Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 →

Contents

ACHTUNG

While checking for vandalism, I found someone had written titties!!! on the budhism talk page. I corrected it. After this, I checked the same page one more time and found this: 8=================================================D --- . Now, if you don't know what that is, you probably don't need to, but I just wanted people to know about this kind of vandalism. If anyone has any ideas on how to counter this new (or possibly old) kind of vandalism, then speak up mates. --MKnight9989 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The guy committed the above acts of vandalism is 66.89.216.222. I'd like to block him permanently from wikipedia, seeing as how he has warnings from December of 2005, and warnings as recent as February of 2007. How exactly do I go about doing this? --MKnight9989 14:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on WP:VANDALISM. The place you're looking for is WP:AIV - but please read the guidelines first. Waggers 14:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay I added his name to the list of repeat offenders (does that sound too dramatic?), so hopefully action will soon be taken. --MKnight9989 14:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see what that is! J-stan Talk 02:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
He's seen the light. Hallelujah. haha. Clever vandalism, don't ya think. --MKnight9989 13:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Original, yes. Clever, perhaps. At least it wasn't something like "I'M THE COOLEST AWESOMEST PERSON EVER" or the names of who dies in the recent harry potter book. That's getting a little old. J-stan Talk 14:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Well said brother. --MKnight9989 14:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Task forces

Would anyone be interested in creating task forces for this project? One for NP patrol, RC patrol, etc. I think it would be cool to work with other RC patrollers in watching articles that are repeatedly vandalized. Just a thought. J-stan Talk 03:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

NOTE:I moved this section to the bottom cause it was on the top(that is why this section comes before the other one) Oysterguitarst 07:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Anyone who would be interested, Please let me know. J-stan Talk 14:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Machine Learning and Vandalism Detection

Has anyone done any significant work on machine learning for vandalism detection? I may work on this for my research. If anyone could point me towards what's already been done (algorithms implemented, databases compiled), I'd love to see it. Thanks.

Kenxle 14:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Kenxle

If I understand correctly, the best example of an algorithm I know of is [anti-vandal tool badword filter]. J-stan TalkContribs 15:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia needs "Deputies"

Let me be perfectly clear that I absolutely do not want to be an admin, and it's unlikely I would get anywhere near passing an RfA because of my modest number of mainspace edits.

That said, I could really use the ability to impose a 5- or 10-minute block on another user. Too many times I've seen a blatant vandal run amok and create piles of cleanup work between the time I report to WP:AIV and when the block takes effect.

I know I'm just dreaming here, but it would be awesome if the Wikimedia SW supported the idea of a "Deputy" that would be something less than an admin but more than a normal user. Deputies would have the ability to impose a short (5- or 10-minute) block an any non-deputy non-admin user. The criteria for being a deputy would be:

  • Enough of an edit history to show that the user has a solid understanding of Wikipedia policies, particularly in regards to vandalism.
  • No serious complaints about the user from legitimate editors. (e.g. no history of extreme POV-pushing edits or petty revert wars)
  • A demonstrated desire to fight vandalism (based on the potential deputy's contribs)
  • Never abused deputy power, not even to block someone who is POV-pushing. Deputy power would only be used in the case of repeated blatant vandalism, and only as a stop-gap to plug the hole between WP:AIV reporting and administrator blocking of said vandal. Any deputy who abused the power even once would lose deputy power and never be eligible to get it back.

