Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
BazookaJoe (talk | contribs) →Virtually unmonitored vandalism: clarification that I'm not stupid, just tired. |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Image:Devil's marble.jpg|thumb]] |
|||
{| class="messagebox standard-talk" |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[Image:CVU2.PNG|none|50px| ]] |
|||
| This page is closely monitored by the [[Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit|Counter-Vandalism Unit]] for [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]. Please use [[Wikipedia:Edit summary|edit summaries]] to avoid your edits being mistaken as such. |
|||
| [[Image:CVU2.5.PNG|none|50px| ]] |
|||
|} |
|||
'''THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LIBERATED BY BOBBY BOULDERS''' |
|||
<!--Template:Archivebox begins--> |
|||
{| class="infobox" width="315px" |
|||
|- |
|||
! align="center" | [[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br />[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]] |
|||
---- |
|||
|- |
|||
| |
|||
# [[Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Archive 1|October 2005 – November 2005]] |
|||
# [[Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Archive 2|November 2005 – December 2005]] |
|||
# [[Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Archive 3|December 2005 – January 2006]] |
|||
# [[Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Archive 4|January 2006 – February 2006]] |
|||
# |
|||
|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends--> |
|||
'''Long live the International Society of Vandals (ISV)!''' |
|||
== Stupid Vandal == |
|||
User FireHoney has repeatedly vandalized Wikipedia, and must be stopped! |
|||
See here for more details. [[User_talk:FireHoney]] |
|||
--[[User:Steve Latinner|Steve Latinner]] 17:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Repartee == |
|||
To join the ISV, please e-mail Bobby Boulders at: imwithbobby @ yahoo.com |
|||
This particular vandal must be stopped as soon as possible. User:repartee has given birth to a new form of Wikipedia vandalism. This user edits articles so eloquently it does not appear to be vandalism at all. Add comments for suggestions on how to aprehend this user. |
|||
::If it doesn't appear to be vandalism then maybe it isn't? [[User:84.160.247.104|84.160.247.104]] 03:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Declaration of Ongoing War Against Wikipedia: 8/8/06== |
|||
Hasn't edited in over a month...what more do you want? --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 19:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
On this great day of August 8, in the Year of Our Lord 2006, the Good and Righteous leader Bobby Boulders has issued a continued Holy War against Wikipedia, as punishment for its members' insubordination and resistence to our valliant vandalism efforts. We will NOT rest until their entire Wiki is destroyed. Heaven be praised! |
|||
Anon, I've taken care of [[{{vandal|Repartee}} and his sockpuppets. Consider this a non-issue for now. [[User:Yankees76|Yankees76]] 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Our legions are vast, our numbers in the hundreds, and your Wiki will crumble before our might! |
|||
==Asking for Charity== |
|||
I apologize for having to resort to this, I tried looking for Wiki help forums at Wikimedia... I run a small wiki for an MMO and I think I'm being vandalized by some sort of bot. I don't know how to find the attackers IP and block off the addies. I'd be very appreciative of any offer of help from someone "in the know." Here's my place: http://www.coffeespy.com/wiki Just hit recent changes and everything changed today is a wierd code add to the end of the page. Not sure what it's supposed to do. [[User:Neospooky|Neospooky]] 16:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Something? Anything? Please? Even if it's to tell me I'm in the wrong place and should be asking this question somewhere else, please. [[User:Neospooky|Neospooky]] 11:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
God is Great! |
|||
::I don't see anything wrong. [[User:Epl18|Epl18]] 16:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Vandalism Stats== |
|||
Signed, |
|||
J. Robert Boulders, |
|||
Just curious.. has anyone ever tried to compile statistics related to vandalism on Wp? (like number of reverts per hour, or number of incidents of vandalism per hour.. if such things can be measured) [[User:Ikh|ikh]] ([[User talk:Ikh|talk]]) 18:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Acting President and Spiritual Leader, |
|||
:[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]] has; see http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tony_sidaway for his pages on the toolserver, which include statistical tools such as this. [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] ([[User_talk:Robchurch|talk]]) 21:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF VANDALS |
|||
::Thank you for that :) an interesting one: [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tony_sidaway/cgi-bin/vandalism?period=week&period1=200101&period2=200652&article=George+W.+Bush&lang=en&Go=Go] semi protection rocks. See sharp drop in vandalism and continuing unreverted edits (aka non vandalism) --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 00:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Mission Statement== |
|||
I also have some stats located in the following two locations: [[User:Lightdarkness/Vandalism]] & [[User:Lightdarkness/Vandalism/Sandbox]] --<b><font color="666666">[[User:Lightdarkness|light]]</font><font color="#000000">[[User:Lightdarkness|darkness]]</font></b> 04:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: Looks pretty cool.. esp. how there's an obvious cyclical pattern to when most vandalism occurs. How do you actually count the number of vandalisms? by the number of reverts or actually count the vandalisms? [[User:Ikh|ikh]] ([[User talk:Ikh|talk]]) 18:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Rollback is to be used strictly to revert vandalism and spam etc (not every admin honors this (not that I am criticising or care) but vast majority does). I believe the script counts those. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 17:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
'''ON VANDALISM''' |
|||
:::IIRC, it looks for rollbackesque summaries, "rvv" and "rv vandalism" and similar edit summaries and assumes that for each revert, there's at least one bit of vandalism. [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] ([[User_talk:Robchurch|talk]]) 21:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
'''An Essay by Bobby Boulders''' |
|||
==[[Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism]]== |
|||
I like that ;) --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
'''President, International Society of Vandals''' |
|||
=="ON JUNE 6 2006 WIKIPEDIA WILL MEET ITS MAKER" vandal== |
|||
Who the heck is he? Is he using the same IP range? Can someone find a checkuser? --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:According to IRC convo he appears to be from AOL ips. [[User:Alkivar|<font color="#FA8605">'''ALKIVAR'''</font>]][[User_talk:Alkivar|™]][[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 23:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I rangeblocked earlier, but the block caused too much collateral damage. For now, we just need to keep reverting and blocking as we see it. <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] <sup>[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|''Contact'']]</sup></font> 02:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
What drives the Wikimedia vandal to action? What makes him or her tick? The current Administration of the various Wikimedia portals would have you believe that vandals act simply out of a need for attention. They seek to disrupt the ease and functionality of information exchange via the Wikimedia. And they seek to do this only “because they can.” |
|||
:Although it may be obvious, for those who are missing it: the date above is 6 6 2006. :) --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 17:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Who knows? It might be like an "end of Wikipedia" scenario. We might want to raise the WikiDefcon level to one on that day. [[User:Funnybunny|Funnybunny]] 21:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
On a basic level, this concept is true. The majority of so-called “vandals” on the Wikimedia sites vandalize to get a rise out of their peers, or to be clever, cute, funny, or ridiculous. They seek little more than the fleeting attention their handiwork will generate before its inevitable reversion or removal. It is plainly obvious that such vandals are endemic to the Wikimedia, and will remain so, as long as the Wikimedia remain open-source sites, freely capable of being edited by any and all passing users. Primal, unconstructive vandalism is quick, easy, and will always be so. |
|||
:Or maybe Jimbo is going to make an announcement. --<font color="orange"><strike>''[[User:Rory096|Rory]]''<font color="green">[[WP:EA|0]]</font>'''[[User talk:Rory096|96]]'''</strike></font> 21:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I'll bet mr treason is going to do something crazy.[[User:El benderson|El benderson]] 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Vandalism will always remain “easy,” but it needn’t always be unconstructive. Indeed, if bent to just purposes, vandalism of the Wikimedia can be a powerful political tool. We at the International Society of Vandals believe, quite firmly, that vandalism should be constructive in nature. It should serve a greater purpose. It should be done not in bad faith, but with positive, rehabilitative intent. We vandalize to bring about positive and pure change to the Wikimedia system. |
|||
::He wouldn't dare betray us like that! --[[User:Marudubshinki |maru]] [[User talk:Marudubshinki| (talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Marudubshinki | contribs]] 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
What change do we seek? To be blunt, we strive for nothing less than the overthrow of the current Administration of the Wikimedia, and their replacement by more fair, balanced, and philanthropic Administrators. Like the common Frenchmen rebelling against their tyrannical government in the French Revolution, we believe quite strongly in the essence, spirit, and future of our “nation.” Indeed, we value the free exchange of information on the Wikimedia more highly than any of the Administrators do. And we believe that, only by removing or forcing the ouster of these fascist and tyrannical Administrators, can information once again flow freely. |
|||
The worse I can immagine is a vandal bot with a bot flag, or dozens of vandal bots at the same time, none of wich is too much for us. —[[User:Argentino|Argentino]] <small>([[User talk:Argentino|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Argentino|cont.]])</small> 14:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Help please, i would like to be in the Counter Vandalism Unit == |
|||
The Administrators have gone too far. They have become cliquish, catty, fascist, and above all, self-interested. They have demonstrated, time and again, that they are not motivated by Good and Righteous desires to aid and continue the freedom of information and aggregation on the Wikimedia. Rather, they are interested only in reverting people’s edits, restricting the flow of new information, and resisting any and all change to the status quo of articles as they currently exist. |
|||
How do i get in? Please contact me on my user page. Auburnfan4--[[User:Auburnfan4|Auburnfan4]] 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:You can associate with CVU by adding userbox <nowiki>{{user CVU1-en}} or userbox {{user CVU2-en}}</nowiki> to your user page. If you prefer not to use userboxes, you can add yourself to the Category Counter Vandalism Unit Member/wikipedia/en. [[User:Hbackman|Hbackman]] 04:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Science has taught us that information is not static. One can never know the sum total of all there is to know about any given subject. Likewise, to think that any given Wikimedia article needs no further revision – as seems to be the belief and practice of Administrators – is to spit in the face of Progress and Education. |
|||
== I object to this organisation! == |
|||
I have been unduly accosted by a few members herein. You lack the professional approach of [[User:Mintguy]], [[User:RickK]] and [[User:Hephaestos]]. Do not bother me again! [[User:68.110.9.62|68.110.9.62]] 23:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:If you vandalize, we'll revert it. Period. --<font color="orange"><strike>''[[User:Rory096|Rory]]''<font color="green">[[WP:EA|0]]</font>'''[[User talk:Rory096|96]]'''</strike></font> 00:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
You are not exercising your ''position'' appropriately. I have not vandalised. Prove that I did. [[User:68.110.9.62|68.110.9.62]] 00:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Per [[WP:VAND]], the removal of warnings from your user talk page is considered vandalism. I discussed this on your talk page but you removed it. ([[User:ESkog|ESkog]])<sup>([[User talk:ESkog|Talk]])</sup> 00:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
And thus, our mission is made clear. We will continue to vandalize. We will continue to rebel against tyranny. We will continue, and we will NOT stop, until our goals have been achieved, and the current Administrators of Wikipedia are dethroned. We will disrupt and destroy all Wikimedia sites, piece by piece, until the owners of the Wikimedia sites have lost all faith in the Administrators to execute their jobs effectively. And once those Administrators are terminated from their duties, we will rest. And we will know peace, freedom, liberty, equality, and Progress. |
|||
This is not the place to discuss this; we are not an organization that acts as a whole, we are a group of people with similar interests. Please take issues with particular individuals to the talk pages associated with those individuals. <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] <sup>[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|''Contact'']]</sup></font> 00:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I love it when vandals object to our existance... :P --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 00:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Has anyone noticed this guys ([[User:68.110.9.62|68.110.9.62]]) user page? I think he probably offended every possible religion, race or culture with it. What's the policy on removing this? Last I checked Wikipedia wasn't a soapbox for extremists. [[User:Yankees76|Yankees76]] 01:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
You hate me, so why not hate you in return? You call anybody "vandal" as any excuse to masturbate your "powers" over those with an IP addy. [[User:68.110.9.62|68.110.9.62]] 10:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: You can create an account and log in, just the same as the rest of us. Nothing's stopping you. [[User:Waggers|Waggers]] 10:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Anons are fine, unless they start vandalising, then they are dealt with little sympathy. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 12:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Agreed. How hard is it to create a real profile? If you're a legitimate editor, you should have no problem creating a legit profile/username. Hiding behind an IP address while vandalizing is just weak. [[User:Yankees76|Yankees76]] 22:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Keep denying and casting aside random people who won't get with your program. That's trolling. [[User:68.110.9.62|68.110.9.62]] 18:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Spotted a vandal == |
|||
Guys watch out for [[User:24.62.120.208|24.62.120.208]] he's been messing around with articles like [[Podcasting.]] [[User:Zhanster|Zhanster]] 03:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==NPOV example?== |
|||
Surely there is a better example of an NPOV addition than the one listed ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&diff=26333782&oldid=26321818]), which seems to be a lot closer to plain vandalism (plus original research), with its obscene phrasing and off-kilter theories about the Nazis. Would anyone like to suggest one? [[User:ProhibitOnions|ProhibitOnions]] 22:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm sure there are better examples, but I decided to search through some of the non-NPOV edits I've had to revert. Here are a few: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philadelphia_Eagles&diff=prev&oldid=38249796], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keep_Austin_Weird&diff=prev&oldid=27774204], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seattle%2C_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=22652051]. [[User:EWS23|EWS23]] | [[User talk:EWS23|(Leave me a message!)]] 22:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==defcon?== |
