze it, more IP editors make constructive edits than they do vandalism. This is a perennial proposal that nearly constantly pops up, and is always denied for the same reasons. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that will basically never change. We're not Citizendium, and as such, we're not going to require people to acquire accounts in order to edit. Furthermore, remember that Wikipedia's blocking policy is not punitive, as you are placing it to be. That's one of the reasons we assume good faith with people, otherwise we would be throwing vandalism accusations at each other left and right. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'll never see things in the same light. In reality a spade is a spade, if someone blanks an entire article or replaces it with something obscene that's intentional vandalism and I refuse to look at it as anything else. The same problems from the same IP groups over and over and over again and it's still good faith? What does it take to open peoples eyes to reality? The way it seems someone could hack in delete the entire database and you're to assume good faith. Yeah, right.. I also don't see why anyone with the desire to add something beneficial would have a problem with having to register a nick with a valid email. Maybe because they don't want to be scrutinized by the banner patrol who spend more time criticizing articles hanging up banners of various sorts everywhere than they do helping to improve them. I guess I'm a non-conformist. --DP67 talk/contribs 10:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There's an obvious common sense element to assuming good faith that you're overlooking - hence the reason it is the prerogative of the reverter as to which level of warning that the vandal in question receives. Your deletion of the database is one of these obvious extreme examples where a person can not assume good faith because there is none to assume. In any case, ignoring WP:AGF as a whole destroys the fundamental building block of the community - trust. Trust in what other editors are doing, and trust that their intentions are good. You're simply marginalizing WP:AGF for established editors that one can assume good faith without any reservations, and that is not the intention of the policy by any means. Furthermore, you're stereotyping IP editors as a whole, and shutting out those who actually perform constructive edits. Your proposal not only shuts them out, but makes them less willing to edit Wikipedia. Not everyone wants to make an account, nor should ever need to. Many prefer the anonymity, and others are simply making an edit because they saw a typo, a factual error, a syntax problem, or something of the sort. There's no reason to create an account for such an action, and there's no reason to stop these constructive edits. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 17:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
To Sephiroth and Dp67, I do see both of your points, but does user Sephiroth have referential stats to assert that anon IP users contribute more than harm WP? I would think reg users are the bulk of the contributions. Second, I am not against IP users roaming free WP doing the mistakes that most beginners do, but when I see Wiki skilled edits to article pages in order to: disrupt, spam, promote products, troll editor talk pages, etc, etc, I don't adhere so close to your point, though I accept the fact that the status quo must remain (for the time being). Dp67, if we have to tell people to sign up or even ask for email addresses, you would kill WP. Not so much for the absence of "good faith", but for making it too problematic for anon users to contribute and keep the wheels at WP turning. Reg user contributions would not have been enough to create Wikipedia. On the other hand, new reg users may use Wikipedia to destroy it too. I have encountered just recently a "new" user under the name Quiest and believe me fellow members, speaking about good faith, very few people can anger me and consequently have me writing in such a harsh or rude tone as this guy did. However, look at his main space contribs. All he does is tag articles with "reference needed", "the tone is not encyclopedic" "This article or section resembles a fan site.", "it is written like an advertisement.", etc. Did you know that an army of new reg users like this could destroy WP by effectively telling the world that WP is flawed with mistakes and no one should read it? I mean, sure, if you want to get technical about it, every article has problems and may need more references and citations or whatever, but we all use common sense and the most important thing, "good faith", right Sephiroth? I am 100% here with you, Brother. Nevertheless, things are not going very well with this new user and I expect him to come back for more of what he does, and more nonsense on my talk page. It's all within his rights as a Wikipedian and I almost fell in the WP:BITE trap. Maybe someone else should check it out and comment as I may need a reality check. Thanks CVU members. Jrod2 15:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That's another one of my peeves Jrod2, There does seem to be an awful lot of people on the banner patrol plastering senseless banners on every page they visit just because they can. Some people I wonder if they actually do anything else besides criticize others work. They find a page and spam it with critique banners instead of actually contributing something to fix it. Most just leave a banner an little or no reason why, just because they can or just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. One individual I watched he/she racked up at least 30 Speedy Deletes in less than 15 minutes.How could he/she possibly review all that content in such short time to actually see if those 30 some pages were viable or not? It just gets to me how the rules around here seem to slap the honest intended "Good Faith" people in the face while it lets the reprobates roam free spamming, vandalizing and being generally disruptive, but heaven forbid you should WP:BITE someone who really deserves it. Sure eventually they'll get banned, but they'll be back tomorrow or the next day. The more I hang around here it seems that the rules protect the guilty and make the honest the criminal. --DP67 talk/contribs 18:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, Dp67. If you think about it, a rival encyclopedic web site can set up a whole bunch of accounts just to do this activity (Tag banners unnecessarily and wrongly). It is all within guidelines so it makes it permissible. And by accomplishing this, WP will look more and more to the general public, who has no other interest than to use Wikipedia for information, like a site flawed with inaccurate and incorrect information, discrediting its usefulness and making all the editors contributions sort of a joke to the world. In my view, that's how you destroy WP, doing exactly this. Jrod2 19:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] random section break

Outdated research on the contribution balance between registered & unregistered: from 2002. Not a WP:RS, maybe, but interesting anyway. (Personally I edited occasionally as an IP for a couple of years before registering an account. :)) Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study1 found that 97% of a small random sample of vandalism was done by unregistered editors. The chair of the advisory board of the Wikimedia Foundation addressed this here. Vandalism study #2 is underway. The study did not address the % of contributory edits by unregistered editors, which I think is unfortunate. Based on the 2002 article, the results might be surprising. If anybody knows further or more updated research, please share. I personally find the developmental dynamic of Wikipedia fascinating. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Moon Girl, what a pretty name you have. Your article page submitted is fascinating and bit long to read entirely, but what I get is that the bulk of article edits come from registered users. Is that right? Regardless, I think that in 10 years maybe less, there won't be many articles left to be written (In encyclopedic speaking terms) may be just few new topics of the time and eternal edit changes by bickering users who don't like how certain definitions are written on them and so on. And, I also think that eventually there won't be enough money on donations alone, so, the foundation will have to take the irreversible decision to put ad banners and rent parts of WP like real state. Volunteers maybe in the future also a thing of the past as a result of all of these changes and admins will be paid for their work (that's good for you). But, don't get me wrong Moon, I do wish for a bright future and for things to remain at the very least, the same. Is that possible? Your Pal Jrod2 19:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The relevant paragraph: "When you put it all together, the story become clear: an outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it. In addition, insiders rack up thousands of edits doing things like changing the name of a category across the entire site -- the kind of thing only insiders deeply care about. As a result, insiders account for the vast majority of the edits. But it's the outsiders who provide nearly all of the content." My take on this is that IP editors are contributing plenty of good stuff to Wikipedia, even though a number of them are vandalizing. Is it possible for things to remain the same? I don't think it's likely. Wikipedia will need to evolve as the article list gets filled out. There will always be new articles to be created—Madonna puts out another album; Stephen King writes another book—but eventually I believe that the focus of dedicated contributors is going to shift to improving the articles we have. I've put tons of hours in the last few weeks into assessing the 33,700 album articles that aren't assessed. Probably 90% of what I'm finding are stubs. Someday, somebody's going to expand those. :) And re: my name. Thanks! I owe it to Denise Levertov. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the summary, Moonriddengirl. That was actually my case in point: You couldn't have had Wikipedia with reg users alone. I hope Dp67 is reading this too. As for your take on the future, I think that you are right, but my view was for way, way into the future. But don't worry Girl, I don't necessarily believe that I can predict it. Jrod2 21:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