Like I say, I enjoy fighting vandalism, but the fact is that a dedicated vandal can destroy Wikipedia pages faster than I can fix it and report the vandal. I never want to be an admin -- too much responsibility, and anyway, I would not be very good at deciding how long a person should be blocked. But I could really use a 5-minute block power... --Jaysweet 19:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Such ideas have been proposed before, but they generally are not accepted. The reason is that if you can trust a user to not abuse this, why aren't they an admin? Vandals have to be warned before being blocked, all the way to test4. Inevitably this power would be used before that more often then admins violate that rule. It also creates a whole new level of bureaucracy to go along with granting the right, etc. Prodego talk 19:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason why they would not be an admin is because RFA is broken. MessedRocker (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
"Why aren't they an admin?" is an easy question to answer. Like I said, I, for example, would probably not succeed in an RfA because I have not contributed enough new material to mainspace articles, and from my experience that's one of the things people like to see from a potential admin -- that you've "paid your dues" so to speak. I just don't have the time to put together the kind of solid references I would want to see in a mainspace article, yet I think checking my contrib history makes it pretty clear I could be "trusted" not to abuse a 5-minute block power. I'm sure there are probably hundreds of users out there who fit the same criteria (i.e. they like reading Wikipedia and catch a lot of vandalism-in-progress as a result, but can't spend enough dedicated time to do the sort of research required to make quality additions to the mainspace).
The extra layer of bureaucracy you mention (not to mention the effort to implement such a feature in the software) I think is what ultimately kills the idea. But I wanted to float it anyway cuz it's always been on my mind. heh... --Jaysweet 19:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think one could make an argument that there are certain situations that would justify a very short block (e.g. 1 or 2 minutes) even before reaching test4. If somebody sprays a racial slur over four pages at once, do you give them a test1 and wait for them to do it twice more (perhaps hitting far more than two more pages, maybe hitting 8 or 10) before you WP:AIV?
That's another problem I see with Wikipedia's anti-vandal policy, in an admittedly noble effort to not WP:BITE, the policy doesn't have enough teeth against blatantly malicious vandals. It's one thing if an elementary school kid blanks an article and replaces it with "I like pie." We'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But if somebody blanks a page with a blatantly racist or homophobic message, are we seriously saying that if we are patient we can reform this person into a serious editor?! heh... --Jaysweet 19:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It may be via WP:IAR but if somone is mass-vandalising pages they may get a block from me before any warnings. — xaosflux Talk 15:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but the proportion of administrators to standard users is very small, and part of the problem is that a person could mass-vandalize a large number of pages before they can be brought to the attention of an admin.

Also, for this you wouldn't neccesarily need to have the whole bureucratic process of RfA, since you're only talking about the power to block someone for a few minutes(no article protection, modification of the UI, etc.). It seems to me that you would really only need a quick five or ten minute check to make sure that the person wasn't a vandal, wasn't liable to get into massive edit wars, etc. Nathanww 15:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Whitespace

I hope no one minds, but I reformatted the barnstar recognition section to reduce the amount of whitespace added by the image. It's not vandalism!!  ;) Dreadstar † 18:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Another blatant vandal, I don't know what to do with

This user: 206.47.220.198 vandalised this article: Navel lint then reverted the reverts back to their vandalised version!!! Ryan4314 01:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest using Twinkle. It has a few buttons to rollback and report vandalism. It doesn't work in Internet explorer. In the meantime, I'll report xem to AIV. Thanks, Informant. We need more of you (But not really). Would you consider joining the project, and a taskforce for it? See above for a few details, but the basic idea is to create a small, loosely organized group of editors who take info like yours and use their preferred type of vandal-thwacking to combat it. If you have questions, then post on my talk page. J-stan Talk 02:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Why's there a link to sockpupperty in your message? Oysterguitarist 02:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I was using it for humor. By saying we need more of him, it was making it seem like we needed more sock puppets of him. Just a joke. J-stan Talk 02:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok I get it now. Oysterguitarist 02:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Guidance sought

There is a user User talk:TheNewHubris who has been vandalizing some articles. On July 10th he was given a final warning for vandalism. On the 17th he vandalized Scholarship. Over the past couple of days he vandalized Alex Kravchenko three times. At first I was willing to WP:AGF... the subject has just become notable so not much is out there. But looking at his other contributions and the fact that his edits have been garbage, I've changed my mind. Today he has cleared his page of all the previous warnings with a note, "ban me f'ers." With that in mind, what is the appropriate response?Balloonman 21:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure he's a vandal only account? I can report him immediately, but I need correct info for the report.