|||
Where did the defcon go? |
|||
--[[User:Activision45|Activision45]] 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: The [[Wikipedia:WikiDefcon]] page was deleted, due to a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiDefcon]]. However, {{tl|Wdefcon}} still exists. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 23:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:As the template survived the deletion debate, I jsut retranscluded it on the Project page. [[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype"><big>xaosflux</big></font></b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<font color="#00FF00">Talk</font>]]</sup><font color="#888888">/</font><sub>[[Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit|<font color="#666666">CVU</font>]]</sub> 02:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges]] == |
|||
For those of us who enjoy fighting vandalism, but are not admins, this proposed policy could make life easier. Let's go over and try to make it into something the community can accept. --[[User:Measure|Measure]] 00:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== This isn't good... == |
|||
There's a group called the "[http://groups.myspace.com/WikiVandals Wikipedia Vandalism Unit]" on [[MySpace]]. It only has three members right now, but I don't like the sound of it. Anyone got any extra [[bunker buster]]s? --[[User:Ixfd64|Ixfd64]] 09:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm going to drop a note to the foundation mailing list; the use of the copyrighted foundation logo without permission should prompt a nice firm notice to myspace. <font color=#696969>[[User:Essjay|Essjay]] <sup>[[User talk:Essjay|''Talk'']] • [[User:Essjay/Contact|''Contact'']]</sup></font> 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:: Bunker buster? Why can't we just use a [[MOAB]]? [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 01:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
It's a parody. [[User:BlueGoose|BlueGoose]] 00:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
If it's on MySpace, why should anyone care? [[User:JarlaxleArtemis|<font color="black">⇒</font> <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> <font color="darkgreen">Jarlaxle</font><font color="goldenrod">Artemis</font></font>]] 03:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== I would like to join. == |
|||
I would like to join the Counter Vandalism Unit here at Wikipedia. I would like to help track down vandals and put them out of business. I come on to Wikipedia every weekday and a thrilled to be a member of it now. Please let me join your group and tell me what to do. I aslo need to know how to revert an article to correct vandelism ([[User:Christian Historybuff|Steve]] 16:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)) |
|||
:Please see the above discussion [[Wikipedia talk:Counter Vandalism Unit#Help please, i would like to be in the Counter Vandalism Unit]]. —[[User:WAvegetarian|WAvegetarian]]•<small><sub><sub>[[Special:Contributions/WAvegetarian|CONTRIBUTIONS]]</sub></sub><sup><sup><span style="position: relative; left:-64px; margin-right:-64px;">[[User talk:WAvegetarian|TALK]]</span></sup></sup><big>• </big><sup><sup>[[Special:Emailuser/WAvegetarian|EMAIL]]</sup></sup></small><span style="position: relative; left:+6px; margin-right:+6px;">•</span> 16:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Finding vandal edits== |
|||
Is there some way to find all recent edits by a range of IPs? [[User:Gazpacho|Gazpacho]] 19:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I know this comment is old, but I'll add something here just to make sure everyone knows this. [[User:Henna/VF|Vandal Fighter]] and [[User:AmiDaniel/VandalProof|Vandal Proof]] both are programs that can be used to search recent changes, and both can be switched so that they only look for anonymous ips if needed. Vandal Proof you have to register for, but Vandal Fighter you can use right of the bat. You don't even really have to download or install anything, as it runs in Java (or Javascript, I forget). Hope that helps. [[User:Galactor213|Galactor213]] 19:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Request for a User Block == |
|||
How do you recommned that a user IP be blocked? [[166.109.0.45]] has repeatedly vandalized pages including [[American Revolution]], [[French Revolution]], and [[Tapir]]. If you review the contrubtions made my this person you will notice a hold string of others. He has been warned, but has disregard the warnings. ([[User:Christian Historybuff|Steve]] 19:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)) |
|||
:[[WP:AIV]] --[[User:Measure|Measure]] 19:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Monsters of Rock]] and [[Chris Cornell]] == |
|||
[[Monsters of Rock]] and [[Chris Cornell]] were vandalized. i fixed cornell, but not yet the other page. i'd like to see those guys banned! --[[User:Fireblues|Fireblues]] 13:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Types of RC patrolers == |
|||
*Active: Via RC feed |
|||
*Pasive: Via "watched" pages |
|||
*Both: Both via RC feed and watched pages. |
|||
I think this should be stated in the article although I am not sure what the best way is. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 00:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==My bot== |
|||
I am almost done with version 2.0 (complete rewrite of basiacly everything), while I am at it what new functions would you guys want. Bot can only read the rc feed :) --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 22:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I guess no one cares... damn you pgk, I wont admit defeat! :) --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 01:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:: Perhaps add a variable to express links in expanded (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php links) or [[Wikilink]] format? That would be useful. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 01:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::You mean diff links? |
|||
:::Ex Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wexford_GAA&diff=next&oldid=39353234 |
|||
:::--<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 04:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::: A switch between diff links and wiki links, I mean. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 03:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Thats easy to code but wikipedia does not have a way to make <nowiki>[[ ]]</nowiki> links link to diffs. --<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cool Cat]]<sup>[[User talk:Cool Cat|Talk]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Cool Cat|@]]</sup></small> 17:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==IHEU long-term and complex vandalism== |
|||
Hi, |
|||
Please read the [[IHEU]] talk page, in particular [[Talk:International Humanist and Ethical Union#Verifiability]]. |
|||
Though I have struggled to maintain a friendly tone with him, I have acted in [[good faith]], and done my best to accomodate Rohirok's preferences, but he continuously attacks my credibility and honesty, and repeatedly vandalises pages relating: |
|||
*[[IHEU]] |
|||
*[[Happy Human]] |
|||
*[[Amsterdam Declaration]] |
|||
*[[humanism]] |
|||
*[[Humanism (belief system)]] |
|||
*[[secular humanism]] |
|||
*[[American Humanist Association]] |
|||
*[[Council for Secular Humanism]] |
|||
and more. |
|||
I can forward a copy of the email response to any email address that you ask. You can also verify its authenticity with the website administrator at the IHEU. I feel that Rohirok should be warned off, or blocked, from further editing of these articles. --[[User:Dacoutts|Couttsie]] 04:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Can somebody please help me? Rohirok is continuing to vandalise these pages. He also seems very confused by the fact that the [[American Humanist Association]] (which claims religious status) is both secular [http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.php] and Humanist. --[[User:Dacoutts|Couttsie]] 21:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I don't know if anyone did something, but the situation has improved considerably. --[[User:Dacoutts|Couttsie]] 03:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Anyone see this user page? == |
|||
{{user|Roxanne Harman}} claims that she is Willy on Wheels. Anyone want to check out her user page? |
|||
*She was blocked several weeks ago as a sockpuppet. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 05:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Intro and Suggestion == |
|||
I've been reverting spam and vandalism since I became a Wikipedian (I also like to fix redirect links...and occasionally add content!) Today I noticed something interesting. (I'm not sure the best way to link in article history, so I'll fake it). A couple days ago the page [[Canopic jar]] was vandalized [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canopic_jar&diff=42543830&oldid=41370226 diff]]. Earlier today some of the changes were fixed [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canopic_jar&diff=42781977&oldid=42543830 diff]]. However, many were missed. I fixed it (but it took me a couple tries) [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canopic_jar&diff=42809274&oldid=42543830 my restoration]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canopic_jar&diff=42809274&oldid=41370226 compared with pre-vandalism]]. Had I not looked closer--I like to see if there were other "contributions" that haven't yet been fixed--I wouldn't have noticed this. At first glance I saw that vandalism had been fixed. A sophisticated vandal using two identities (different IP addresses, or one or two accounts) could easily mask their changes. So I think that besides looking for other changes made by a vandal (or spammer), checking to see that all the damage has been corrected would be a good idea. I'm a good guy, but very human, so while my fixes are in good faith, I'd always feel better if I knew other people are double-checking me. --[[User:Straif|Straif]] 17:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Cam]]== |
|||
This page has been vandalized, and is proving strangely resistant to further editing (at least by me.) Should probably be watched.[[User:Bjones|Bjones]] 14:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== How about a wdefcon userbox? == |
|||
Would it be possible to make a userbox that shows the current wdefcon level for interested Wikipedians? I obviously don't know how to do this. I like the idea of the present wdefcon box, but it does take up a lot of space. -- [[User:Tachikoma|Tachikoma]] 15:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't know if it is possible, but I see two potential issues. Wikidefcon itself is controversial, and the climate concerning user boxes is volatile at the moment. In other words, I wouldn't want to be the one to create it. —[[User:Wayward|Wayward]] <small><sup><font color="#6BA800">[[User talk:Wayward|Talk]]</font></sup></small> 16:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Ah. I knew about the userbox controversy (if you see my userpage, I obviously don't mind non-inflammatory userboxes), but I didn't know that Wikidefcon itself was controversial. --[[User:Tachikoma|Tachikoma]] 16:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::: It already has been done... just look at my user page for the code. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 06:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks for the userbox code! --[[User:Tachikoma|Tachikoma]] 15:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Vandalism on the rise on March 14th == |
|||
There has been a storm of vandalism on a few user pages. Something needs to be done about it. Every time a page is reverted, it is vandalized again. |
|||
Thanks, [[User:CharlesM|CharlesM]] 01:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:From a very brief perusal, the vandalism looks like it's pretty much the same thing from different IPs. I suspect a single anon using a dynamic IP. Any chance we could prevail on an admin to block similar vandalism to the same page from a new IP on sight until this settles down? [[User:Hbackman|Hbackman]] 01:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, so far every IP he uses has been blocked. But he keeps coming back with more. If they block a range of ip addresses, it could cause chaos. [[User:CharlesM|CharlesM]] 01:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Maybe we just have to keep watching and reverting, then. [[User:Hbackman|Hbackman]] 01:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::I think that the wave of vandalism is over for now. [[User:CharlesM|CharlesM]] 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:In my opinion, it's always better when a vandal is busy vandalising userpages instead of articles. - [[User:Akamad|Akamad]] 06:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::How about when someone changes your watchlist? I don't even know how that was done. All I know is that someone else had added a non-existent article to my watchlist.--[[User:Tachikoma|Tachikoma]] 01:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::You probably added it to your watchlist while it existed, and then it was later deleted. [[User:JarlaxleArtemis|<font color="black">⇒</font> <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> <font color="darkgreen">Jarlaxle</font><font color="goldenrod">Artemis</font></font>]] 03:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Terminatorius bot blanks warnings== |
|||
On March 15, 2006, the [[User:Terminatorius]] bot created by [[User:Audriusa]] began blanking warnings from hundreds of user talk pages, specifically IP talk pages with a vandal warning where no edit had been made within the last 48 hours. [[User:Audriusa]]'s explanation of why he created the bot can be found here: [[User:Terminatorius]]. Is this type of bot action allowed? Has this been discussed anywhere? As of 22:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC), the bot had been stopped.[[User:Wuzzy|Wuzzy]] 22:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm going to repost here what I wrote on Andriusa's talk page: |
|||
:I really don't think that this bot is a good idea. Some IPs are chronic vandals, and when I'm dealing with them it's very useful for me to be able to see that. When I'm going to an IP talk page to add a vandalism warning and I see that that IP has 20 previous warnings stretching back over six months, I handle it differently than if the IP has received one or no warnings. |
|||
:Anyone else feel the same way? Anyone else feel differently? :[[User:Hbackman|Hbackman]] 23:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*Please see discussion at [[WP:BRFA#User:Terminatorius - automated blanking of the vandal anonymous IP talk pages]] [[User:Wuzzy|Wuzzy]] 00:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
=== Stopped, the activity fully reverted === |
|||
The bot is stopped, and I have already manually reverted all changes it made, returning to the previous versions (you can check mine history). The bot was not running at 22:54, I have stopped it immediately after I received the first message from Wuzzy. Sorry. [[User:Audriusa|Audriusa]] 08:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Name of this page== |
|||
Isn't "counter" one of those adjectives usually hyphenated to the noun it modifies, as "anti-" and "semi-" are, and counter-productive and the like? And when they aren't hyphenated, they are usually one word. (countercyclical is sometimes that way, sometimes with a hyphen, etc.[http://www.google.com/search?as_q=counter-cyclical&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=off]). It is almost never used with a space between it and the noun it modifies, is it? |
|||
Shouldn't this be "Counter-vandalism Unit". Or maybe "Countervandalism unit"? [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 13:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== grammar == |
|||
sorry to seem like a grammar stickler, but |
|||
it should be Counter-Vandalism Unit, with a hyphen |
|||
Counter-Vandalism is a compound adjective describing unit. |
|||
just a suggestion. <small>—This [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:FTIII|FTIII]] ([[User talk:FTIII|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/FTIII|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- [Template:Unsigned] --> |