I am Gp75motorsports of the Wikipedia Users' Alliance and since my project was struggling I am proposing a subsidization of my project. You see, it's under close scrutiny for being overly heiarchal,so I thought it would be good to have it become a subsidiary of you guys. Please reply ASAP on my talk page. Best, --Gp75motorsports 12:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC), Wikipedia Users' Alliance

Hi. :) May I ask what function your group would have and why a subgroup is necessary? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Our group would revert vandalism and warn/block any trolls or vandals. In other words, we'd help you by doing the same thing. Think of it as two CVUs in one.--Gp75motorsports 14:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If your group is doing precisely the same thing as the CVU, then, respectfully, I'm not sure why a subgroup is necessary. Why not all join the CVU and conduct your conversations at the existing project? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, good question. But unless everybody on Wikipedia joins the CVU, the CVU won't be able to cover everything and everybody. So we'd do the stuff that the CVU is too busy at the moment to do. It's still a long way from having a force big enough to create a perfect encyclopedia, but it's still that much closer.--Gp75motorsports 14:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand how being part of a separate task force helps with this. If you have 10 people who want to fight vandalism, that's 10 additional people—whether they join CVU, fight vandalism freelance or organize a subgroup. Organizing a subgroup seems unnecessary unless there is a distinct function of your group. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, besides fighting vandalism, we also reorganize messy articles and re-classify wrongly-classified articles. --Gp75motorsports 14:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this is a good idea. Right now, the WUA has two members. These additional tasks that Gp75 has shown are good tasks, and deserve a larger amount of editors to work them. If we don't make this a TF, we should at least lend our support to it. J-ſtanTalkContribs 14:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
What about Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify? I'm not sure that creating a multiplicity of related projects is necessarily a good thing. Having centralized groups keeps conversations related to tasks in one location. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(indent) Yeah, upon further investigation, there really isn't a need. If you have a category problem, talk to those guys. If it's for Wikification, go there. If you want to talk about vandalism control, come here. J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for a merger the CVU does most of that stuff anyway. Where the CVU does not generally cover there are other groups and independents that do. Besides 10 members isn't much. Join the CVU there are already too many branch divisions with there own agenda. All we really need around here is one agenda. --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 15:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to note that my "10 people" was just an example. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, wikification sounds like a good idea. How about we create a debate page for this? It's getting too big for a talk page. If you decide to create a debate page for it then just post the link below, please.--Gp75motorsports 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Dang, I had to indent ten times for that. Anyhow, here's the link:

User talk:Gp75motorsports/Wikipedia Users' Alliance/CVU-WUA debate/Archive1 Best, --Gp75motorsports 17:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And I fixed the namespace and redirected to the talk page for more proper discussion. J-ſtanTalkContribs 17:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Wikipedia_Users.27_Alliance

Please see my comments at the linked proposal. I no longer simply feel the project may be redundant, but now have some concerns that, although I believe all involved are acting in good faith, it may potentially be harmful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Of note, the "Project" has been nominated for deletion. That will likely have an influence going forward. -- Kesh 23:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How is vandal fighting going in en:?

I'm wondering what CVU folks (who are left) think of the current state of vandal fighting in Wikipedia right now. I can only go by my anecdotal evidence, but I seem to see more obvious vandalism lying around on high profile articles, like this edit to The Rolling Stones that stuck around for an hour and a half [3]. I also see some pages that help track this like Wikipedia:Most_vandalized_pages are not being updated much (see WikiDashboard results [4]). I wonder whether it's because I'm looking in the wrong places, and there is activity happening, or whether there is a real decline in activity. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Another disturbing example, the article 777 was entirely replacd by "YOU SUCK!!!" for over four hours. This is something that in the past would have either been bot detected or vandal patrolled rather easily because it was an IP edit. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It took 4 hrs 31 minutes for someone to notice it because there was no edit summary. Anyway, usually Cluebot takes care of these types of edits within a minute or so (See: [5]) but sometimes he is out to lunch :-) As for the rest, you can count on that most CVU members (who are online), are always fighting vandals. So, if an article has a problem, it's just a matter of time for someone to revert and report it if needed to WP:AIV. Bottom line, the system is not perfect and shite happens. Jrod2 16:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal Stats?

Hi everyone!
I am wondering, has anyone done any research on vandalism statistics- like what percentage of new users are blocked/banned for vandalism? I'm doing a little experiment to find out if welcoming new users decreases the chances of them becoming vandals, but since I don't know how many would become vandals without being welcomed my data is going to be kind of irrelevant. If I have to, I could go out there and do the research myself, but I figured I'd ask first to see if I could save myself some time and effort.
Note that this experiment is not for actual use in a wikipedia article (since it's original research) merely something I've been curious about. If I can show that being welcomed lessens the probability of a user becoming a vandal, I'm sure that would also give the Welcoming Committee a boost! If you'd like to learn more about my research, you can go here: User:L'Aquatique/Anniversary.
Thanks in advance... --(L'Aquatique: Bringing chaos & general mayhem to the Wiki for One Year!) 05:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A vandal doesn't give a rat's behind if you welcome him or not. He is here to do what a vandal does and no "Welcome!" is going to persuade him to stop. Nevertheless, everyone should always get the welcome template because many new users make mistakes that could be perceived a s vandalism. Jrod2 16:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure a welcome makes a difference, but I would be interested in stats to see how effective a warning is to stopping a vandal. Anecdotally, I have seen IP vandals come in and do three or four vandal edits before someone bothers to warn them, and sometimes even a simple {{uw-vandalism1}} is enough to get people to stop. I think the thing with IP vandals is that a lot of them feel like nobody is watching. As soon as they see that "You have new messages" bar, they're ears burn and they panic and stop. Anecdotally, it seems to me this effect has been much stronger since the bug with anon IPs getting messages has been fixed. --Jaysweet 17:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that there are cases where receiving a warm welcome is enough to keep a user from being a vandal. In some cases, people have malicious intent and are going to do it anyway, but there are some on the fence... At any rate, I didn't ask your opinion on my project (although I don't mind it), I asked if anyone had vandal stats. I'm taking it that's a no? --(L'Aquatique: Bringing chaos & general mayhem to the Wiki for One Year!) 20:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Then, I don't think you should be using this page for making requests not relating to unit issues or its normal operation. Anyway, I though this might help, here is the only, but outdated research on the contribution balance between registered & unregistered: from 2002. Not a WP:RS, but interesting anyway. Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study1 found that 97% of a small random sample of vandalism was done by unregistered editors. Hope this helps. Jrod2 08:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mac Software

I was wondering, what software is available for mac, that is build around anti-vandalism.