Massive Vandalism in the Youruba Mainpage

Massive vadilism has being going on on this page yo.wikipedia.org/main_page please help Lephilippe 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your question, WP:AIV is where you want to be. I use twinkle so I can click a tab, type a few things, and it reports it. I strongly suggest getting it. go to the above link, and it will tell you what to do. J-stan Talk 23:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Howere im quite poor when it comes to general computer skills and im afriad I may not be able to fight this empty handed, may you please lend some assitance?? Lephilippe 21:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. J-stan Talk 22:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh I thought you meant the Yoruba page. I don't know what to do on the yoruba mainpage. If you have an account there, you should contact an experienced editor there. J-stan Talk 22:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Help/Advice for Gahanna article

I need assistance from this community. The History section of the Gahanna article is consistently being vandalized several times a day. The coward is doing this anonymously, but I read where the administrators of Wikipedia can block an IP address range. I don't know who to go to or contact, but I need help. Can someone help me or help stop this person? Thanks. OhioVanguard 00:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You probably want WP:AIV. Nat Tang ta | co | em 05:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Operation: New Leaf Discussion

Per a suggestion by Hdt83, I am requesting wider attention from the community on this talk page for a new taskforce of CVU, Operation: New Leaf. It is a proposed task force that will convert once vandals into valued contributors for the encyclopedia, through kindness, patience, and, ultimately, love. To discuss this idea further, go here. Cheers, Arky¡Hablar! 01:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Can i join here?

can i join? --Vandalism destroyer 02:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, anybody can join, except vandals. Add your name and userbox to join. Also, new posts should go on the bottom. --Hdt83 Chat 02:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Calling up the reserves

I have an idea (it may already be in use, I don't know) on how to better control vandalism when it is at level 1. If we had a program that could automatically send out an alert to everyone in the CVU when the vandalism level is at 1, we could keep it in check. If this is practical (or impossible) let me know. --MKnight9989 12:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems like something to feed the trolls. I know I wouldn't want an email every time that happened. I'm sure many others are like me in that respect. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
No no not an email, just a talk page message. Besides, how often does it get up to Level 1 (this is a genuine question warranting a genuine answer)--MKnight9989 12:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Inactive?

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.
This thread has turned into a "vote on whether a fact is true". That's not useful, let's move on. >Radiant< 12:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This page was recently marked as {{historical}} but I missed a disbandment discussion if there was one. I've changed it to inactive, though I don't endorse that. Are other project members still alive? — xaosflux Talk 23:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out WP:AN, there's a discussion on there. --Deskana (banana) 23:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I just commented on there I didn't mean to wheel anyone (although it looks like wheeling was welcomed) after seeing this (never would have gone to find out why a project satus was changing on the admin noticeboard instead of right here first. Typically project endigns are Active Project --> Inactive Project / Completed Project ---> Historical Project. I think we should try out normal step two (inactive) first to see if the members are still interested in running this. — xaosflux Talk 23:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Sending out a member notice to gather project members feel for inactivity. — xaosflux Talk 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I still consider myself to be a member but I'm on an extended Wikibreak at the moment (only dropping in and out occasionally) but I intend to resume my duties as a member as soon as I return. AlanD 00:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I am extremely active. If someone can summarize why the project would be disbanded, and what (if any) alternatives are being implemented, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 03:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I thought I indicated on the main page that everything CVU used to do is pretty much taken care of by recent changes patrol. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not inactive, period. Arbiteroftruth 05:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not inactive. Not at all. I mean, to me, if members are actively fighting vandalism, it's an active project. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Inactive, never - I am still poping in here every now and then when I am not busy making money. If "they" trying to disband us then obviously we are doing something right. The unit should remain Active.--Jcw69 07:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There's not really any doubt that this project is still active. I think there are several misunderstandings among those who want to see the project disbanded, deleted, or redirected, so allow me to state a few facts:

  1. This is a Wikiproject. Just like any other Wikiproject, the project page contains useful information for its members. Just like any other Wikiproject, that information is replicated elsewhere in Wikipedia. That is not a reason for closing the project down or redirecting the project page.
  2. There are some users who don't like the name of this Wikiproject. That being the case, a new name can be proposed and discussed here; if/when consensus is reached, the project can be renamed. That's very different to closing the project altogether.
  3. Stability and inactivity are two different things. The project page is fairly stable, and is not edited much at the moment. That does not mean the page is redundant, nor does it mean the project is inactive. As with a lot of other Wikiprojects, the talk page is where a lot of the action happens, and this talk page is pretty active. Waggers 08:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe the name is an issue from what I understand. I remember in one of my postings recently I mentioned where the name came from. The only issue I remember that I had was the use of the Wikimedia owned trademarks, but that has been long solved now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Inactive? CVU? Are you on another planet??? :) Although I no longer have a home internet connection, I am still very much active within CVU as a vandalism reverter, as well as on RCP. Having the CVU there gives "normal" members like myself a little bit of, how shall I put this (without making myself sound like a power hungry maniac)...steady ground, if you will, when we make warnings on user's talk pages. To mention the fact that there is a Counter Vandalism Unit puts the fear of $deity up some of the little weasels who see fit to destroy other people's work so mercilessly. The CVU is far from inactive, and I would consider it a liability to Wikipedia if it were marked so. Thor Malmjursson 11:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the reason for tagging as historical. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding about this project being inactive. The scope of the CVU goes far beyond that of just this page. The activities we engage in in regards to reverting vandalism and cleansing its possible long standing effects are what this entire project is all about. Making this project "historical", "inactive", deleting it, or renaming it is completely unnecessary and I wonder why it was even called for. Come to think of it, doing so is just plain silly. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 17:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Whole heartedly. The idea of the CVU being inactive is quite comical. We had our laughs...time to knock off this nonsense. Ganfon 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Like pretty much everyone else has said, this project is very much active. Don't even see why this is up for debate, really... --Ratiocinate (t • c) 17:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt that this should be listed as inactive. Just because there is a lull in activity or a downturn in activity doesn't mean we need to stop. I still repair articles that are victims of vandalism whenever and wherever i see them. Sure, there may be LESS vandalism going on right now, and things are quieter...but we're still a vital part to maintaining at least SOME sanity on English Wikipedia. Remember: vandals don't take breaks. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still here. Everytime I see someone vandalize an article, I go back and rever the vandalism. I don't see what anyone would want to get rid of this Wiki Project, it is such a vital project. El Greco (talk · contribs) 18:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This project is nowhere near inactive. There's no good reason for this project to be labeled historical or inactive. If the project goes, I go. --Chetblongtalk to me 19:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • saluting Present and participating. Not inactive. --Moonriddengirl 19:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If it isn't already obvious, this project is most certainly not inactive. What the hell? Don't people have better things to do besides quibbling about the activity of Wikiprojects? Ya know, like this encyclopedia I keep hearing about? Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 20:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Wow, like everyone else who says it, it is not inactive at all. Still doing my duty, reverting vandalism as it comes. カラム 20:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why it should become inactive. It has provided many Wikipedians with a sense of duty that cannot be made up for (IMO, of course). In addition, we've really got nothing to lose by keeping it anyway. -- Gravitan(Talk | Contribs) 21:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been busy with college (summer classes even), but I work on it whenever I get a few minutes here and there. Personally, I like the name, too. I don't think it's inactive, and while I'm sure there is overlap between CVU and recent changes patrol, I don't see them as being redundant at all.--H-ko (Talk) 21:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, there will always be some form of vandalism on Wikipedia, and really we need to keep the Counter Vandalism Unit active to ensure that no one screws up everyone elses hard work. Thanks. Ilikefood 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think CVU is inactive, but right now it is not having a lot of coordinated activities. People are still fighting vandalism. --Nlu (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • No way! I don't think CVU is inactive, there are many CVU member-Wikipedians actively fighting against vandalism and it shouldn't be shut down. --Cyril Thomas 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I am in the unit, I am active, I have gone after sock puppeteers and meat puppets vandals who were intending to spam or were trolling me and other users. My record speaks for itself (10 sock puppets blocked accounts in 2 months) and I am barely 4 months at WP. So I am counter-vandalizing as much as I am trying to contribute to articles. Do I need to say more? Please let's keep it strong. Jrod2 23:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I consider myself to be a member and I kinda freaked out when the page disappeared. This isn't inactive at all, which can be seen by the large number of Wikipedians with the userbox on their page. Please don't get rid of it.Silver seren 01:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no way the CVU unit is inactive. I know alot of Wikipedians who are helping in the fight against vandalism and this unit should NOT be shut down.MOOOOOPS 21:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I haven't done too much of the "sit down for a while and revert vandalism", but I have done so, and I do correct vandalism. I say it should not be shut down.