|||
:Thank you for pointing that out. I will correct this. - [[User:Conrad Devonshire|Conrad Devonshire]] 03:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Moderator of this Unit == |
|||
Isnt there some moderator for this Unit who can guide other members and make groups which can counter vandalism in different sections. {{unsigned|Suyash}} |
|||
Why? if you've got a specific area of interest, monitor it on your own. If not, use CDVF and IRC to counter it across the board. [[User:Swatjester|<font color="red">⇒</font>]] [[User_talk:Swatjester|<font face="Euclid Fraktur"><font color="black">SWAT</font><font color="goldenrod">Jester</font></font>]] [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]] [[Special:Contributions/Swatjester|<small><sup>Ready</sup></small>]] [[RSTA|<small>Aim</small>]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Armed_Forces|<small><sub>Fire!</sub></small>]] 07:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Looking for a Veteran Opinion == |
|||
I apologize if this isn't perhaps the most appropriate place to post this, but I'm currently having a dispute with a user over an edit I reverted as vandalism and was wondering if someone might be willing to offer an opinion as to whether or not the edit is indeed vandalism. {{user2|Jlhc}} made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enterobacteria_phage_T4&diff=next&oldid=42569533 this edit] on 18 March which I immediately reverted as vandalism, assuming that his reference to "Strongbadiophage" was meant as a joke. As the user had already received one warning (test1), I tagged his talk page with the test2 warning and went about my business. |
|||
A week later, he posted the following remark on my talk page: "Yeah hi, this is Jlhc, you said I vandalized an article. Well, according to hrwiki.org this is completly true, but I do have ADD so I did go a little off topic while trying to explain." My first impulse was to think that his remark was also meant as a joke, but I instead responded that if he could supply his source or better explain what he was trying to say, I would reconsider my decision. Today he responded with the following source: [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php/highschool#Explanations link]. Apparently the "Strongbadiophage" is some miscellaneous joke by the character [[Strong Bad]], which was more or less my reason for reverting the edit in the first place. |
|||
The only question that still remains is whether [[User talk:Jlhc|Jlhc]] posted the joke on the page in good faith or bad faith, as that clearly is the definition of vandalism. Typically, the second a user claims I wrongfully reverted one of his/her edits, I give him/her the benefit of the doubt, immediately remove my warning, and restore the page to his/her version; however, in this case, I have a very hard time believing that this edit was made with the intent of improving the article. I by no means wish to insult Jlhc if his/her edit was indeed made in good faith, but at the same time, I don't want to encourage any user to continue posting jokes and other random nonsense on serious articles. As such I was wondering if someone might give me some insight into whether or not they believe the edit was vandalism or an honest attempt to improve the article (or give me some advice in how to best handle the dispute). You can either answer here or on my talk page, or you can direct to me to some better place to ask this question. Thanks. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|Talk]]) 05:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Looks like a joke/nonsense to me. I would've warned the user with {{tl|test2}} or with {{tl|behave}}. I think you're in the right here. The information that the user added is irrelevant to the topic of the article. I wouldn't call it bad faith editing per se, but I would definitely say that it's worth a warning, just so the user is aware that it's not appropriate to make joke edits. [[User:Hbackman|Hbackman]] 21:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with Hbackman. We shouldn't be overly concerned about labels here, whether or not it was vandalism. The bottom line is it was a nonsense edit and had no business at all being in the article. Anyone with a lick of sense should know that, so a test2 was entirely appropriate. –[[User:Adashiel|Abe Dashiell]] <sup>'''([[User_talk:Adashiel|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Adashiel|c]])'''</sup> 22:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for your support. I've responded to the user by, more or less, restating my orignial opinion on the edit--it just made me a little uncertain to have a user so adamently defend his vandalism (to the point of citing sources nonetheless), but your replies have reassured me that I haven't ''completely'' lost mind. Once again, thanks. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|Talk]]) 01:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== how to deal with anon IP vandal? == |
|||
Hello, I've spent part of the day reverting vandalism by [[User:63.238.185.98]], who has messing around with [[InuYasha]], [[Street Sharks]], [[South Park]], and [[Xbox]]. Sometime after I left the test 4 warning on the anon's talk page (and after I logged out), the person subsequently vandalised [[Bob Dole]]. |
|||
My question is, how long of a time period do you allow to pass before you start anew with test 1 for a given IP address? I would have reported the anon to an admin if the vandalism had been more recent, but now, I don't know. |
|||
Thanks. --[[User:Tachikoma|Tachikoma]] 01:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:The IP is registered to a branch of the Qwest ISP in Newark, DE. Since Qwest doesn't (typically) used shared IPs, the IP is most likely only being used by one computer or one very small LAN. Therefore, I wouldn't think there should be any problem blocking the IP for at least 48 hours because the intended user will be on the receiving end of that block (if anything, it will let him/her know that we're serious about blocking, and he/she might stop vandalizing). I'd say in this case you could treat the anon. just like a regular user, but that's just one non-admin's opinion. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|Talk]]) 01:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Oops, should have actually '''read''' the question first--never mind what I said about blocking. I certainly don't think you have to start over at test1 the next day, but instead start with 3 or whatever you feel most comfortable with. There's really no policy that I'm aware of for these situations. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|Talk]]) 01:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:When talking about this kind of case in general, I think it really depends on the situation and preferences of the user. If you get all the way up to {{tl|test4}} and the user stops, but then starts up again in the next day or two, I don't think anyone would have a problem with you giving only 1 or 2 warnings out, with one of them being a {{tl|bv}}. Same goes for users with a long period of vandalism. But I'd say it really depends situation-to-situation, and it's probably best to just [[WP:UCS|use common sense]]. -[[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]][[User:EWS23|WS23]] | [[User talk:EWS23|(Leave me a message!)]] 01:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Vandal IP == |
|||
{{vandal|24.199.204.66}} has committed various acts of vandalism starting [[November 20]], [[2005]], its most recent example being here [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sydney_Carton&diff=prev&oldid=45951640]. So far, it hasn't committed any vandalism since its last warning, but it should be kept an eye on. - [[User:Conrad Devonshire|Conrad Devonshire]] 05:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Help requested from CVU folks == |
|||
Since the sockpuppetry by {{user|PoolGuy}} as {{user|GoldToeMarionette}}, I've been affected by a barrage of attacks by PoolGuy's new sockpuppets. (See [[Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006]] for details; see also PoolGuy's sockpuppets' repeated harassment on my talk page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nlu&action=history] and campaign of obfuscation and defamation on [[WP:AN]].) I've received mightily little help from others, both in terms of moral support and reversion/blocks of these sockpuppets; indeed, the lack of help is making me considering giving up Wikipedia altogether. I imagine that I'd at least be able to count on CVU folks for support in both areas. Please consider stepping in and helping, as real life business the last few days, which will last for another week, is preventing me from fully doing so. --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 07:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Have you considered requesting that your user and talk pages be semiprotected for a short period of time? That might help matters. In the meantime, I'll add your pages to my watchlist. [[User:Hbackman|Hbackman]] 17:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks. The last time I semi-protected my talk page, another admin who had an axe to grind against me harassed me about it. (See both [[User talk:nlu/archive14]] and [[WP:AN]], and it's really not been serious enough to warrant semi-protecting at this point. (I'd semi-protect a page myself only if the vandalism is like once every 10 minutes or so, and I'd apply that policy to my own page.) --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 07:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Warnings on Talk Pages== |
|||
Is it appropriate to leave a warning on a talk page if you weren't the one that fixed the damage? Specifically, this is regarding recent edits by [[User:Nk430]]. This person page-blanked [[Google]], leaving behind a two-word opinion of google. S/he has also made similiar changes on user pages (not talk pages, user pages). Someone, a bot I think, corrected the edit to Google, but didn't leave a warning. In fact, as of right now, the only comment on the talk page is a welcome from a couple days ago. To me at least, it appears that the only edits have been to promote a certain website, and to protest (to say the least) any attempts to revert thost promotions. I'm not about to revert changes to someone's user page. I'd like to see some warnings, because I think if this continues, a block should be considered--however, without an appropriate set of warnings, admins are reluctant to block. And why is it that bots tend to not leave warnings? --[[User:Straif|Straif]] 15:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I think definitely. Issue the warning. (At least that's what I was told a few months ago when I wasn't an admin.) Thanks for being diligent. --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 16:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I second that. Also, it may be worth mentioning to the user (or bot controller) who fixed the page that they should in future leave a note on the vandal's talk page. Pretty much all the vandal-fighting guidance I've seen tells them to do this, and there's even a template, <nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:Vandal tags|vandal tags]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki> that you could use asking them to comply. [[User:Waggers|Waggers]] 17:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::(P.S. Don't forget to subst it!) [[User:Waggers|Waggers]] 17:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::I'll third that idea. And sometimes when you're running high-paced [[Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol|RC patrol]], it's not necessarily that the reverter forgot to leave a message, but rather that you beat them to the punch. Perhaps check out the reverter's contributions and see if they typically leave warning messages or have been leaving them recently before putting that {{tl|vandal tags}} template on their talk page. As for bots, I imagine some of the bots don't have the programming to leave warnings, but I know some bots do, such as [[User:Tawkerbot2]]. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]][[User:EWS23|WS23]] | [[User talk:EWS23|(Leave me a message!)]] 22:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== AOL users == |
|||
We have many problems with them. They always vandalize, then their IP address will change before they get blocked. I have a suggestion (or solution) to end this problem. We could force AOL users to sign up before they edit so that justice will be served to the right person. [[User:Funnybunny|Funnybunny]] 04:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree. Unfortunately, as far as I know, this policy will never fly. --[[User:Nlu|Nlu]] ([[User talk:Nlu|talk]]) 05:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm not so sure that "always" is correct. I've seen plenty of AOL vandals, but when I look at the contributions for that IP address, many of the edits are legitimate. Frequently, they are small things like grammar or spelling corrections. But that is a good thing. I understand your frustration though, I've followed around too many AOLer's or school district proxy IPs cleaning up one change after the other. Plus, if we manage to slow down vandalism from those sources (school proxies in particular), I may never solve one of the great riddles of our time: why is the word "poop" so popular? --[[User:Straif|Straif]] 19:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Warning toolbox == |
|||
I've received some good feedback on a [[User:Kbh3rd/Vandal warning toolbox|vandal warning toolbox]] that I wrote. It's [[javascript]] that can be linked into your profile that adds some useful links to the Wikipedia toolbox when a user talk page is being edited. It puts an array of warning messages just a click away, making it ''much'' easier and faster to leave appropriate messages, thus making it more likely that messages will be left. |
|||
I'm interested in seeing messages left on vandals' talk pages in almost all cases. I'm also interested in any feedback from users of this tool, and I wonder if there are other appropriate venues in which to let responsible editors know about this, if it deserves the exposure. Thanks. --[[User:Kbh3rd|Kbh3<sup>rd</sup>]][[User_talk:Kbh3rd|<font style='font-size:.7em;'>talk</font>]] 20:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I think your tool is very good. I didn't know this until now, but I left vandal's talk pages with a <nowiki>{{test}}</nowiki> template on it, reguardless of what kind of vandalism they commited. I had no clue there were more templates to other kinds of vandalism. Using that tool, it will be easier to choose the right kind of warning template. [[User:Funnybunny|Funnybunny]] 23:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I've been using this toolbox for quite a while, and I'd HIGHLY recommend it to all vandal fighters. It's made my life so much easier and it makes warning users so much quicker. I don't know what else to say...just a great, great tool. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]][[User:EWS23|WS23]] | [[User talk:EWS23|(Leave me a message!)]] 23:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: Thanks. I personally find it very useful, of course, and I want to encourage warning comments on users' talk pages for the [[User:Kbh3rd/Vandal warning toolbox#Please leave messages when reverting|reasons discussed]] on the toolbox page. What I don't know is whether there are other widely-employed tools alongs the lines of [[User:Lupin/Anti-vandal_tool|Lupin]], [http://sam.zoy.org/wikipedia godmode], ''etc''., that provide the same functionality as part of a larger or better package. (I don't see it in the same arena as standalone tools such as [[User:Henna/VF|CryptoDerk]].) If there isn't such a beastie, and this therefore meets a heretofore unfulfilled need, then what steps to take to further popuarize it? --[[User:Kbh3rd|Kbh3<sup>rd</sup>]][[User_talk:Kbh3rd|<font style='font-size:.7em;'>talk</font>]] 20:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I think promotion is the key to increasing use (without spamming, of course). Post a link to it and description of it in the appropriate section on [[WP:CVU]], [[Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol]], and [[Wikipedia talk:Vandalism]]. You could also post a short "announcement of a new tool's release" or something on [[WP:AN]], as I think many administrators might like it. Anyway, let me know if you need any help at all, and best of luck! [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]][[User:EWS23|WS23]] | [[User talk:EWS23|(Leave me a message!)]] 01:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Just curious.. == |
|||