When I was PC, I used Bob's Anti Vandal tool (I think it is called).

I now can't find anything for mac.

If any one can help, that would be great!


PS: please, pleas, leave responses on my talk page! --Tbone55 (T, ?, C, UBX, Sign Here) 14:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] move vandalism

What's the best way to revert move vandalism? Special:Contributions/Read20red AndrewGNF 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the damage from that vandal and blocked them. For the record, move the pages back (go to the user's move logs and click on the revert links), then tag the resulting nonsense redirects with {{db-g3}} so an admin can delete them. Hut 8.5 20:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, go to WP:RFPP to ask for move protection if necessary. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi How can i join and help?????????

Visit my talk site and leave me a mesage and try to redo my page to make it better  ;P--Roxmysoxo 22:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit#Userboxes, and try looking over some recent changes, for obvious vandalism to start. • Lawrence Cohen 21:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Try using anti-vandalism programs like Lupin's filter.--Urban Rose (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Searching for vandalism

I've just been spending a while searching for vandalism and just thought I'd share the method I have been using - maybe others here do it, maybe not...

I have been searching for articles containing "school" and POV words such as "awesome", "brilliant", "cool" and the like and would have to say that around 70% of the articles contained vandalism/POV writing. School articles are bound to be targets for such edits and that is why I started looking there, but there will be lots of other bad edits that we can find using this method. Perhaps the same POV words could be used along with "football" or "city". It might be worthwhile compiling a list of POV words that could be searched for. violet/riga (t) 17:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
See also [6]: even if not vandalism, these are still problems. GracenotesT § 17:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:Search for vandalism (WP:SFV) as a starting point for this. violet/riga (t) 22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Vandal Bot standard

A small group of BAG members and AV bot operators is in the process of hashing out a common implementation standard/requirements for AV bots.

The point of the exercise is to make certain that current, and prospective, AV bots interact well between each other and with human vandal fighters.

Comments and suggestions are welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Anti-vandal bot requirements. — Coren (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalisim is on the Rise

In the last few months, I have noticed a rise in vandalisims per second. I presume that this rise might be caused by the donation banner on the top. Thoughts? Marlith T/C 01:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have noticed that (SNIPER!!!!! :)). How would the banner cause that? J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it might put mischievous thoughts in their heads. The banner tells people to help the Wikimedia Foundation, which might make the vandals want to disrupt the project. I think we should talk to the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies. Marlith T/C 18:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grey Cup - Canadian football championship today

It's the Canadian Football League's championship today, and I noticed some vandalism of a player that had survived for three weeks. I'm requesting a few eyeballs to check over some of the game-related articles and keep an eye on them til tomorrow or so. Particularly because most CFL-related articles are very low traffic, but the media will be checking Wikipedia after the game for information. And for anyone who isn't a CFL fan, it's the Saskatchewan Roughriders and the Winnipeg Blue Bombers playing the Grey Cup today. 207.6.232.215 (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Which articles specifically? J-ſtanTalkContribs 00:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The team pages, the Grey Cup page, and the player pages (listed on the team pages). 207.6.232.215 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Notice

It seems like a good idea now... time will tell...
I made up a template for use in both widening recognition of CVU (considering how many times this page has been put up for deletion, it might be a good idea) and also to serve as a notice of repeat vandals. {{Template:User CVU-Busted by}} Maybe it's not perfect, but it's better than simple text warnings for obviously intentional vandalism attempts, something that would warrant a strong VAND2 or higher (ideally, only on VAND3 or repeated warnings). VigilancePrime 08:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
A second version, {{Template:User CVU-Busted by1|~~~~}}, will put the CVU's ID in a tiny "busted by" line.
Note: now at User:VigilancePrime/User CVU-Busted by and User:VigilancePrime/User CVU-Busted by1 respectively. BencherliteTalk 21:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, these templates, which need further comment by CVU members, also link to Category:Known Repeat Vandals. These templates (and thus the category) need to be used carefully and sparingly and only in cases of obvious, blatant, and repeated vandalism. Thoughts, ideas, recommendations and assistance needed. Thank you. VigilancePrime (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

By way of further explanation, I listed both for speedy deletion on the grounds that they were "inflammatory and divisive templates" (WP:CSD#T1) albeit a good-faith creation. Our discussion then continued as can be seen here. BencherliteTalk 22:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone here? Still awaiting comment from vandalism-fighters... VigilancePrime (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm here, at least (actually, the question of whether or not anyone's here has been the subject of many a debate). I don't think the templates should be employed, but it was a nice idea. It seems to create the idea that the CVU is a paramilitary wikiproject, as well as affirming the existence of a Cabal. Thanks anyway. J-ſtanTalkContribs 17:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite comfortable with the tags. I'm afraid that their use may be a bit bitey in those cases where disruptive edits are not intentional vandalism and might fan the flames in those cases where disruptive edits are. We need to give notices, but those particular messages could be received as badges by vandals who crave attention, which is discouraged. I also share J-stan's concern that they promote an image of the CVU as too paramilitary in nature. Evidently good faith, but they seem rather "inflammatory and divisive" to me, too. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] keep an eye on him

I'm only on in the morning, so if someone could keep an eye on 65.111.198.34 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log), it'd be appreciated. If he vandalizes wikipedia again then just report him to WP:AIV. You may want to run a WHOIS check on him first. Up to you. Again, thanks. --MKnight9989 13:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on him for a couple of hours. Quite a history there! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks mate. --MKnight9989 14:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Another break to think things over for that one. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
What're WHOIS, RDNS, trace, and RBLs? J-ſtanTalkContribs 20:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
WHOIS, RDNS and trace are all methods of tracing the IP, and where it maybe, this is what is used in the school blocks. An RBL is a "Real-time Blackhole List" - or in other words, a way of "blacklisting" or effectively banning a user from certain sites. At least that's what I think? :) — Rudget speak.work 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The first three make sense, but I still don't understand what an RBL is. It sounds like another way of blocking the user. J-ſtanTalkContribs 21:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I suppose so. But I think it's internet wide. — Rudget speak.work 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh. That's scary. J-ſtanTalkContribs 21:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Quite. — Rudget speak.work 22:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Does that mean that an affected person can't even edit with socks? J-ſtanTalkContribs 05:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)In theory, but the thing is, sysops can't do that directly. Basically, it means networks, routers, etc will drop the person's packets. But Wikipedia does not operate an RBL (even if we did, only so many servers/routers/nodes would use it...), so we can't do anything about vandalism via RBLs that we couldn't do via regular bans/blocks... I hope this helps. --Thinboy00's sockpuppet alternate account 03:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date articles could use some help