Iain marcuson 02:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Just because vandalism may be down like others mentioned is no reason why we should disband the project. There are still many Wikipedians fighting vandalism that are involved and more that will join when they find the project. There is no way the project should be shut down. Xtreme racer 02:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This project is no way inactive. The CVU's goal is to assist in the formation of tools and the removal of vanalism. You don't close the Police Force down when crime rates drop, do you? Martin Porcheron talk to memy edits 07:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It is NOT INACTIVE. Check Lupin's vandal tool. Most of it is vandalism right? Right before your very eyes. Vandalism is still up and active. Metalflame 14:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Obviously Active. The only change that I think should be made is to turn it into a more dynamic page with direct tools. Inhuman14 23:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Active. Wigren 23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Active.  Barliner  talk  00:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Obviously active, as long as there is vandalism Rgoodermote 02:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, couldn't post my opinion because I was too busy on RC patrol with AVT and Twinkle. J-stan TalkContribs 02:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Are other project members still alive? — xaosflux" - I am alive and declare the project to be exactly that as well. Avb 03:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the sheer response shown in this talk page to the allegations of this project being inactive and the response to the possible deletion of this project more than proves that this project is quite alive and well. Moreover, I will re-iterate what I stated earlier:
"The scope of the CVU goes far beyond that of just this page. The activities we engage in in regards to reverting vandalism and cleansing its possible long standing effects are what this entire project is all about. Making this project "historical", "inactive", deleting it, or renaming it is completely unnecessary and I wonder why it was even called for. Come to think of it, doing so is just plain silly."
With that said, lets put this aside and get back to doing what this project is meant for: Counter-Vandalism. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 05:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well this project page might not be continually updated, but does it need to be? I feel the project is still active, as I and many others go out of our way to revert vandalistic "contributions." 141.154.232.29 19:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, your only edit is to this page. Are you just another user not logged in? J-stan TalkContribs 19:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say all that is fairly conclusive. Waggers 07:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Go on to RC when vandalism is at level three. Then you can decide whether or not CVU is active. It is active.. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be considered "inactive" counter-vandalism is a big thing for lots of editors here at wikipedia, I, personally, have not been active due to the busyness of summer, but I know that many, many editors are actively involved in counter-vandalism. I don't see why there is a need to delete it. --♫Twinkler4♫ (Talk to me!) 02:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an active project. There is no good reason to delete it. Okuzaone 05:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I will have to say that there is absolutely no question that this project is active. I myself have been repeatedly correcting vandalism to pages I encounter with any such problems. Clint 06:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.


Press coverage

Great article on vandalism control at Search Engine Land by User:Durova mentioning this project.

Who can join here?

Can anybody join? Is there a criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupid2 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 10 August 2007 BST

Anyone can join - there are no special criteria for joining this project, provided of course they abide by Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If you're new to counter-vandalism, I suggest you read up on it a fair bit first. It's especially important to remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground and Don't bite the newcomers. In other words, take things easy to begin with and ask for advice if you need it. Hope this helps, and welcome to the CVU! Waggers 09:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Up for MFD Again

Note, this project has been listed on MFD Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (2nd nomination). (Actually 4'th nomination). — xaosflux Talk 14:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? Seems it's been speedy kept in the past. Don't really understand the point of the nom. Leuko 15:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The nom is just abusing the process that's all. He already took unilateral action against the project and then claimed consensus (WP:AN). Hopefully it will all be cleared up in about 5 more minutes after the flood of keep votes.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I will never understand what compels these people to nominate for deletion again and again. Dfrg.msc 23:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it seems to be mostly cases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
...and they never seem to read this first. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 11:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh come off it. Nobody's disrupting Wikipedia. It's a nomination made in good faith, with no disruption. It's not a POINT violation. --Deskana (banana) 11:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Nominating an active and notable WikiProject for, after three previous discussions, a fourth deletion without discussing and considering other users' opinions is not disruptive? I mean, its not vandalism nor was it made in bad-faith, but using deletion procedures without consulting the community does disrupt the spirit of consensus in Wikipedia, IMO. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 03:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