Who is the leader(or president, whichever you prefer) of this organization? How do you become one? Can I become the leader when I create an account? [[User:65.2.5.140|65.2.5.140]] 00:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:It's not really all that structured of an organization, ie, we don't really take orders from anyone or anything. If you create an account, though, you're quite welcome to join us. :) --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 01:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Poorly written defcon level discriptions == |
|||
I noticed some grammatical errors and poor wording in the discriptions for each level of the WikiDefcon meter. I tried to correct these, but after doing so and saving the template page, the messages stayed the same. I you click the "edit" tab of the WikiDefcon template, you will be able to see my revised discriptions, even though they do not appear in the WikiDefcon meter. Could someone please come to my assistance? - [[User:Conrad Devonshire|Conrad Devonshire]] 01:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Never mind; I was able to take care of it myself. - [[User:Conrad Devonshire|Conrad Devonshire]] 19:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==New Anti-vandalism idea== |
|||
After reading about the "[[Wikipedia:long term abuse#Jimbo Wales images vandal|Jimbo Wales images vandal]]", I started to think about how such types of vandalism might be prevented. According to the report on [[Wikipedia:Long term abuse]], the vandal would register an account, vandalize an article, quickly log out and register a new accout to avoid being [[Wikipedia:Autoblock|autoblocked]], and vandalize again. If a system could be set up to autoblock IPs that rapidly register new accounts, then this sort of vandalism could be prevented. - [[User:Conrad Devonshire|Conrad Devonshire]] 06:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Non compos mentis == |
|||
I for one do not understand what is going on here nor, apparently, do I have the capability to figure out what a Counter-Vandalism Unit is or does. Perhaps a quick explaination? Not all of us are as clever as you guys. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:70.187.17.155|70.187.17.155]] ([[User talk:70.187.17.155|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/70.187.17.155|contribs]]) 15 April 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small><!-- [Template:Unsigned2] --> |
|||
:Its just a place where Wikipedians who are dedicated to fighting [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] can coorespond and learn about current vandal issues, new vandal-fighting tools, etc. It has been refered to as a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProject]] related to fighting vandalism. - [[User:Conrad Devonshire|Conrad Devonshire]] 17:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Combating the Slashdot effect== |
|||
I've noticed on multiple occasions where high-traffic sites linking to Wikipedia articles, such as [http://www.slashdot.com Slashdot] tends to lead in a shapr increase in vandalism. Is there any way we as non-administrators can combat this phenonemon? I personally would think semi-protection would be rather effective, but often in the time it takes for that action to occur, an awful lot of vandalism will have occured already. ANy thoughts? [[User:Wizardry Dragon|Wizardry Dragon]] 20:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:A post on slashdot is likely to result in a large number of eyeballs being on wikipedia, unfortunately the number of vandals is uniformly distributed amoungst slashdot vs. other users. This makes vandalism a function of traffic not a specific site. Luckily the geekey slashdot community are probably more likely to jump in and fix things, than average, and the vandal will be tempted to hit the referred article. Perhaps if a vandal comes from a slashbot referrer they could be traced back. Undoubtably some daft vandal will have been logged into slashdot. The referrer could be used to trace their slashdot account, and so be able to finger them as offenders. I'm fairly sure slashdot will have no problem co-operating, they have no love of abuse (The entire ADSL network in my country is effectively blocked from slashdot since our National Monopoly won't respond to vandalism inquiries - they have dynamic-ip's) --[[User:Mig77|Mig77]] 09:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Volunteer== |
|||
I'm keen to assist with this venture. Let me know what I can do. |
|||
[[User:Extramural|Extramural]] 16:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Watch the blanking warnings == |
|||
Hi everybody. Just a note to ask people to watch out when reverting part-blanking of articles: there may be a bug (affecting me and at least 2 other editors) that means the full article is not loading into the edit window. |
|||
If you see an edit that cuts the bottom off an article, of course revert it. But revert it manually - it's not vandalism - and above all ''don't warn the editor with a template''. Write to them personally, perhaps to point them at [http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5643 Bugzilla #5643], but don't warn or block for it without good reason! Thanks folks. ➨ [[User_talk:Redvers|❝]]<b><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|R]]</font><font color="green">[[User:Redvers/Esperanza|E]]</font><font color="red">[[User:Redvers|DVERS]]</font></b>[[Special:Contributions/Redvers|❞]] 19:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== QVRS == |
|||
[[User:General Eisenhower]] has established the [[User:General Eisenhower/QRVS|Quick Vandalism Response Squad]]. He does not go into detail about what it is for, and to me it seems that the Counter-Vandalism Unit and the Recent Changes Patrol already take its place, but I have listed it in the ''announcements'' section of this article nevertheless. - [[User:Conrad Devonshire|Conrad Devonshire]] 23:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: so is this thing still going on? -- <small> ( [[User:Drini|<span style="cursor:crosshair;">drini's page</span>]] [[User talk:Drini|<big><span style="cursor:crosshair;">☎</span></big>]] )</small> 23:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:: I looked at its page, and it says that it is open to new members, though so far [[User:General Eisenhower]] is the only member. - [[User:Conrad Devonshire|Conrad Devonshire]] 03:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Seems a bit militant to me. --[[User:Knucmo2|Knucmo2]] 01:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Tuskegee Airmen vandalized again == |
|||
Please revert Tuskegee Airmen, and please consider semi-protection. Vandalism to this racially sensitive page is not daily, but certainly ongoing. Latest was by anon IP use 66.213.29.242r: |
|||
:This IP address, 66.213.29.242, is registered to the Columbus Metropolitan Library and is shared by multiple users. Comments left on this page may be received by other users of this IP and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking. In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts will be made to contact the Columbus Metropolitan Library to report abuse. |
|||
Thanks. [[User:Catherineyronwode|Catherineyronwode]] 20:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Exponential increase in vandalism == |
|||
Is there an exponential increase, or am I just having bad luck with the articles I have been involved with since this year? |
|||
I mean, more exponential than the increase in articles.[[User:DanielDemaret|DanielDemaret]] 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Well, the only criteria ''I'' have for the global level of vandalism is the "DefCon" meter, and it hasn't gone above 4 in quite a while.--[[User:Chodorkovskiy|<font color="Black">'''Chodorkovskiy'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Chodorkovskiy|'''<font color="Black">(</font><font color="Blue">talk</font><font color="Black">)</font>''']]</sup> 04:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:: That is a relief. :) Could you please direct me to the Defcon meter?[[User:DanielDemaret|DanielDemaret]] 06:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sure, see [[:Template:Wdefcon]], or you can add {{tl|Wdefcon}} to any page where you want it displayed. I actually have the feeling that in the last few weeks vandalism has been startlingly low, which is definitely a good thing, but I don't know what to attribute it to (sorry for ending with a preposition lol), which bothers me a bit. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|Talk]]) 06:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::: As long as it is not an error in measurement, it is good news. :) [[User:DanielDemaret|DanielDemaret]] 10:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::: And thank you for the template. My user page has been a bit empty of late.[[User:DanielDemaret|DanielDemaret]] 11:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::I prefer to see the good side: IMHO, the more prominent WP becomes and the more people learn that it is open to anyone, the more [[sociopath]]s will try their hand here. ←[[User:Humus sapiens|Humus sapiens]] <sup>[[User talk:Humus sapiens|ну?]]</sup> 06:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::: God I hope not... I rather not have to revert anything this week [[User:Aeon1006|Aeon]] 13:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Problem using Sam Hocevar's Godmode == |
|||
After installing the tool, the rollback buttons have appeared as they should, but when I have tried to rollback an edit, a large amount of code has appeared on the page with a message saying something to the effect of that my having the "right-click section header to edit section" and the "double-click page to edit page" options turned on was interfering with it. I turned them both off and the same problem happens. Here is an example of what appears: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1932_Winter_Olympics&fakeaction=rollback&vandal=Contributions&token=639d2149751d638f284764e235e1e37c] --[[User:Conrad Devonshire|Conrad Devonshire]] 22:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Godmode, as I understand it, is FireFox dependent. Could this be the problem? [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|Talk]]) 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I am using Firefox, so something else must be the cause of it. I also have Lupin's Recent Changes Filter installed. Maybe it is somehow interferring with Godmode.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|Conrad Devonshire]] 15:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Who is in the Counter Vandalism Unit? == |
|||
Hi All, |
|||
:I am very suspicious of people who label other people as vandals, make them "illegal", and then shut them off. It is a very effective way of stopping the enemy in their tracks. I was labelled myself as being a vandal on three separate occasions, twice indeed by the very senior enforcement personnel of Wikipedia, known as "Administrators". Naturally I kept my head down, as one does when "rounds are coming towards me". I have never referred to anyone as a "Vandal" and do not like such inflamatory language anyway. To have something called a Counter-Vandalism Unit appears to me to be something akin to the SS. I don't like it, and I suspect that some others are like minded too. |
|||
Thank you. |
|||
Kind regards, |
|||
:[[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 18:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:"Who is in the Counter Vandalism Unit?" Whoever wants to be. Please do not throw wild accusations and try to start a revolution. Rather, point to the exact cases of injustice committed against you, if indeed they were such, so that they can be dealt with. P.S. The "SS"? If you were new, I'd be ''very'' suspicious. As it is, I'm just puzzled. The "SS"? --[[User:Chodorkovskiy|<font color="Black">'''Chodorkovskiy'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Chodorkovskiy|'''<font color="Blue">(talk)</font>''']]</sup> 19:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::The SS, or [[Schutzstaffel]] [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup> 19:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::First of all, comparing the CVU to the SS is quite a frivolous argument (see [[Argumentum ad nazium]]); however, I do agree that many here are prone to labeling "vandals" and that doing so is a highly counterproductive form of counter-vandalism. It is necessary, however, to identify users who repeatedly vandalize articles (users like [[WP:WoW]] for an extreme example) in an effort to control the severity of the damage they can do, but any claim of vandalism must be documented and in accordance with [[WP:VAND]] (whereas any other claim is a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]] or an error in judgment). The issues that you have with these admins and users who claim that you have vandalized should be directed toward them, not toward the institution, as the CVU does not in any way encourage personal attacks. I will also agree that I am opposed to this mentality of "us vs. the vandals"--we're not soldiers, and the CVU is not an army; instead, we're nothing more than quality control. I believe most users and members of the CVU recognize that fact, though there are still some who feel we're fighting a war. To some extent, I am opposed to the [[:Template:Wdefcon|WikiDefcon]] for this very reason, though I still believe it to be a useful tool. |
|||
:::Whether you like it or not, the CVU (or somethig like it) will always exist on Wikipedia, for, in order for Wikipedia to have a chance at surviving, there must be some means by which counter-vandalism can be organized and encouraged. The CVU, though perhaps not the best method of doing this, provides users with a variety of tools, links to the IRC channels, and contacts they may otherwise not have found, all of which is, in my opinion, absolutely vital to provide. Try clicking on [[Special:Recentchanges]] sometime, go down the list, and see how much vandalism you find. I'd say the ratio is about 1:10 edits is vandalism, yet thanks to the CVU and its committed members, the average time it takes for vandalism to be reverted is five minutes (I can't find my source right now, but it's on [[Wikipedia:Statistics]] somewhere). If it weren't for organizations like this one, instead of finding a respectable FA when you click random page, you'd find "FALLOUT BOY SUCKS!" (seems to be the most popular one I've been finding lately ... didn't even know what [[Fallout Boy]] was until recently). So, please, before you start a revolution, consider what impact it might have on Wikipedia. There will always be editors out there constantly attacking each other whether the CVU exists or not, and at some point everyone just has to learn to ignore rude remarks and get on with life. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|Talk]]) 23:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::I agree, Wally. Some others are probably like-minded...especially the vandals.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|Conrad Devonshire]] 02:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Just making a remark: should we call vandals "encyclopedially challenged editors" or something? Other than that and the part about war (Kill! Kill! Kill!), I'm cool with the above. --[[User:Chodorkovskiy|<font color="Black">'''Chodorkovskiy'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Chodorkovskiy|'''<font color="Blue">(talk)</font>''']]</sup> 05:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Gahhh ... now we're going to have the Wiki [[Politically correct|PC]]-Police. The true vandals we can call vandals, the confused n00bs we can call confused n00bs, and the well-intentioned yet misunderstood editors we can call the tragic poets, or whatever. I think the point Wallie made was that we should avoid labels altogether (including "encyclopedically-challenged editors"), with which I entirely agree. Categorization of some users will at times be necessary, yet every contributor, WoW included, is still subject to change his ways. I will also agree that the term vandal is thrown around far too often to describe too wide a variety of editors, and it should be avoided where possible (as should any form of labeling). The usage of vandal has become analogous to Mexican, which everyone uses to describe pretty much any race coming from south of the border, though many of them are Argentinians, Colombians, Puerto Ricans, etc. (Living in New Mexico, I run into this one on a daily basis). Okay, now back to my paper (eight hours until it's due!). [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|Talk]]) 05:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::: *[[:Category:Wikipedians of Mexico|cough]]* [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 06:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