The date articles (e.g. April 3...) are constantly getting edited by vandals and well-meaning people who add themselves to the lists of births. The articles are poorly watched, so these edits commonly remain for days (typical example). If you watch too many it really fills up your watchlist, but if everyone could just watch their birthday (or their mom's birthday, whatever, just so long as we're not all watching the same ones), I bet it would be a big help. Thanks much! delldot talk 11:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] name change

Hey I used to be MKnight9989, but now I'm not. Just thought I'd let everyone know. ----AtTheAbyss (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enemies

A message from vandal PWee Hurman as left on User:Goodshoped35110s's talk page:

Hello Everybody, a little message to Goodshoped35110 and who else might read it. . . First off, I would like to say I love your comment(s) about the "automated rifle" when talking about taking me off wikipedia(Herman). And I would like to say that, well, your right, and that you will need that kind of fire power, especially when I finally assemble the project that I am currently working on. I currently have assembled, through an online blog to have "Herman" launch non-stop wiki attacks from multiple places in the United States. I also currently have a member who is undercover, trying to obtain the administrator position to unleash unheard of havoc. The damage that would be dealt would make even the megaliths of war look subordinate in comparison.

The next thing worth mentioning is that you don't have all of our sock puppets listed, but rather are missing many, including the ones in Spanish, Germane, Russian, and like this one, pig Latin. You will never defeat Herman, in fact, the guerrilla war thats being arranged will be the Virgina Poly Tech Massacre all over again. This will be ready and executable approximately in mid February. I need the finishing touches. Get ready for this.

Can You Handle it?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Goodshoped35110s"

I would like to alert you to this so we can have extra defense while we wait for him to come. That is if he comes at all, I expect that this is just a joke. Marlith T/C 21:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That kind of sounds like a death threat. We should contact the authorities. J-ſtanContribsUser page 22:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, I've found a friendster account for one "pEeWeE HuRmAN" Male, 21, lives in the Phillipines. J-ſtanContribsUser page 22:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tool recommendation

(Sorry if this has been covered before somewhere, feel free to point me to any previous discussion. If you think this would be of use to others, please answer here, otherwise my talk page if fine.)

I've been reverting vandalism manually for a year now, due to some severe restrictions I can't get around. I've been thinking of trying some scripts for a while now, but it's complicated, and I don't like complicated (actually, complicated doesn't seem to like me). Every time I see a new tool, its requirements appear to conflict with one or more of the limitations below. I'm hoping someone smarter than me knows of an easy way to do what I want to do.

My limitations: I mostly edit from the following machine, and these parameters cannot be changed:

  • Windows XP
  • IE7
  • No admin access to the machine
  • A policy forbidding installation of executable files
  • I do seem to have the ability to use javascript; I have popups, for example (although IE does seem to crash more often when I turn it on).
  • <understatement>I'm not the most technically astute person in the world</understatement>, so won't really be able to tinker with any scripts myself unless someone is holding my hand
  • I occasionally edit from an iMac, and would like whatever I set up to not break that. It's seldom enough that I do not need to be able to actually use the tool on the iMac; just don't want Safari to freeze.

My desires: Getting as much of the VandalProof/Twinkle/Huggle/etc. tools as I can, based on these limitations.

I'd also like to be able to customize warnings while using the tool, but that's not a deal-breaker; I can always do the special cases manually.

Any suggestions? Thanks. --barneca (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe AVT works with IE7. I was going to +rollbacker you, but I saw you gave it up. Would you object to getting it back? JustinContribsUser page 16:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, J-stan, I'll try it. As far as rollback goes, I found it slightly annoying when reverting vandalism manually (although I seem to be in the minority on that). However, while I'm trying out tools, yes I'd appreciate having it back. If nothing ends up working, I might (at the risk of starting to annoy people) ask it to be removed again. May I pester you unmercifully if I can't get AVT to work, or is it better to pester someone else? works fine. --barneca (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Evolving question (slowly learning what it is I actually want to know): I've installed and looked at AVT, and it works. But I'm actually pretty happy with my chosen method of finding vandalism, I'm more interested in tools to revert it, warn the user with an appropriate warning (that, in a perfect world, I could tweak), and if appropriate report to AIV with a minimum of keystrokes. From what I understand, basically Twinkle, but working with my setup. Thanks for the help so far... --barneca (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I gave you rollback. Now, AVT isn't only a radar detector for vandalism. Notice when you're on that page, with each edit, next to the editor, in parentheses is a list of options (should look like "(talk|uw-test|uw-vand|contribs)" then at the end of the line, [rollback]). To utilize the warning and rollback options requires a bit of script tinkering (bear with me). Add this line:
importScript('User:Lupin/autoedit.js'); //[[User:Lupin/autoedit.js]]
to your monobook.js page, and force reload like you did when installing the original script. On the feed's page, make sure you have "use non-admin rollback" checked, although I think this refers to the AVT rollback, so since you have +rollbacker, you might not need this. You should be able to rollback quickly and warn semi automatically (it brings up the user's edit form, with the warning already in, you just have to save the page). I don't know about AIV, though, that is still manual. And I hear that twinkle is so complex, that creating an IE friendly version would take too long for it to be practical. If you want a script made, you could try WP:US. JustinContribsUser page 18:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
oops OK, didn't catch that part (I mean, I saw the rollback tab, but didn't quite notice the others). I'll give it another try. Thanks again. --barneca (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
If you like AVT, but can't use Twinkle, then may I diffidently suggest PILT? Among other features, it has direct links to AIV (though it won't do all the typing for you). Philip Trueman (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Philip. I can't try it out today, but I will give it a shot soon. --barneca (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Whoa, that looks like an awesome tool. I might use that for IE7 editing (I use both FireFox and IE7). Thanks! JustinContribsUser page 17:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Tool Request

Apologies if this has been covered somewhere else. What I think would be extremely helpful would be to know how many people were "on duty" patrolling for vandalism (e.g. Recent Changes, New Pages, etc) at any given time. Similar to the vandalism level but a "patrol level". For example one could set a flag their user or talk page indicating that they were actively working on vandalism patrol. I ask because sometimes it seems like there are a lot of people patrolling (vandalism gets reverted quickly) and other times not so much. This would help because if I were to log in and see 100 people patrolling I would figure "they have it covered" but if not very many people were patrolling, I might patrol for a while until more people came "on duty". It would seem this could be achieved through a script or bot or something. If this has been discussed elsewhere please direct me, I would like to see what was said. Thanks!! --laurap414 (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe StatusBot could do something like this, but I gather it isn't working at the moment. --Hut 8.5 07:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation enduring encyclopedia