For those who did not follow the debate, the result was No Consensus. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Cull spicyness

This is inherently a good project for coordinating countervandalism activities, however it has an action-adventure theme it really shouldn't have. What if we were to cull the spicyness and make this into a "WikiProject Vandalism management". MessedRocker (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it has an 'action-adventure' theme. Except for the name -- which is succinct and accurate -- the entire page for the project describes the principles and guidelines for fighting vandals. This is summarized in the second paragraph of the page. --Ratiocinate (t • c) 00:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Coming to theaters next June: Recent-change-patrol Hard 2: Patrol Harder! Starring Bruce Willis as Jimbo Wales! J-stan TalkContribs 01:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I do agree that the name of the project should be changed. The current name gives the impression that it is a vigilante organisation and that it has authority over others. It may also lead to people biting newcomers and easily marking edits as blatant vandalism. However the project itself is active and should definitely be kept as it encourages and aids in vandal fighting which is essential for maintaining wikipedia. The project could also include spelling or grammar fixing in articles, although this may already exist as a separate wikiproject.Tbo 157talk 01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Everyone should spellcheck, regardless of they are fighting vandalism or not. Anyways, if yall still think the project name is that bad, put a vote here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The project has very clear statements for assuming good faith and not biting the newcomers. The name "Counter-Vandalism Unit" is an excellent description of what it does: it counters vandalism. I don't see how it can be interpreted as a vigilante organization, since vandalism is not tolerated on Wikipedia and everyone can (and should!) fight it. --Ratiocinate (t • c) 01:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
They are more worried about "Unit" than the other two words (if I am reading the discussions right). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
So the word 'unit' implies a "paramilitary" or "vigilante" organization? I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. --Ratiocinate (t • c) 01:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps "WikiProject:Anti-Vandalism". It conveys exactly what we're doing: we're a bunch of wikipedians who care about the well-being of the encyclopedia enough to organise a resource to help others to take action against pests. J-stan TalkContribs 01:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The word 'unit' is closely associated with military and authority. It does not really seem like the name for a group of volunteers reverting vandaism.Tbo 157talk 01:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Wikiproject Anti-vandalism or something along those lines is more suitable.Tbo 157talk 01:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but, everyone seems to forget that there are blatant vandalism acts on a daily basis at WP. As far as I am concerned, there can never be too many "Counter-Vandalism Unit" members doing the rounds. Jrod2 01:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Jrod2. Also, I'm the last person to argue about nomenclature and semantics. If others think that CVU should be renamed -- well, I can't stop consensus.  :) Cheers! --Ratiocinate (t • c) 01:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Should someone request a move? J-stan TalkContribs 01:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Anyone can do that. Even you. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we wait a little bit for more input. Just in case. ;-) --Ratiocinate (t • c) 01:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requested moves. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, we can wait. I just thought we had enough people backing it to generate acceptable results. J-stan TalkContribs 01:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, the name "Counter-Vandalism Unit" was chosen because it was snappier than "Wikiproject:Anti-vandalism". If we choose a new name, I think it should be similarly snappy.Iain marcuson 02:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(Formatting) We should wait a bit to see what other people think regarding a proposal and what name should be proposed.Tbo 157talk 01:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing just seems a bit inane to me. Who on Earth is going to think that the Counter Vandalism Unit is some kind of paramilitary organization? Or for that matter some kind of authority or overseer? Does anyone think that the League of Copyeditors is filled with superheros? I doubt it. This just seems like a complete waste of time and energy, who cares if vandals think CVU is going to come to their house via an air assault mission. IvoShandor 04:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't get any of the claims of militarism either, think we could align with the Article Rescue Squadron? — xaosflux Talk 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no beef with the name at all. I know where yall got it from. I do remember it was a bit militaristic when it got started, but most of those folks are "gone." Though I would like to see some merging of both this and the RC Patrol, mainly of activities, programs, IRC channels and things like that. I know yall focus on vandalism more than anything else, but it could give some of the RC Patrol people some new tasks, like new image patrol, new article patrol, etc. Look, I even starting to doubt my restore of the page; I have been kicking myself all afternoon. I have no beef with anyone here, and despite the exchanges I have with Duvora on the AN, yall do a great job. But I personally feel that it would be best to combine some (not all) of the CVU resources so we can lighten the load on the RC Patrol and perhaps expand on new areas (as some eluded to at the top). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I feel we forget that there are daily vandal assaults to WP and that we are discussing something that it boils down to branding. If the name CVU is too intimidating and could potentially drive away new comers then why not just call it the "Anti-Vandalism Volunteers".or if the Counter still OK then CVV. This way, it would state your intentions even if you made an edit revert without leaving any comments or an explanation to vandals or misguided users. Jrod2 16:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not against the CVU, I am a member of it and it is needed to maintain Wikipedia. I dont really mind if the project is expanded into new areas which would probably be better. My main concern is the name of the project. In reply to what was said above, both the League of Copyeditors and the Article Rescue Squadron dont perform activities such as warning vandals and so there is no way they can be associated with authority. However in the case of vandal fighting, the name can change the image significantly. I can understand that "The Counter Vandalism Unit" is a good reflection of what the project does but so is "Wikiproject Counter Vandalism" which sounds less authoritarian. Why is the word "Unit" so important?Tbo 157talk 16:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have very strong feelings about it, but I did feel some concern over the name. That's why I went with the CUV box instead of the CVU. Again, not very strong feelings, but I feel more comfortable with the label that identifies what I'm doing rather than identifying specifically as CVU. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The "Unit" makes no sense. Wikiproject Anti vandalism or Vandalism Control seems better. Calling it a unit is kind of dorky. J-stan TalkContribs 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The name hasn't caused any documented problems, has it? --- RockMFR 16:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah. It's really like a pitbull with no teeth but the yuppies next door want it put down because their baby which has 7 months until it is born could try to stick its head in its mouth. We're trying to reach a compromise by renaming the pitbull. J-stan TalkContribs 16:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment What's in a name? Well, in this case, I think it's a bit of humor and whimsy. To the extent that humorous things are accepted both in real life and on Wikipedia, that's a good thing. Absent any showing of pratices that would cause me concern, I don't care. Besides would anybody prefer the name "Society for the Rehabilitation of Spammers, Vandals and COI" with a group that considered rehab to involve the water drop torture??? I've never been involved in this group, but through all of this, I've yet to see a demonstrated problem. FrozenPurpleCube 17:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