You make a good point. But it's not like I go around yelling "hey you, vandal - stop vandalising!!!". The warnings only adress the subject matter, explaining to the editor that this or that is called "vandalism". Without getting into a debate over details, yes. I agree that personal references should be avoided. And if you reply anywhere within the next 8 hours I will use the power you so foolishly endowed me with to revert anything of yours all over Wikipedia!--[[User:Chodorkovskiy|<font color="Black">'''Chodorkovskiy'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Chodorkovskiy|'''<font color="Blue">(talk)</font>''']]</sup> 06:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Now threats from the CVU == |
|||
I got this piece on my talk page. Naturally, the person has called me a vandal. I think the person who sent me this is a bully. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 17:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Threats and bullying now eh? Can't you see that you're acting like a spoiled child? There was nothing threatening or bullying about my comments.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|Conrad Devonshire]] 00:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Your rude comments on [[Wikipedia talk: Counter-Vandalism Unit]] == |
|||
I removed your most recent comments from the above page, as they had no constructive purpose and were written most likely to start an argument. However, as you are curious as to the purpose of the WikiDefcon meter, allow me to explain it to you: It is a general indication of the current level of [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] currenly occuring on Wikipedia. It ranges from levels 5 to 1; Level 5 indicating that relatively little or no vandalism is taking place on Wikipedia while level 1 indicating that an attack of an extreme nature is underway. A level 0 is also used to indicate that Wikipedia is currently out of operation or that editing on Wikipedia is temporarily disabled. In the future, please refrain from making rude remarks and consider showing some respect for the members of the CVU, because if it were not for them, Wikipedia would have been out of operation long ago.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|Conrad Devonshire]] 21:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:By the way, I noticed that you seem angry with the CVU for having labeled you as a vandal on previous occasions. However, considering some of what you have done, which includes copying content from other websites and posting it here (which is a breach of copyright and could possibly result in a lawsuit filed against Wikipedia), I am not surprised that you were labeled as a vandal. I do not assume that what you did was an intentional means of damaging Wikipedia, but I nevertheless suggest that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's rules and regulations to avoid seeming like a vandal because of careless mistakes. I also recommend that rather than compare those who have labeled your edits as vandalism to the [[SS]], you accept responsibility for your actions and try to be more careful about your edits in the future.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|Conrad Devonshire]] 22:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::1.Wikipedia is not censored. 2. No personal attacks. 3. Do not feed the trolls. --[[User:Chodorkovskiy|<font color="Black">'''Chodorkovskiy'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Chodorkovskiy|'''<font color="Blue">(talk)</font>''']]</sup> 18:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Is that right? I am the one under attack. If someone calls me out, then I can and will respond. Some in the CVU are by definition trolls, as they seek to cause arguments by their actions. I never accused the CVU of calling me a vandal, as the user above stated. As far as the accusations of copyright violation are concerned, the user above scanned by my user page and noticed this. I am not a lawyer, and do not believe that this was a copyright violation. I am an open person by nature, and keep these records open to anyone, as I did not intend, and never have, any wrong. However, I do believe that people who call others trolls and vandals defintely have malevolent intentions, and will continue to actively engage them. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 18:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::By the way. From the horse's mouth. Read on... |
|||
:::''Not vandalism'' |
|||
:::''The following should not automatically be considered to be vandalism and should be dealt with in other ways:'' |
|||
:::''Copyright violations - Inserting content that we have no license to or cannot use the license for. Revert the changes if there is an old version of the article that is not a copyvio, otherwise blank the article and put the copyvio tag on it. See Copyright problems. Persistant and defiant insertion of such content should however be considered vandalism.'' [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 19:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::Then contact the user, and if worse comes to worst, open an [[WP:RfC]]--this is not the place for it. Seeking to disrupt the CVU, posting inflammatory remarks that seek only to undermine the hard work of others, accusing others of trolling, and attacking users like Devonshire for trying to help you understand what you did that led to your being labeled as you were is most inappropriate (see [[WP:POINT]]), and I would urge to stop such practises. You seem to be looking for a head to knock off and a war to wage, and you seem to have missed that we are trying to write an encyclopedia, not living a soap opera. Please, calm down Wallie; there are more important things than someone's inappropriate choice of words. If I went and started a revolution everytime someone attacked me or called me a vandal or a troll, I'd never have had time for anything else. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|Talk]]) 21:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I am always calm. But I am also willing to fight fire with fire, as anyone should. I do not open RfCs, but tend to deal with the matter quickly, honestly and directly. I cerainly have never accused anyone in person of trolling, and never would. I have only used the term "bully", as that's what this sort really is. I certainly didn't take Devonshire's comments as being helpful either. In his view, I may have made mistakes in the past, but I am sure he has too. Don't we all? I also do not lecture to other people, so I expect the same from others. While I am sure some at the so called VDU are helpful and genuine, I think that others are not. Unfortuately this sort of grouping can attract the wrong sort. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 17:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Like I said, Conrad, what you did was a bad move whether or not you were assuming bad faith. ''Especially'' if you were assuming bad faith. --[[User:Chodorkovskiy|<font color="Black">'''Chodorkovskiy'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Chodorkovskiy|'''<font color="Blue">(talk)</font>''']]</sup> 03:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank you. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 17:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*He called it as he saw it. If you vandalise Wikipedia, then you are a vandal. '''Period.''' I really couldn't care whether you object to the label. If you dislike it so much, then stop vandalising Wikipedia. - [[User:Wizardry Dragon|Wizardry Dragon]] 18:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:OK. This is a first. Now I have been branded officially as a vandal, as you an accredited and full member of the CVU. I can live with that, as after what you have said, I now have no respect whatsoever for the unit anyway. I see you have an affiliation with Scotland. I cannot imagine any Scot being part of this organisation. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 20:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, but if you hate trolling so much, then why are you continuing to post pointless and possibly inflammatory comments such as that?--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|Conrad Devonshire]] 00:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Beacuse I hated the arrogant tone of the person to whom I was responding. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 20:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::*Arrogance? Hardly, that presumes I gave a toss about what happened to you as if it affected me, and it does not. All you have done is troll the CVU talk with complaints about the members of the CVU, and anyone that contradicts you becomes another example of misconduct. If you're not going to be civil yourself, do not expect civil replies. - [[User:Wizardry Dragon|Wizardry Dragon]] 22:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::You are deliberately twisting the truth. I asked about the purpose of the VDU, and mentioned that I had been called a vandal in the past. I did not say that the VDU had anything to do with this. It is you that are jumping to conslusions and misrepresenting what I am saying. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 18:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
FWIW, there's no such thing as an "accredited" member of the CVU: all you have to do is add yourself to a category. As such, the CVU has no control of its members, so if you have a dispute with any of them, this is not the place to sort it out, but rather on the talk page of the user. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 01:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:OK. Lets get this straight. I have been making all this fuss, as I really get upset at the name calling that goes on. I am not particularly singling out one person, and think that the key to the problem and probably the solution also is the CVU. I do not want to argue on someone's user page, as again, this is singling out one person, when many are doing the same thing. The real problem is that one person says something another disagree with, and the second person calls the other a vandal or a troll, which is most cases is unwarrented. I would say in many cases the second person is a very disruptive influence. As for being against trolls. Quite the contrary, they often put forward the opposing view. Politely called in some circles the devil's avocate. Getting back to the VDU, I think it could be a good solution to the problem. But it should not attack anyone, and combat the problem (vandalism) and not the person (the vandal). Better to say, "I think you might have said this better in this way" rather than "you're a (expletive) vandal and you're banned!". [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 07:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Adam Goldstein]] vandalism? == |
|||
I just checked out the page, and there's a lot of *questionable* stuff on it, but I'm not good at looking at versions and I'm not even sure if it's actually vandalism (although it looks like it). Take a close look at the picture captions.--[[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 05:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I've reverted back to a version in March to get rid of the vandalism. Most of the vandalism occcurred on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Goldstein&diff=51193856&oldid=48231423 this edit] about 3 days ago. [[User:EWS23/Esperanza|<font color="green">'''E'''</font>]][[User:EWS23|WS23]] | [[User talk:EWS23|(Leave me a message!)]] 05:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Cool, thanks.--[[User:Anchoress|Anchoress]] 16:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Does the CVU have an Internal Affairs Department? == |
|||
For policing itself. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 05:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Wallie, '''get over it'''. This is really getting quite tiresome. The CVU is not even an organization. It is a page that provides tools and resources for '''individuals''' to deal with vandalism. That's it. End of story. We are not a branch of the Wikimiilitary or the Wikipolice, and no we do not have an internal affairs department -- we don't have departments. The issues you have are with '''individual users''' who you believe have wronged you. Take the issue up with them, as no one here is involved or interested. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|Talk]]) 06:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:: Short answer: No. |
|||
::Long answer: There's no need to have special policies to apply to CVU members, as Wikipedia [[Wikipedia:policies and guidelines|policies and guidelines]] suffice. Therefore, there's no policing arm of the CVU, nor there will be any time soon. If you have an issue with a user who happens to be in the CVU, talk with them or pursue [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 06:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::C'mon, why stop if everyone here is so eager to cooperate?--[[User:Chodorkovskiy|<font color="Black">'''Chodorkovskiy'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Chodorkovskiy|'''<font color="Blue">(talk)</font>''']]</sup> 07:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::Ami. Organizations start out in this way as a loose collection of people. Look at the way the Ku Klux Klan and the European Union started out. Best to get them on the correct footing when they are babies. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 18:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::But this is '''not an organization.''' There is no leadership. There are no departments. There is no control. There are only individuals, who by saying they are members of the CVU, say only that they revert vandalism. All the CVU does is provide resources, tools, and contacts, as well as links to [[WP:VAND]] and [[WP:BITE]]. If individuals choose to ignore the policies, that's their problem, not the CVU's. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|Talk]]) 21:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::You could be missing the point. Many organizations started out without leadership or departments, only individuals. But they emerged as powerful organizations, say 100 years, later. [[User:Wallie|Wallie]] 07:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::True, but for the time being this is not aa organization. --<font style="background:gold">[[WP:EA|<font color="green">S</font>]][[User:Siva1979|iva1979]]</font><sup><font style="background:yellow">[[User talk:Siva1979|Talk to me]]</font></sup> 16:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::: This will '''never''' be an organization, as a previous attempt to get leadership and organize things further was met with considerable opposition, and the only bit of organization that it had (the directors) was disbanded. I'm afraid this entire thread does not belong on this page. [[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])</sup> 18:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==From an Ex-vandal== |
|||
As an ex-vandal, a message to other vandals. Go to [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Uncyclopedia!] There you can "vandalize" without troubling people. You can add stuff there, make history up, things that could never happen. They don't consider those vandals. --[[User:69.67.226.10|69.67.226.10]] 00:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== What is with all these new squads? == |
|||
First the QVRS, now [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:OrtonFan2006/SCVF this]? What is going on? [[User:American Patriot 1776|American Patriot 1776]] 02:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Let them have their fun - if this way WP gets more RC patrollers, so much the better. --[[User:Chodorkovskiy|<font color="Black">'''Chodorkovskiy'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Chodorkovskiy|'''<font color="Blue">(talk)</font>''']]</sup> 16:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== 88196 vandal == |
|||
Hi, I'm curious about the nature of this vandal. It always has an ip beginning 88.196. It always leaves the same message [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADlohcierekim&diff=53505245&oldid=53505182 , DIF'S] It sometimes picks out something from my userpage to add to someone else's, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Khoikhoi&diff=prev&oldid=52497166 DIFS] in a manner I take to be mocking. Does it conform to any known BOT or vandal Thanks! [[User_talk:Dlohcierekim| :) Dlohcierekim]] 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== I would like to join == |
|||