I have redirected Wikipedia:Operation Enduring Encyclopedia to the project page accompanying this talk page. I got the term from a userbox and ClueBot's user page. The redirect was put in place not because I feel that such a page could not exist, but because such a page did not exist and I... am not very skilled at writing from scratch. Any thoughts? --Thinboy00 @251, i.e. 05:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I don't think it should link here. There's numerous bots and other users that use the term (often accompanied with pictures of combat related vehicles) as a term for the ongoing "battle" of many different aspects of Wikipedia. A redirect to this page (although it is unlikely to get much use) doesn't represent what individual users may be using the term to represent. Just my thoughts - I doubt it will do any real damage however so I'm not going to take it further Pumpmeup 02:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 24

Does anybody else think that this is a stupid parody of CTU from 24? This could have another name rather than infringing on a good show —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rndmthght (talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think people will respect your opinion a little less after seeing this edit you made to User talk:Inspiron600m. TheProf | Talk 19:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Less respected. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 19:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, perhaps. However that would only make sense is 24 came out before CVU. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] need backup

things are hectic; level 2; tons of socks. if you see this then help! --AtTheAbyss (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Patience

I have neither the patience to deal with vandalism through proper channels (really, who has?), nor the time to repair presistent vandalism going back for months and spanning dozens of articles (and impossible to get rid of permanently due to the ridiculous vandal friendly policies). Would it not be a good idea to have a place somewhere where vandals could be reported informally so that these people who do have the patience to go through proper channels could deal with them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.212.67 (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, vandals gone through AIV get shopped pretty quickly. As an admin myself, is there anything I could do to help? Justin(Gmail?)(u) 01:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Could the CVU be a little (make that a lot) more civil to new users?

Please be careful if you do not know what the article is about and cannot understand it that you are reverting vandalism not the hard work of a technical editor.

The least that vandal patrollers can do with a new editor who questions their reversion is answer their question.

No, the least is explain the reversion in an edit history--that is what edit histories are for.

Then, when the editor asks about your reversion, answer their question instead of accusing them of vandalism for attempting a conversation. If conversations about edits are not allowed by the CVU the vandals win.

Please use edit summaries, please respond when users ask why you reverted instead of accusing editors of vandalism for trying to respond to your accusations, please read the material you think is vandalism. If you do not understand it, do not be so hostile until you do. Is the hostility to Wikipedia advantage even when dealing with real vandals? --Blechnic (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying we never get overzealous when it comes to vandalism, but most of the problems stem from whiny newbies who get on here and start editing BEFORE they read the rules, and then bitch and moan when someone reverts their edits. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Or, they accuse you of acting unilaterally while their edits are clear violations under some WP guideline. The worst are those who are here to promote their web sites with the pretext that their content expands the definitions of an article and we should fee so lucky they sacrificed their time to post external links. Jrod2 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you guys have obviously flung AGF out of the window here. These guys are now here, they don't know every single policy and guideline. Most other websites don't require you to read rules before getting involved - help these people learn, don't bite their heads off. Most new users who do things wrongs at first are very happy to learn and often appologetic when told about things. I hate this attitude that new users deserve to be bitten if the haven't read every policy and guideline. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)

As a point of order, it is worth pointing out that one of the purposes of WP:IAR is so that users can contribute constructively without having to read all of the rules, and I think Wikipedia gets a lot of positive contribs from that.
That said, if somebody is here to pimp their website or to write about how their classmate eats worms, I have zero sympathy for that. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Real editors take alot of time trying to make wikipedia reputable, and when someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're doing comes along and does whatever they hell they want, regardless of the consequences, it pisses people off. Newbies need to understand that they need to take the established way of doing things into consideration when editing. I have no patience for people who make mistakes that could've been easily avoided by taking the time to read our rules. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope then that you never want to become an administrator, because admins need tact and need to understand how newcomers can sometimes make a mistake - you clearly have the wrong ethos on this. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Though I understand AtTheAbyss's frustration, I don't believe we should take it as a serious offense when a newbie makes a mistake for lack of knowledge of the Wiki rules. Having been one myself, I did make a few blunders and an editor (not a CVU members) who was later found to be one of the worst sock-puppeteers, treated me with so much disrespect that I almost never came back to WP. Two years later, here I am. Having said that, it's people who come to WP with the intention to spam, promote themselves or their sites, open up sock puppet accounts to create a false consensus, make personal attacks and vandalize pages, what needs our attention and as Jaysweet put it, should have zero tolerance .Jrod2 (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you all for assuming I got into some sort of snafu because I made a newbie mistake and pissed someone, rightly, off. No, I didn't make a mistake. I was very carefully researching and editing an article (marine bacteriophages) slightly out of my area of expertise (tropical crop plant pathogens).
  • I did not spam, I did not create a sock puppet to create false consensus (Wikipedia's articles on viruses are of such limited scope and low quality there would be no one to reach consensus with, the one other editor doing the virus articles gets a few things wrong but has not commented where I've corrected his work). What I did was carefully edit an article on a component of a major emerging field in the sciences. An editor, who proudly belongs to the anti-vandalism unit, reverted my edit and accused me of vandalism on my talk page. A simple perusal of the article and the prior edits would have revealed that I had edited the grammar, clarified the scientific content to make it valuable to the readers of a general encyclopedia, and removed inappropriately general content that belonged in another article. Although I study viruses, this is not my area of expertise and this revision was a lot of work. I removed some references to rewrite and verify their content, in particular because the first reference was not directly related to the article, and the subject is topical enough that finding excellent public domain current science by the leading scientists could be prioritized. All of this is well within the scope of improving an article.
  • After I edited this article, a user came by, reverted my edits, and accused me of vandalism, simply, I think, because I removed two references (and reformatted another, and made it a reflist, instead of the HTML tag, which other users had done to my prior references). I was confused. It was clear looking at the state of the article before I started editing, and after, that I had converted crap to content.[7] Stunned at the accusation, I asked the accuser what was going on, on his talk page. His buddy, also in the counter-vandalism unit, and watching my talk page, upped the vandalism warning to a level 2 for asking what was going on. I then received a level 3 warning from the first user for telling him, truthfully, on his talk page, that his reversion of my edit had trashed the article. This user has apologized, so that's done with. However, this was an exercise in hostility caused, in my opinion, by the serious lack of knowledge of the editors guarding this article against vandalism, and the unwillingness of these editors to read the article, look at my edits, look at my edit history, and answer my question and explain themselves to me. One edit was enough to convince them that I was a vandal, in spite of my edit history, in spite of the positive changes to the article. A 10 second look at the article before I started editing and after would have shown that my contributions had vastly improved the article. They were unwilling to do this, although probably because the subject was so out of their field.
  • If you want experts to edit Wikipedia articles (and I'm by no means an expert in viruses, it's simply an area where I research), you cannot have people guarding articles who can't tell the writing of a first grader from the writing of someone who knows the subject area and have these editors working carelessly to alienate and antagonize those who are contributing.
  • Assume good faith is a grand idea. First assumption can be made by reading the edit made, rather than just making the assumption that all references in any article belong and anyone who removes one or removes many words is a vandal. Second assumption comes by assuming that when someone asks you a question about your accusation and reversion, you might want to go back and look at what you did and read it this time. Third assumption, not everyone who is attacked and warned three times by a member of the counter vandalism unit is guilty of posting spam links. No matter how many vandals Wikipedia has, if you work in a way that discourages or rudely and wrongly accuses good editors of vandalism, then you don't gain, because you can't increase your percentage of editors with expertise by not recognizing the difference between expertise (improving content) and vandalism (adding spam). I suspect you piss of a lot of editors, instead.
  • --Blechnic (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the first two paragraphs:

Here is what it looked like before I started editing.[8]

Discovered in 1915 by Frederick W. Twort, and independently in 1917 by Félix d’Herelle (a then somewhat obscure researcher at the Pasteur Institute in Paris), bacteriophages are viruses which attack only bacteria. They are ubiquitous and in numbers difficult to comprehend, but estimated at around 1031 in total. Their importance in ecosystems, particularly marine ecosystems, has only recently been comprehended.

In the simplest terms, bacteriophages or "phages" are viruses which attack only bacteria. Like all viruses, bacteriophages share broad similarities of structure and function. There are differences, however, based on the particular strain of virus or the mode of reproduction (lytic or lysogenic, or a combination of these). All phages are obligate parasites of bacteria. All, in some form or another, possess genes (which code for structural proteins as well various enzymes) enclosed in a capsid, as well as tails and other structures used to penetrate the host.

At the point where my edit was reverted as vandalism.[9]

Marine bacteriophages or marine phages are viruses that live as obligate parasitic agents in marine bacteria such as cyanobacteria.[1] Their existence was discovered through electron microscopy and Epifluorescence microscopy of ecological water samples, and later through genomic sampling of uncultured viral samples.[1] The tailed bacteriophages appear to dominate marine ecosystems in number and diversity of orgamisms.[1]

Bacteriophages, viruses that are parasitic on bacteria, were first discovered in the early twentieth century. Scientists today consider that their importance in ecosystems, particularly marine ecosystems, has been underestimated, leading to these infectious agents being poorly investigated and their numbers and species biodiversity being greatly under reported.

For the literate general reader it is clear that the second edit is what belongs in an encyclopedia on the topic. It's readable, direct to the subject, sourced, and general in tone. So, I had to ask, why would someone have made this reversion? It seems straightforward someone is working to improve the article. But asking what was going on, which did confuse this newbie greatly, led to an escalation of charges of vandalism. It was a well-practiced and orchestrated escalation designed to not allow the newbie a defense--although my edits should have been enough of a defense. I think that the CVU might be a lot more careful.

And, I did read a lot of the rules, and continue to read them, so that I can understand how the encyclopedia works. I also write general reference works on the sciences for a general audience, so I have some familiarity with a lot of the rules and guidelines Wikipedia has. The rules are somewhat arbitrarily enforced, though, so it doesn't help to holler at newcomers to read the rules first, as it is hard to figure out which ones to follow and which ones not to follow. I'm also not that new to Wikipedia, as I've edited here and there under various IPs for a long time.


--Blechnic (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, I understand how people can make a mistake. When I first got on wikipedia, I made three articles right off the bat. One was deleted because the band wasn't notable, and one was deleted because I didn't have any cites or sources. Had I taken the time to read the rules, I wouldn't have made either article, but I digress. What pisses me off is that people new to wikipedia constantly bitch and moan about 'people being mean' or 'not being patient'; tough shit. THIS IS THE INTERNET. PEOPLE WILL BE ASSHOLES. If someone's being a dick, ignore their nonsensical comments, take note of why they're so pissed, and try to avoid making the same mistake twice. If it's not your fault, then there isn't anything you can do, so again, ignore them. And no, I never plan to become an admin; while I enjoy wikipedia, I already go to school and have a job, I don't need another one. I hope I've made my position somewhat more clear, if not, I'd be happy to answer any questions on my talk page. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • People on Wikipedia who are assholes are themselves violating policy, no matter what mistakes have been made. Those who bitch & moan about them being mean or lacking patience (if those complaints are justified, of course) may understand at least some guidelines better than they do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you completely, people shouldn't be assholes, but wikipedians break rules (this is the CVU after all). My opinion is that new editors can't expect people to hold their hands. They should expect to be helped if something confuses them, but they can't expect to be babied constantly.--AtTheAbyss (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's true that they shouldn't expect it, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for it (again, so long as we're talking about justified complaints of meanness & impatience). They're more in the right than the assholes are. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)