A number of people have suggested merging the CVU with WP:RCP as if they're the same thing. There are some important differences. CVU is a wikiproject - in other words, a group of people - while RCP is a process. CVU members carry out RCP, but there's no such thing as a membership of RCP. The proposal to merge the two is akin to merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Music with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pieces of music) and Wikipedia:Notability (music). There's a big difference between a Wikiproject and a description of a process or convention. Waggers 07:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And we don't just do recent changes. There's way more ways to fight vandalism than just doing the recent changes. The other ways are more affective in my opinion.Silver seren 14:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Honestly regarding the name change discussion, I don't feel there is any real problem with then name. The points that have been raised are certainly valid, but remember a newbie is probably not going to come in contact with the CVU unless they are vandalising or planning on joining it. In a sense the seriousness of the does somewhat help to discourage vandalism, at least in my opinion. Also remember the main page of WP:CVU does explain why the name is used. No real problems here. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal Fighter 3.3 Preconfigured

I have uploaded pre-configured Vandal Fighter here. Admin list loaded, important columns and options set; great for new and veteran vandal fighters alike. You can let it run in the background while you do something else and then scroll quickly through the backlog to spot the blatant vandalism missed by our first line defenders. - RoyBoy 800 23:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That is really great! I use a proxy and was never able to get those lists before. Thanks a lot! --Mschel 20:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)