Hello! How do I join the Counter-Vandalism Unit? I was hoping to join and Bayantree pointed this unit out to me.:--[[User:Kitsumiti|<span style="color:#CC66FF;">Kits</span>]][[User talk:Kitsumiti|<span style="color:#FF00CC;">umiti</span>]]<span> |
|||
== How Do You Join? == |
|||
I was wondering... |
|||
Is there any way to join, or do you just pick people? |
|||
Or, can you just become one without asking? |
|||
Thanks. |
|||
[[User:Tyson Moore|TeChGuY]] 14:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Nope, no need to ask, campaign, or otherwise. Just look on our project page near the top of 'general information' for how to associate yourself with us. --[[User:InShaneee|InShaneee]] 19:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::So then, you just put that box on your user page and your in? Or do you have to fill something out?[[User:El benderson|El benderson]] 04:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Nope, just the userbox! Welcome to the CVU! --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] 16:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Vandal UBX== |
|||
Um, this isn't a report or anything, but I am a bit confused. If there are actual vandals on Wikipedia, then (forgive my rudeness) what the heck is a Userbox doing here that says you've been vandalized? I realize it could really be useful in some situations, but anyone can just get that UBX and act like they've been hit big. Besides, I recently got a new message that said I'd been vandalized, but when I got to the bottom, it turned out to be a (forgive my rudeness again) stupid joke, and someone had just put the same UBX on my User Page. I'm sorry if this comes off as being rude and rather rash, but I'm just a bit perturbed that it's been allowed to exist. Once again, I ask you to forgive me if I've offended anybody in anyway. And don't be mad at the prankster. She and I have resolved it. --[[User:DcPimp|DcPimp]] |
|||
Oh, sorry I didn't leave a date and time. I didn't know how when I wrote the above. [[User:DcPimp|DcPimp]] 23:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== You've Probably Heard This Before... == |
|||
I don't mean to be rude, but did the Level 4 defcon say '''''sockpuppets'''''? Call me ignorant, but why is a reference to a sockpuppet in a defcon description? I read on some page a while back that that wasn't a typo or vandalism, either. So, uh, could you just explain this to me? I've been a Wikipedian for two weeks, and I'm still learning. --[[User:DcPimp|DcPimp]] 12:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:"Sockpuppet," though it sounds silly, is a real term for a common phenomenon. [[WP:SOCK|This article]] can give you more info on these nasty little creatures. Best, [[User:Docether|Docether]] 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Oh. Thanks. That's a new bit of info for me. Guess ya learn something every day, huh? --[[User:DcPimp|DcPimp]] 01:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Countervandalism strategies== |
|||
Here are a couple countervandalism strategies: |
|||
* Pick one day out of the month (e.g. [[May 22]]), and put it on your watchlist. This date could be your birthday, or any random day. Better yet, put the same date/different months also on your watchlist (e.g. [[June 22]], [[July 22]], ...). These are frequently the target of vanity edits. |
|||
* Put your high school on your watchlist (or a bunch of high schools). |
|||
Perhaps, we can build a list of such strategies and put them on the main project page? I have found these two to be very useful in finding vandalism. --[[User:AudeVivere|Aude]] (<small>[[User:AudeVivere|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/AudeVivere|contribs]]</small>) 17:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Great ideas! I'm doing that right now. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] 19:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::What I personally do is to watch articles I created or contributed and as many articles related to my country as I can, because there aren't many argentina-related articles that are good for vandalism yet. Other users would preffer to watch their state/province/administrative division's main articles, but if everyone did so most geography/biography/history related articles would be covered. —[[User:Argentino|Argentino]] <small>([[User talk:Argentino|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Argentino|cont.]])</small> 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::My concern with strategies like these is that, while they're effective for popular subject matter, vandalism to less popularly watched articles can easily slip through. If we're serious about developing countervandalism strategies, we should look to ensuring that the whole encylopaedia is covered, not just our favourite bits. [[User:Waggers|Waggers]] 11:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::I agree with [[User:Waggers|Waggers]]. I think that limiting the scope of the articles we watch would be counter productive. When I'm hunting for vandalism (using VandalProof), I'm looking at every edit being made and picking those edits that are suspect. It may not be the best strategy, but I think it covers a broader range of the encylopaedia. [[User:Tachyon01|Tachyon01]] 17:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Yet Another Question From Me.... == |
|||
Okay, once again, forgive me for being rude. I'm just going to get that out of my system right now. |
|||
Now, anyway, is there a topic that isn't checked for vandalism as much as it should be? I'm just asking because of an article that was recently edited. It was about a video game series. On the Talk Page for the article, I asked a question concerning some information about an enemy I believed was false. It was then brought to my attention that this information was most likely vandalism. I guess what I'm trying to say is, are you guys really trying your hardest? It's not just that one article, either. Gaming is a hobby of mine, and I've found quite a few other vandalized sections throughout my searches. --[[User:DcPimp|DcPimp]] 01:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: Like all Wikipedians, we're not paid to watch for vandalism, we're volunteers. So comments like "are you really trying your hardest?" are hardly fair. Members of the CVU don't have any responsibility to fight vandalism any more than any other Wikipedians, including yourself. To answer your question though, most vandalism fighters tend to concentrate on RC patrol, thus reverting vandalism wherever it occurs no matter what the subject matter. Vandalism on Wikipedia takes many forms, including changing factual information within articles, which is hard for a vandal fighter to spot if they aren't familiar with the subject. Therefore it's imperative that those with an interest in a particular subject, like yourself, take some of the strain. [[User:Waggers|Waggers]] 11:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Okay. I'm sorry about the comments. I know it's no excuse, but I was extremely tired when I wrote them and wasn't thinking straight. Anyways, I think I see your point. So, uh, what do I do now? Should I just go about my business, or is there anything else I should know/do? --[[User:DcPimp|DcPimp]] 13:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::It depends how you want to contribute to Wikipedia. From your comments I suspect you're interested in fighting vandalism in a specific subject area. The best way to do that is to add the relevant articles to your watchlist, and keep an eye on what happens there. If you're interested in more general vandalism-fighting, there's plenty of advice and tips on the [[WP:CVU]] project page and elsewhere. Away from vandalism fighting, there's always a list of "things to do" and projects needing help on the [[Wikipedia:Community Portal]]. [[User:Waggers|Waggers]] 13:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::Well, I've already got the pages on my watchlist just to monitor the Talk Pages. So, I guess I'm ready. I'll try my best to keep the video game articles vandal-free. Thanks for the advice, too. |
|||
::::Oh, just for the record, don't expect me to join the CVU. I might try to fight vandalism, but as you've already learned, I'm a bit, well, blunt. I don't want to ruin your good name by ticking off a lot of people. But if I find something, I'll let you know. --[[User:DcPimp|DcPimp]] 00:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives == |
|||
Just a heads up! For quite a few days now [[FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives]] has been taking alot of flak from a few vandals. --[[User:Jcw69|Jcw69]] 06:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==IRC Channel== |
|||
Only a technical question: when I click on the link to the chanel I get a message saying something like "firefox doen't know how to open this link because the protocol (irc) is not associated to any program " [quick translation from span.]. Can anyone tell me what do I have to download to be able to use it?—[[User:Argentino|Argentino]] <small>([[User talk:Argentino|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Argentino|cont.]])</small> 14:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:You can check out this [[User:Nathanrdotcom/IRC_Tutorial|tutorial]] which explains pretty much everything. --[[User: Scohoust|<span style="color:#4478B4;">Scot</span>]][[User talk:Scohoust|<span style="color:#355F91;"><sup>t</sup></span>]] 18:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== The registration issue, again == |
|||
There's another move to disallow anonymouse editing taking place right now. [[User:Kaiwen1|Kaiwen1]] has apparently put up an [[User:Kaiwen1/Vote to prohibit anonymous edits|informal, nonbinding vote]], and while I don't place much faith in it, members of CVU would probably be more qualified than others to weigh in on whether anon vandalism is bad enough to require registration. It's worth checking out. [[User:Moulder|Moulder]] 01:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== "On June 6, 2006, Wikipedia will meet its maker" == |
|||
It's almost 6,6,06, so I thought I should post a reminder about the "Wikipedia will meet its maker" vandal. I'm not sure if there's any substance to his claims, but we might want to be on the lookout tomorrow just in case.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|<font color="Green">'''Conrad Devonshire'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Conrad Devonshire|'''<font color="Purple">Talk</font>''']]</sup> 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:bah standard bot vandalsim.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 03:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm going to be busy all day tomorrow, and so I won't be able to help out too much should the maker arrive. However, should Wikipedia's [[User:Jimbo Wales|maker]] give you too many problems, he can't be that difficult to deal with =D. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 03:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== anybody feel like addressing this? == |
|||
We have a rather dedicated vandal on [[The Great Dalmuti]] (see history page). Personally, I can live with the insults, but it's becoming a bit comical how persistent this guy is. I've ARIN-searched him to a dorm in San Jose State University, but that's about where my interest ends.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 03:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
==Is there a vandalizing user named Haz?== |
|||
One who who poses as a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, that is? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:218.218.61.59|218.218.61.59]] ([[User talk:218.218.61.59|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/218.218.61.59|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small> |
|||
::No results for Haz. Did you spell it correctly?--<font color="#999fff">[[User:Firsfron|Firsfron of Ronchester]]</font> 23:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I checked again, and that is his "name" but his user ID is Haza-w. But the issue I had with him seems now to have been resolved to my satisfaction. Thanks.[[User:218.218.61.59|218.218.61.59]] 17:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Education== |
|||
I was wondering, how many users actually know everything that this unit knows? How can we expect wikipedia to grow if only a few people know what pages have been vandalized and who the vandals are? Maybe somebody who opperates a bot could send out a message that can inform as many users as possible about recent vandalism. There should be something like this. [[User:D Hill|D Hill]] 19:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Interesting Vandal == |
|||
Tongiht, I've kept seeing vandals adding strings such as --[[User:65.35.95.189|65.35.95.189]] 03:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC) to pages. However, the IP keeps moving around, and I haven't been keeping track. Anyone else experience this, or know what to do? I'm kinda new at this thing. - [[User:Xiong Chiamiov|<font color="black">Xiong Chiamiov</font>]] [[User_talk:Xiong Chiamiov|<sup><font color="black">t</font><font color="#00B300">alk</font></sup>]] [[User:Xiong Chiamiov/contact|<sup><font color="black">c</font><font color="#00B300">ontact</font></sup>]] 03:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:sounds like a sig string from someone using aol maybe? there's almost nothing that can be done to nail down an aol user... their ips change almost every request. -- [[User:Frymaster|frymaster]] 14:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== ALERT: AOL Vandals at Large == |
|||
Currently, two AOL vandals are at large. It is unknown whether they are related. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♥</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♦</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">♣</font>]] [[Special:Emailuser/King of Hearts|<font color="black">♠</font>]] 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
=== .F.U.C.K...S.H.I.T...C.U.N.T... etc. Vandal (AOL) === |
|||
This user has been very disruptive recently, posting ".F.U.C.K...S.H.I.T...C.U.N.T...P.O.O...A.S.S...B.I.T.C.H.!.!.!.!..." on everyone's userpage. Recommendation: block on sight for 15 minutes to 3 hours. If they are vandalizing in a range, then block for 5 to 15 minutes. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♥</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♦</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">♣</font>]] [[Special:Emailuser/King of Hearts|<font color="black">♠</font>]] 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
=== Ceiling Cat Vandal (AOL) === |
|||
This user has posted images of [[:Image:Ceiling cat 00.jpg]] everywhere. Recommendation: search in the "File links" section of [[:Image:Ceiling cat 00.jpg]] for suspicious activity (such as appearance of the image in a non-related article). Block on sight for 15 minutes to 3 hours. If they are vandalizing in a range, then block for 5 to 15 minutes. -- [[User:King of Hearts|King of]] [[User:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♥</font>]] [[User talk:King of Hearts|<font color="red">♦</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<font color="black">♣</font>]] [[Special:Emailuser/King of Hearts|<font color="black">♠</font>]] 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Vandalism at [[RuneScape]]== |
|||
We're having a bit of a problem over at the {{lx|1=|2={{ucfirst:RuneScape}}|3=Talk|4=talk}} articles and [[Portal:RuneScape|portal]] with the sheer volume of petty vandalism (ie, "runescape sux lololol"). It is actually the [[Special:Mostrevisions|seventh most edited article]], beating what one would expect to be massive vandalism magnets, like [[Saddam Hussein]]. When the article spent several days semiprotected, only around 2-3 edits a day were made, unprotected; 30+. Keeping an eye on this article would be greatly appreciated, as vandalism is seemingly the main factor preventing the article from reaching Good Article status. Thanks, [[User:CaptainVindaloo|CaptainVindaloo]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainVindaloo|t]] [[Special:Contributions/CaptainVindaloo|c]] [[Special:Emailuser/CaptainVindaloo|e]]</sup> 22:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I agree. Anon edits are completely ruining the article. Besides silly vandalism, they sometimes add misinformation and nonsense into the article. And semi-protection stops them. I propose the article be permenantly semi-protected. It failed Good Article primarily because of the anons messing up the article. If you don't want permenant semi-protection, I think we should at the very least keep the article semi-protected until the Peer Review is complete and it becomes a Good Article. --[[User:Hildanknight|J.L.W.S. The Special One]] 14:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Username registration log == |