Blechnic, I looked at the diffs you showed and you are clearly right that it was an inappropriate reversion. I think your initial comments on this page led people to believe this was a WP:BITE issue, where the reverting editor was rude to you. That is not what happened here: The reverting editor was polite and professional, he just happened to be completely wrong.
I am sorry that happened. I am having a little bit of trouble seeing what User:DougsTech was bothered by. Yes, your edits reduced the article length by a bit, but the information still seems to be largely there, and in any case it was clear that you were in the progress of a major edit. You were not 100% with using edit summaries, but more often than not you used informative edit summaries, that should have been a key that maybe the reverting editor should have checked your edits a little more closely to see if they were legit. I can only imagine that DougsTech was in a hurry or something and just made a mistake.
Your changes have greatly improved the article, and I would encourage you to stick with it, and not let one editor's mistake reflect poorly on Wikipedia as a whole. I can assure you that most people who go on counter-vandal patrol would not have reverted your changes.
Once again, I am sorry this happened, and I hope you will continue to contribute to the project. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah Jay you're right. I thought this was a case of WP:BITE. Don't I feel like an ass.--AtTheAbyss (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
And in fact, reading his talk page a bit, I have grave concerns over DougsTech's methods for fighting vandalism. Blacklisting users? Not signing comments on his own talk page? I dunno about this... he seems to have done a lot of great work fighting vandalism, but this incident with Blechnic is disturbing, and other editors raised concerns as well (and DougTech was very terse and dismissive to those other, well-established editors). I don't get warm fuzzies reading his talk page, that's for sure... How many other potentially valuable contributors like Blechnic might have been driven away from the project??? --Jaysweet (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It seems to have been discussed here. I don't know what the story is on this "blacklist", but that does seem to be a matter of some concern. If comments can be automatically erased (unread?), then I don't know how mistakes are to be remedied. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so the perception that the blacklist results in automatic reversion seems to be a misunderstanding. The "blacklist" is just a list of users where DougsTech checks their contribs very carefully. Another user, CompWhizII, reverted Blechnic's communication with DougsTech on his talk page. It seems that this was a bit of a "perfect storm": DougsTech made an honest mistake, the kind we all make sometimes but hopefully not too often, and then CompWhizII made a very similar mistake just a moment later. Very unfortunate, but hard to prevent.
To be perfectly explicit: I no longer suspect a systemic problem in DougsTech's vandal-fighting methods. This was just an isolated mistake, that was aggravated when CWII tried to help out.
I think the lesson for all of us to take away from this (and this is always a very appropriate reminder for CVU) is that we do need to continually AGF and carefully check a user's contribs before reverting them. Yeah, meticulously reading each suspicious edit does make fighting vandalism more difficult -- but if this was an easy job, then ClueBot would do all the work and there'd be no need for any of us to get involved.  :D --Jaysweet (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, because I was on DougsTech's blacklist he didn't check my contributions more carefully, remember, my asking a question led to my being slapped with another and another vandal warning, clearly without reading my questions or ever intending to discuss the issue with me. Note that Doug never discusses the issue with me, does not use an edit summary explaining what he did, and does not sign his own talk page, simply accusing anyone of posting on it of vandalism. Of the two of us, he looks much more like the vandal by reverting good to bad, by not communicating what he is doing, by failing to discuss what he is doing, and by attacking another editor who tries to discuss it. As I said, he apologized. The issue is why any editor thinks this is how vandalism should be handled. Is he really such an anomaly? He had a friend participate in the same destructive behavior, then a third person came to embroil themselves in the feeding frenzy on the newbie. I wonder if this is anomalous behavior or something that occurs when a group of people are fighting vandalism together. But, JaySweet's conclusion is something I think the CVU should take as seriously as their proud participation in the unit: AGF, check a user's contributions before reverting them, explain your reversions in the edit summary, and, yes, if all you had to do was program a bot, you wouldn't need people. For the CVU or for writing the encyclopedia. I would like to see some prominent policy comments on the CVU page about this, that vandalism fighters do not serve a purpose if they act like vandals themselves, don't assume good faith, and are not willing to take the time to make sure something is vandalism before reverting and antagonizing a good faith editor. As far as I can tell Wikipedia needs microbiology editors. Thanks for the comments, every one. --Blechnic (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment (Creating a new Page for CVU)

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 discussion.

Many of you have valid concerns and make good cases for a change and further development of our CVU. The CVU Task Force unit has grown in membership and keeps growing on and on, and that's good. However, as I said before, it's people who come to WP with the intention to spam, promote themselves or their sites, open up sock puppet accounts to create a false consensus, make personal attacks and vandalize pages, what needs our attention and as Jaysweet put it, should have zero sympathy. That said, CVU members are NOT an exception either, and there will be an occasion, sooner or later, where a CVU member will be involved in those same activities. So, I propose (I will work on it at my own time expense and when available) the creation of a page which will allow anybody to report CVU members for abuse. You may ask yourself: why have a page to do this and not just report it at, for example, the WP:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism or the WP:Community_sanction_noticeboard? Well, we can do that too, but the main purpose of this special page is to create a consensus to dismember CVU members who violate the very same principles we uphold and the activities we fight against.

First, If you all agree or if someone expresses an opinion in favor or against it, we will have a new page at the CVU called either "Removal of CVU Membership", "Nomination to Dismember CVU user", or "Recall of CVU Membership". We all should decide this too.
Second, All CVU members are immediate members of its Arbitration Committee. Most likely than not, only CVU members will view this notices on their watch lists and thus, we will probably be the only ones posting our views and creating consensus. That said, it's is open to the whole WP community.
Third, It will work pretty much the same way how WP:AfD works, right down to an administrator (we have a few here at CVU) deleting the name of the offending CVU member from our list and closing the discussion of the case.
Fourth, When enough cases have been entered and closed, someone (I volunteer for that task) will archive the discussions from the page.
Fifth, Notwithstanding the original reasons set forth above, we should remove membership to anyone who:
Has an idle account (I propose 3 months, but if you think it should be lees, that's fine)
Has been making edi ts, but unrelated to vandal fighting for more than a month (If you think it should be lees, that's fine)
Has been caught in more than 3 opportunities being impolite, aggressive and otherwise not assuming good faith, but with certain exceptions such as: exchanging words with user accounts who are obviously vandalizing or spamming Wikipedia (we should assume zero tolerance).
Sixth, The list of reasons to dismember someone can be proposed and expanded or modified on this very forum or on its new talk page.
Seventh, I also propose the creation of a new term and accompanied with its description page that helps explain our motives and commitments: Assume Zero Tolerance WP:AZT. Which will drive up crazy a lot of users who created WP:AGF, but by no means is a justification to be impolite, aggressive and otherwise not assuming good faith, especially with new comers.
Eighth, Future modifications and new ideas should continue to emerge to improve that page. Everyone has the right to form an opinion.

Those like me, who feel that it's time to improve our unit and continue growing not with quantity of members, but with quality members, please state your vote to DO or Don't to my proposed page (if you choose to DO, select a name from my first paragraph above or create your own). Thanks for your attention. Jrod2 (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Add your vote below this line: <--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