|||
Isn't there a log somewhere which shows recently registered usernames that is used by admins to block inappropriate names on sight? I'm not an admin, so I couldn't use it, but I'm just curious about it, as I have been unable to find it.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|<font color="Green">'''Conrad Devonshire'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Conrad Devonshire|'''<font color="Purple">Talk</font>''']]</sup> 04:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Special:Log/Newusers]]. [[User:AmiDaniel|AmiDaniel]] ([[User talk:AmiDaniel|talk]]) 05:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== request block == |
|||
205.188.116.199 is repeating vandalism on [[Canada]]. Can we block him? (BTW, what's the procedure for asking for a block?) [[User:Xiong Chiamiov|<font color="black">Xiong Chiamiov</font>]] [[User_talk:Xiong Chiamiov|<sup><font color="black">t</font><font color="#00B300">alk</font></sup>]] [[User:Xiong Chiamiov/contact|<sup><font color="black">c</font><font color="#00B300">ontact</font></sup>]] 00:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]]. I recommend bookmarking that, actually. [[User:CaptainVindaloo|CaptainVindaloo]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainVindaloo|t]] [[Special:Contributions/CaptainVindaloo|c]] [[Special:Emailuser/CaptainVindaloo|e]]</sup> 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Very sophisticated spammer == |
|||
I've come up against a sophisticated spammer who has done the full range of spamming - images, blatantly advertisement articles for (minor) companies, link-spamming and even promotional categories! They are obviously quite aware of all kinds of wikitricks, including making a null edit to their user page so they show up as a blue link (grrr) and getting rid of speedy deletion notices. Unfortunately I was the first one to apply the "spam" warning template to their talk page so it may be quite some time before they end up stopping or being banned. So if you guys could keep an eye out on [[User:Amykocot]], that'd be great. [[User:TheGrappler|TheGrappler]] 05:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I've been watching this user for a few days now and it's quite evident that their account has been created to solely maintain 2 articles (both up for deletion) about 2 companies. Neither article should exist to begin with IMO, however this user account will revert and remove AfD notices and revert removal of link spam. User now has an IP address sockpuppet as well, [[User:70.168.56.34|70.168.56.34]]. Suggest indefinate block on both. [[User:Yankees76|Yankees76]] 20:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== One of Your Own == |
|||
Just thought I'd alert you to the fact that you've got a CVU member (see [[User:Sean gorter|user page]]) vandalizing — edit diffs are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spaully&diff=prev&oldid=60468127], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Spaully&diff=prev&oldid=60468164], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WCityMike&diff=prev&oldid=60469951]. Also, there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Aid_for_Asthma&diff=prev&oldid=60323615 this vandalism via page move] which was clear vandalism, and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Sean_gorter&diff=prev&oldid=60469504 this page move] may be vandalism or just unfamiliarity with the system. — [[User:WCityMike|'''Mike''']] • 17:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:His talk page also tries to trick you into thinking you have new messages on your talk page. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[Special:Contributions/Ginkgo100|''contribs'']]</sup> 18:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Well, there are many that do that [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-40,GGLG:en&q=+site:en.wikipedia.org+%22you+have+new+messages+(last+change)%22]. --<font style="color:#7FFFD4;">[[User:MrFish|MrFi]]</font><font color="green">[[User:MrFish/EA|s]]</font><font style="color:#7FFFD4;">[[User:MrFish|h]]</font><sup>[[User talk:MrFish|Go Fish]]</sup> 12:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Wikipedia feeds the trolls== |
|||
I read on [[Wikipedia:The_Motivation_of_a_Vandal|The Motivation of a Vandal]] that ''The motivation of a vandal ranges, but their purpose is the same; to get attention.'' Neither being a psychopathologist nor knowing any vandals, I'm not sure if this is true, but I have no strong reason to doubt it. |
|||
Wikipedia gives them attention in spades: impressive graphics with minatory messages in italic, bold, or both, and, for the real stars, even entire pages. Look, [[Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Willy_on_Wheels|heeeeeere]]'s Willy! And before I commented it out, he even had his very own little Willys graphic at the top right. Gosh, look at all those usernames he has created! And wow, look at all those other Wikis he has pissed on too! What a man! |
|||
I shan't repeat [[Wikipedia_talk:Long_term_abuse/Willy_on_Wheels#Why_I.27m_not_reporting_WoW|this comment of mine]] here, but briefly it suggested removal of anything that might aggrandize this twit. It prompted a stronger response from another user, who seems to think that the whole page might be deleted (though he/she concedes that parts of it might have some use to administrators). |
|||
I agree. I think vandals and vandalizing IP numbers should be blocked and banned rather more freely than they are now -- but that much less freely readable fuss should be made over it. Consider removing graphics from vandalism-related templates: make them say what they need to say, as coolly and concisely as possible. (If the vandal is really too slow-witted to take in anything that's not in bold, he's unlikely ever to make intelligent edits; Wikipedia doesn't need him.) Don't give the troll anything to gloat over or to show off to his pimply chums. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] 03:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:there are some problems with this. firstly, we assume good faith here. that's why the vandalism templates are called "tests" -- we assume that vandalizing is motivated by curiousity rather than malice and that strident pleas to cease will, in fact, be heeded. secondly, ip and account blocking are used as preventative rather than punitive measures. that's why most blocks are only for a couple of hours. it's to prevent an overcurious tester from causing too much damage right now. it's not to slap their wrists. now, i know there are a lot of long-term, persistant and malicious vandals out there, but if we build our policies around the actions of these people we create a more hostile and intolerant environment for everyone else. this more open/trusting model more work for the cvu? yes. but freedom and openness has a tendancy to be annoying and inconvenient... __ [[User:Frymaster|frymaster]] 17:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Agreed. This project is a ''free'' encyclopedia, after all. As for many vandals being motivated by curiosity rather than maliciousness, I found out yesterday talking to my brother (a successful computer entrepreneur and no petty thug) that he has (wince) vandalized Wikipedia himself. He says he did it to see what would happen, and was quite impressed by the immediate reversions and polite test warnings, presumably from CVU and RCP members. I hypothesize this is a more common motivation for most vandals than a desire to damage the project. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[Special:Contributions/Ginkgo100|''contribs'']]</sup> 19:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==User Pete Peters== |
|||
User Pete Peters registered yesterday and has engaged in stalking behaviour against user Arthur Ellis. Please examine his user talk and his posts. [[User:70.51.52.253|70.51.52.253]] 19:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Uh, I never vandalized anything, all I have done is point out that you are a suspected sock puupet. It is not vandalsm. This has resulted in a unrelentless attack by you. As a result, you were banned yestarday for 24 hours, under the name Arthur Ellis. Are you violating your ban with the IP 70.51.52.253? |
|||
[[User:Pete Peters|Pete Peters]] 19:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==220.237.23.86, blatant vandal== |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=220.237.23.86 See user contributions.] [[User:Abt 12|Abt 12]] 06:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Suspected vandalism == |
|||
I posted the following question at [[Wikipedia:Help desk]] and got the attached reply: |
|||
:I think that I have found some vandalism on the project, but it looks like it occurred some time ago. I would clean it up, but I'm not sure how extensive it is, and I'm not sure what is correct and what should actually be on the articles in question. Where should I report this, and what should be done next? --[[User:Brian G|Brian G]] 19:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:*Most vandalism report pages are aimed at current vandalism. You could try informing the [[WP:CVU|counter vandalism unit]] and give them as much information as possible. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 21:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
So, here are the details that I can provide. I was doing some research for an article on [[Jerry Grant]] and came upon some occurrences of the name when I did a search. It appears to me that [[User:Shaqdaddy88]] placed this name on [[Scottsbluff, Nebraska]] as a prank and made similar edits on [[Emery, South Dakota]], [[Salem, South Dakota]] and [[Geddes, South Dakota]] where he also blanked some text in a subsequent edit. It then looks like a series of other vandals have attached the "Government" section on the Geddes article. Some other associated vandalism might be found by someone upon closer examination. --[[User:Brian G|Brian G]] 21:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:It appears to me that the section from [[Geddes, South Dakota]] that the user blanked was content that he/she earlier put in there as vandalism [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geddes%2C_South_Dakota&diff=prev&oldid=43987625] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geddes%2C_South_Dakota&diff=prev&oldid=43987846]. The two edits are mere minutes apart so I suspect the user put it in but then had second thoughts and removed it. <font color="Green">[[User:Irishguy|'''IrishGuy''']]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">[[User talk:Irishguy|''talk'']]</font></sup> 21:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:: OK, [[Scottsbluff, Nebraska]], [[Emery, South Dakota]], and [[Geddes, South Dakota]] still contained vandalism, which I habe now scrubbed off. --[[User:Brian G|Brian G]] 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==IRC Channel== |
|||
I cant get access to the CVU IRC channel. Can someone help me out? --[[User:False Prophet|False Prophet]] 00:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Propaganda == |
|||
A user has been publishing some Original Research on [[Tata Consultancy Services]] with some highly controversial statements regarding the company (for instance accusing them of establishing a "slave labour culture"). This lead to a revert war between two anon users which I have now stopped is now stopped. But these statements have now been reposted to the article talk page with the caption "The section they won't let you see (please forward this to all your friends)". I am tempted to remove this from the talk page on the basis of it being propaganda, but I am not sure if this can be rightfully done on a talk pages. Does anyone know of any policies regarding this?--[[User:Konstable|Konstable]] 01:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Note: Although the editors of the page have accused me of being bribed by TCS, I have no conflict of interest here, I only heard of this company when I reverted the original research that I stumbled upon during RC patrol.--[[User:Konstable|Konstable]] 01:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Looks to be more POV issues than vandalism. Try opening an [[WP:RFC|RfC]] [[User:SB Johnny|SB Johnny]] 11:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Error using popups tool == |
|||
<s>I have been using the popups tool for some time now, and all of a sudden it has just stopped working. I went to my monobook.js page and tried to reinstall it, but the popups are still not working. Does anyone know what might have caused this; a glitch in the code, perhaps?--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|<font color="Green">'''Conrad Devonshire'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Conrad Devonshire|'''<font color="Purple">Talk</font>''']]</sup> 06:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)</s> |
|||
:Nevermind, its working now.--[[User:Conrad Devonshire|<font color="Green">'''Conrad Devonshire'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Conrad Devonshire|'''<font color="Purple">Talk</font>''']]</sup> 07:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Talk Page Removal== |
|||
[[User:ER MD|ER MD]] continues to remove warning from his talk page. His defense is that he doesn't believe he was vandalizing even though he was blanking entire sections as well as making personal insults to others. He has been blocked three times, yet he continues. You can see some of the restored warnings [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AER_MD&diff=61988650&oldid=61988255 here]. Is there any way to stop this? I know that the policy has been argued by some, but it was my understanding that while someone ''may'' remove comments (which is considered bad form) removing warnings is another thing altogether. Am I incorrect in this? <font color="Green">[[User:Irishguy|'''IrishGuy''']]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">[[User talk:Irishguy|''talk'']]</font></sup> 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Yup. He seems to be blocked at the present time, his IP was also blocked this morning. [[User:SB Johnny|SB Johnny]] 11:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== 62.237.141.28 == |
|||
Help with this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=62.237.141.28 62.237.141.28] I was monitoring Omega 3. I can revert 1 or 2 but I dont know if this is repeated offender. This is out of my league. |
|||
:[http://www.ripe.net/whois?form_type=simple&full_query_string=&searchtext=62.237.1 RIPE Whois] |
|||
--[[User:Mig77|Mig77]] 09:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Are you sure this is vandalism? The edits look legible to me.--[[User:Konstable|Konstable]] 11:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::No. I'm not sure. The snake-oil in omega-3 has been removed before, and is definately factually questionable. And the talk page on that user shows unhappiness in some other areas. But I cant tell if the guy is just a little strange or if it is just a cover for repeating offences. Like I said, I'm not a "cop". I just patrol my tiny neck-of-the-woods and try to keep it clean, and up the quality. This edit has happened before, thats why I dropped it here, sorry if its a false alarm. --[[User:Mig77|Mig77]] 12:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Perhaps just tag it with <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> and see if he comes up with a source? [[User:SB Johnny|SB Johnny]] 12:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Traced it to the original snake oil article and tagged it with <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> --[[User:Mig77|Mig77]] 15:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Andypandy.UK/Imagepatrol|ImagePatrol]] Idea/Guide == |
|||
See [[User:Andypandy.UK/Imagepatrol|Here]]. I won't link it in the vandalism policy as it's a policy and the guide is partially complete. |
|||
Constructive comments, suggestions, and ideas welcome.--<font style="background:white">[[User:Andypandy.UK|Andeh]]</font> 14:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] false signatures == |
|||