  • DO (AsRecall of CVU Membership). I feel strong about this idea, even though the other wiki check points, already in place, will make some of you feel that this is unnecessary. Jrod2 (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, I don't think the CVU is that official. Really anyone can join, and so long as they're fighting vandalism, they're members. It really isn't that big a deal. Justin(Gmail?)(u) 17:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
You are right J, so long as they are fighting they should be members. But, they should not if they're making questionable edits, especially when don't even relate to vandal fighting. Don't you think that they shouldn't be displaying our CVU task force label on their user pages? Jrod2 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This seems pointless. CVU members should be treated the same as anyone else. If a CVU member commits acts of vandalism or whatever, we can just report them to AIV. We can remove them from the CVU from there. I don't see any benefits to this new CVU-exclusive AfD-esque witch hunt at all. It seems like it will do nothing but divide the CVU against itself, creating a (excuse the exaggeration) culture of paranoia. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Your entitled to feel that way Abyss, but there are a few members who should be ejected for not doing any vandal fighting, thus the other reasons to create this. Did you read the "fifth" paragraph above? Jrod2 (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I have to, at least initially, agree with others in that there is no "official" CVU, and so why talk about people being "ejected" or having an official complaint system?
That said, to spin the proposal a little bit, there is indeed a problem here that might be addressed, and that's that good faith users get trampled on by vandal patrollers from time to time, and if they are very new then they often don't know where to go.
Here's the problem, though: Any forum you make to complain about overzealous vandal patrolling is going to be swamped by people who are pissed off that somebody reverted their vandalism. How do you get the message to the good faith users, without tipping off the trolls? Especially since the whole point here is that the initial classification was incorrect... Hmmm.... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Now you are talking, Jaysweet. Good question. I guess, it's no different to what happens on any AfD. There will be sock puppet accounts trying to shift consensus one way or the other. For the most part anyone, claiming that a CVU member is abusing them, would have to have substantial proof and that can be seen on diffs. Don't you agree? Also, we aren't that bad doing vandal fighting, I don't think. What makes you think that it would be unmanageable? Now, some members feel doing this is not necessary. And maybe they are right. But sooner or later as membership continues grow, this will be needed. Maybe my vision is too futuristic for now, but I believe it should be in place now. Especially, if some users would like to deal with some characters among us who shouldn't really be doing crime fighting as they project a negative image of our unit. Doing this will also put a filtering system in place. Only those who do vandal fighting in a regular basis should wear the CVU label. Eventually, we will need quality not quantity. Now, this doesn't mean that they can't go on doing crime fighting once a year, they just won't be called a CVU member.Jrod2 (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think first we'd need to arrive at some kind of consensus that CVU should really exist as an official entity. For me personally, I kindof don't think so. In fact, I am of the mindset that "WikiProject Counter-Vandalism" would be better than "Counter-Vandalism Unit". The cops-and-robbers mentality can be a little bit dangerous if we let it get out of hand. I personally do not use the CVU userbox, even though I patrol for vandalism a lot and have this page on my Watchlist. I don't see any reason to self-identify that way.
I dunno, I mean, it sounds like you want to make CVU an official organization, but since there are no powers or privileges associated with it, it's sorta just like a club... I don't really get it.
I would potentially support opening some kind of help desk for people who feel they have been falsely accused of vandalism, but I still just don't understand about this whole taking-away-CVU-"membership" thing... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't. I see this as senseless bureaucracy. Since you have no extra power from joining the CVU, malicious users will have no real incentive to join it. And if they do it won't do them any good, and it won't do us any harm. And if you really feel strongly about it, then at least ditch the idea of a separate page, you could just use this talk-page, because I really doubt their would be many such cases. --Mark (Mschel) 17:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Your vote and point is taken. All I am saying is let's raise the bar and do away with people who are not doing vandal fighting. Jrod2 (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2008 (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 discussion.

[edit] Officially unofficial comment by the founder of CVU aka User:White Cat

Hi, I'd like to drop by and drop my comment thats not even worth two cents. I'd like to share my thoughts on why and how CVU was founded as some of it appear forgotten. These are merely my views on the matter.

  • Despite it's name resembling the Counter Terrorism Unit (CTU) from the series 24, "Counter-Vandalism Unit" (CVU) was not intended to be an organization of any kind at any point. It should not be even considered a club as it is not organized in any way. It's name was merely a nickname I chose for my IRC based vandalism detecting script. It was not even intended to be a group activity as the "Unit" in question was the bot. At most it was a gag. I would like to see the gag be continued (it is a fun name) but please do not load/imply anything more than what it really is (a gag).
  • I have long stepped down from my "Director" post which I inherited being the founder. These posts never had a meaning of any kind. I was not in charge of anything at any point. It was again a fancy gag among CVU people, nothing more.
  • Once the CVU thing grew large enough it was moved to the project namespace. "Membership" was simply a list of users so people more easily recognised each other. It was also used to check for impersonation. It should not have a function aside from this.
  • I feel people who bite new users are a threat to the wikipedia community and project as a whole. Such people should not be made welcome at any part of this project. New users at a minimum are to be welcomed in good faith with open arms. That is the intended spirit behind CVU.
  • It is very important to avoid instruction creep. Instruction creep is counter-productive. You should be reverting vandalism rather than wasting time with a process dealing with inactive users. I would suggest removing users that have been blocked indefinitely as if they are not welcome to the wikipedia project, they should not be welcome on CVU's username list.

I may choose to express these in greater detail but I do not want to bore you off with long posts.

-- Cat chi? 21:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My request to close the above discussion to White Cat

I contacted User:White_Cat because I knew he was the founder and would probably be the best opinion . I realize that he is right, we should spend more time fighting vandals. That said, the need to create some sort of a "Help Desk" is at this time unnecessary and may never be needed. Two things that may change. In 5 more years, which is what I predict this project, club or whatever you want to call it, should place a system to check itself out because membership will be high enough to show the first signs of abuse (If there isn't already). However, in 5 for more years there may not even be a Wikipedia online because of the imminent changes in internet technologies which the 'Powers that be' will try to seize to monopolize or consolidate their current holdings in order to increase their market assets. Jrod2 (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sanity Check at Audicom AfD

I have 2 AfDs going. Both by the same editors. One a CVU member himself. Here is the AfD I need an opinion on, so please check this out:
Audicom is a software product advertisement masquerading as an encyclopedic article and violates WP:NOTABILITY and WP:SPAM. Same WP:V and WP:PRODUCT issues to delete are found here as in Audicom (PC audio cards). What troubles me the most is the blatant spam on so many audio pages. This is just one diff example of the many I continue to find. Users on this discussion have called me "an edit warrior" "feuding editor", yet, they completely ignore the scope of these individuals' self promotion activities at Wikipedia. One quick look at OscarJuan and Sebastian Ledesma's contributions confirms it. To make things more difficult to understand, there is clear evidence of sock and meat puppet activity. Jrod2 (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the people Jrod2 has argued with at the AfD. As I posted there, he edit-warred on the article, then nominated it. See the history throughout April 08. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Disputes regarding user conduct are probably better at WP:ANI. Hut 8.5 19:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback Hut, I don't want to get these people blocked by their wrong choices or their inappropriate edits. I believe that they are simply misguided and they need advise. Maybe by seeing how easy it is to be reverted, they start making contributions within our policies and start asking what's the correct way. There is nothing wrong with one writing his own company's article or company achievements, so long as they have the verifiable citations which I believe they do. This is my guess, though. Let's see what happens at their Audicom Afd, and see if they want to get help in order to post, what appears to be, one of the very first Latinamerican audio achievements. Jrod2 (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Defend the Ancient Pages!

Vandalism was ongoing on those pages. I recommend we keep on watching over those pages as the Encyclopedia Dramatica article on vandalism encourages its members to vandalize those articles, since they assume that nobody watches on it. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Logo

Anime may or may not be an art form. I think it's fugly. †Sƒ (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Layout of warning messages on talk pages

I go on a vandalism patrol kick from time to time. It seems that hardly anyone uses the recommended layout for posting warning messages on talk pages. Are folks here aware of this recommended layout? It seems like this project should be in sync with WP:TUSER, no? Just wondering. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)