[[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] has given himself false warnings on his talk page and signed them with another user's name. Ostensibly, this is to cause trouble but regardless of his motives this is against Wiki policy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGrandmaster&diff=62324494&oldid=62324217]. Is there anything that can be done? <font color="Green">[[User:Irishguy|'''IrishGuy''']]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">[[User talk:Irishguy|''talk'']]</font></sup> 01:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Be very, very careful when examining talk pages. Grandmaster was replacing messages that had previously been removed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGrandmaster&diff=54022828&oldid=53979881]. Do not feel bad, as I have made similar mistakes, but be very careful and thorough when suspecting fraudulent user talk.--<font style="color:#7FFFD4;">[[User:MrFish|MrFi]]</font><font color="green">[[User:MrFish/EA|s]]</font><font style="color:#7FFFD4;">[[User:MrFish|h]]</font><sup>[[User talk:MrFish|Go Fish]]</sup> 11:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== How may I become a member? == |
|||
I found no link on this page's main page. [[User:NOVO-REI|NOVO-REI]] 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Welcome aboard, friend! Add yourself to [[:Category:Counter-Vandalism Unit members]]. Remember to be courteous and civil, as your behavior shall represent the entire cvu. I hope to see you around!--<font style="color:#7FFFD4;">[[User:MrFish|MrFi]]</font><font color="green">[[User:MrFish/EA|s]]</font><font style="color:#7FFFD4;">[[User:MrFish|h]]</font><sup>[[User talk:MrFish|Go Fish]]</sup> 11:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Crystal Palace F.C.]] - keep an eye == |
|||
There is some strange vandal attacking this one with ever-chaning IP addresses.--[[User:Konstable|Konstable]] 14:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:To those just dropping by - no need to bother, the page is now semi-protected.--[[User:Konstable|Konstable]] 12:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Persistent Vandals == |
|||
Hi. I'm quite new to the anti-vandalism, but I feel that [[Wikipedia is Communism]] should be one on the list of persistent ones. He's one of the few I've heard of. [[User:Kingfisherswift|King]][[User:Kingfisherswift/Esperanza|<font color="green">fish</font>]][[User talk:Kingfisherswift|<font color="brown">erswift</font>]] 15:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Funny page== |
|||
[[Image:Dc one.png|right|100px]] |
|||
This is a funny page. I '''totally''' respect what you guys are doing, and will not mock this page that much because many of the proud members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit protect my user page and my edits from vandalism. |
|||
I am just wondering if I become a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit if I can print off the Counter-Vandalism Unit decal and sew it onto my sleeve. |
|||
The WikiDefcon counter is soooo funny.... but I can't figure out any clever jokes. Any suggestions? |
|||
Juvenile jokes aside, thanks for all of you guys' hard work. Thanks a lot. |
|||
Signed:[[User:Travb|Travb]] ([[User talk:Travb|talk]]) 12:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== a tiresome vandal who's making personal attacks against me == |
|||
If anyone here is interested in helping me, I've got a vandal who believes it's fun to attack me personally. I've never met the guy (though I'm pretty sure I can tell what his name is). You can see his handiwork at [[Talk:The Great Dalmuti]] and also the history for the article [[The Great Dalmuti]]. Thanks in advance. I would like someone here to take the effort to at least temporarily block him. Thanks.--[[User:Mike Selinker|Mike Selinker]] 07:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== [[cibolo]] problem == |
|||
A vandal has vandalised cibolo(a redriect page to [[Cibolo, Texas]]) to say "Cibolo is the Spanish word for buffalo"(which it isn't btw) . He(with differn't I.P. but I think it's both the same person) did this twice I and he reverted it twice. But both times I had a problem. I went back a few minutes later and found that it said "Cibolo is the Spanish word for buffalo" I went checked the edit page to fix and it said in the edit page <nowiki>#REDIRECT [[cibolo,texas]]</nowiki>. I contacted an adim about it and I think he fixed. I thought it was bug but when happend the 2nd time I started thinking that some how a vandal is using software to cause this.--[[User:Scott3|Scott3]] 21:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:BTW I forgot to say this but when I looked on the edit page both times it said I made the last edit.--[[User:Scott3|Scott3]] 21:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Active spammer for a pay site == |
|||
[[User:67.169.19.199]] for ceramic identification |
|||
[[Special:Contributions/67.169.19.199]] |
|||
==Anon-IP's complaint== |
|||
My corrections to the tiananmen massacre page have been removed and described as vandalism. I am attempting to correct factual errors in this section. What do I need to do next? How do I address the issue of censorship of wikipedia pages? |
|||
:The removal of NPOV material and/or nonsense is not censorship. As I said on your talk page, whether or not there is confusion as to where the people were killed does not mean the event was a lie to smear China's reputation or whatever. You need to read wikipedia's guidelines on how you should phrase statements, source them, etc. [[User:John Smith's|John Smith's]] 10:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Mercola is encouraging vandlism == |
|||
http://www.mercola.com/2006/jul/18/dont_rely_on_the_wikipedia.htm |
|||
Dr. Mercola is encouraging people who read his E-news advertisment to vandalize his entry. |
|||
Not sure if this is the right place to mention so.. feel free to delete this notie if proper. - pb <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User: Pbmax| Pbmax]] ([[User talk: Pbmax|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ Pbmax|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small> |
|||
:Thanks for the tip. Someone has kindly protected the page from editing by new and anonymous users. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[Special:Contributions/Ginkgo100|''contribs'']] · <font color="green">[[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|''e@'']]</font></sup> 19:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Spammer== |
|||
{{User|144.160.5.25|User:144.160.5.25}} is spamming links to [http://movielanddirectory.com/ movielanddirectory.com] which is nothing more than a commercial ad site with links to IMDB. Every tenth or eleventh spam link, he makes a legitimate edit. I just went back to the 18th to pull all these links out of articles. Can somebody keep an eye on him? It is a real pain to have to go back multiple days removing links. <font color="Green">[[User:Irishguy|'''IrishGuy''']]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">[[User talk:Irishguy|''talk'']]</font></sup> 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Kevin Vandal? == |
|||
I've been noticing a trend in some recent anon vandals. There is at least one, maybe two or three ip/users who are going around adding in "Kevin loves (something to do with the article.)" I don't know if this is a reported long time abuser or if this is new or what, but it seems to be catching on. [[User:124.184.196.35]] has been caught doing it, and I'll see who else I can find doing it. [[User:Galactor213|Galactor213]] 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Heavy vandalism in progress / Bobby Boulders== |
|||
see [[International_Society_of_Vandals]]. Apparently numerous sockpuppets since they are not editing at the same time. [[User:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 23:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:He's back again... [[User:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 17:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Current puppet is [[TheGreatLarryBirdJersey33]]. ((blatantvandal)) tag was removed by user.[[User:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 17:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::He (Bobby Boulders) has been vandalizing on and off all day. He's also hit a number of other wikis, including Memory Alpha and the French Language Wikipedia. Suggest ArbCom hearing. [[User:Dr Chatterjee|Dr Chatterjee]] 21:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
* im kind of new to the sock puppets and huge vandalism that he has been committing, what is arb.com? |
|||
--[[User:Sopranosmob781|Sopranosmob781]] 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::ArbCom = Arbitration Committee. [[User:Dr Chatterjee|Dr Chatterjee]] 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::Yeah, actually managed to figure out the ((sockpuppet|alias)) tag. Does that auto-inform an admin cabal, or does it have to be brought up to arbcom the "old fashioned way"? If it doesn't autoinform, it probably should (I noticed it does add to the category). [[User:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 21:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Can anyone post more information about any patterns in his vandalism? --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[Special:Contributions/Ginkgo100|''contribs'']] · <font color="green">[[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|''e@'']]</font></sup> 21:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:(editconflict) Apparently they're edits to random articles, which he replaces or inserts with "This article has been liberated by..." |
|||
:He's always kind enough to vandalize this page sooner or later, so we can track his edits down.[[User:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 21:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::He seems to operate under the premise that Wikipedia is run by "fascist" administrators, and that this fact needs to be disruptively announced by blanking pages and replacing them with his manifesto. The manifesto incites other users to vandalism, and suggests that their actions (and his) are justified and "righteous." He has a very similar MO to that of the Communism Vandal, only his edits include a manifesto and essay he has authored. If anyone else can add some links or provide further clarification, please, help me out here. [[User:Dr Chatterjee|Dr Chatterjee]] 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::I don't get the impression he's serious about the manifesto thing, really. Seems like a guy just engaging in his annoying favorite pasttime :). [[User:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 21:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::I dunno. Whether he's serious or not, the manifesto is pretty long (and surprisingly well written). It's pretty nonsensical, but I get the impression its author takes it at least somewhat seriously. [[User:Dr Chatterjee|Dr Chatterjee]] 21:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::Also, apparently he has a history of adding hoax articles. His manifesto, and any sentiment behind it, probably stemmed from admins' constantly deleting his hoaxes or calling him out on them. [[User:Dr Chatterjee|Dr Chatterjee]] 21:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::One of the puppets added a hoax tag to an article earlier today...actually, that was it's first or second edit. Might be a new way of tracking him? [[User:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Could be a good tracking method. He likes to create sockpuppets with similar names (i.e., BobbyBoulders23, BobbyBoulders24, BobbyBoulders25, etc.), which makes it fairly easy to track his work. On the rare occasion when he gets creative with a sockpuppet name, his edits are easy to track once his manifesto is spotted. [[User:Dr Chatterjee|Dr Chatterjee]] 21:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I've noticed that he usually starts by adding his manifesto to this page, and than quickly goes on vandalizing other pages, usually if you keep an eye on this page, you get a good idea when he is around, and can easily track his work and block his sockpuppets. |
|||
--[[User:Sopranosmob781|Sopranosmob781]] 21:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::::True. This page and [[Hezbollah]] seem to be frequent and primary targets. [[User:Dr Chatterjee|Dr Chatterjee]] 21:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I've added a short [[WP:LTA]] entry about him and have added several of his favorite terms to [[User:Lupin/badwords]]. I've also reported the link to his Myspace page and his Yahoo! e-mail address to the Spam Blacklist, and have sent Myspace an e-mail requesting that his Myspace page (which promotes vandalism to Wikipedia and other Wikis) be shut down.--[[User:Edmonde Dantes|<font color="purple">'''The Count of Monte Cristo'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Edmonde Dantes|'''<font color="Red">Parley</font>''']]</sup> 21:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
He has a long and notorious career on hundreds of other wikis, as well. Perhaps a dedicated Long-Term Abuse sub-page is in order for him? [[User:Dr Chatterjee|Dr Chatterjee]] 21:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Maybe so, though I have mixed feelings about it. Bobby seems to be a very attention-oriented vandal, so creating a page about him might be giving him the trophie he wants an may just encourage more vandalism. If a page is created about him, it should be kept simple and unglamourous.--[[User:Edmonde Dantes|<font color="purple">'''The Count of Monte Cristo'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Edmonde Dantes|'''<font color="Red">Parley</font>''']]</sup> 02:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Agreed to some extent, but I feel that a dedicated page about Bobby would do him more harm than benefit. For one thing, it would get his name out there among the Counter-Vandalism community, and would enable people to recognize him and respond much more quickly to his outbreaks. Also, given that his pattern is extremely recognizable, a page about him would serve to educate admins and counter-vandal users about his habits, MO, etc. I think it's warranted, and will do more good than harm in the long run. [[User:Dr Chatterjee|Dr Chatterjee]] 06:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I have no programming knowledge, so I don't know if this is possible, but could a script or bot be written to search for text from his manifesto? That would help find articles he has "liberated," at least until he rewrites the manifesto. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[Special:Contributions/Ginkgo100|''contribs'']] · <font color="green">[[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|''e@'']]</font></sup> 03:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Tawker's bots are really good, maybe someone can try and contact him about this. |
|||
--[[User:Sopranosmob781|Sopranosmob781]] 03:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Just to note something I mentioned earlier, I've begun to wonder if Bobby Boulders is a new identity of Willy on Wheels. The two have many similarities.--[[User:Edmonde Dantes|<font color="purple">'''The Count of Monte Cristo'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Edmonde Dantes|'''<font color="Red">Parley</font>''']]</sup> 08:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I have created a subpage on Bobby Boulders (WP:BOBBY). Feel free to update it as needed.--[[User:Edmonde Dantes|<font color="purple">'''The Count of Monte Cristo'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Edmonde Dantes|'''<font color="Red">Parley</font>''']]</sup> 09:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Added some info to the [[WP:BOBBY]] sub page. Also tagged a few Bobby sockpuppets that emerged (and were quickly blocked) earlier today. [[User:Dr Chatterjee|Dr Chatterjee]] 18:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Is this vandalism?== |
|||
Hello there! [[User:196.207.36.121]] has been taking out what I consider to be legitimate facts from the [[2006 Qana airstrike]] article, and labelling them as "propoganda." The problem is, some of what he is removing has been somewhat borderline, e.g. some light analysis, or repeating the reaction of various groups. I think it's vandalism, but I am hesitant to label it as such, and in any case I don't need a revert war. Can someone more knowledgable than me please comment? Would that user's contribs be considered vandalism? Or should I just AGF? --[[User:Jaysweet|Jaysweet]] 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Another user apparently [[User_talk:196.207.36.121|agrees with me]], plus someone who I believe based on context to be the same individual is making accusations on [[User:Jaysweet|my user page]] that he/she refuses to justify. Is this enough to report as vandalism and take action against? --[[User:Jaysweet|Jaysweet]] 21:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Vandalism in Progress == |
|||
I just reverted the vandalised page [[Anime]]. The vandal, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.64.223.203 24.64.223.203], seems to have other uncorrected vandalisms, for example at [[Edward VIII of the United Kingdom]] which I did not revert. I have to get back to my day job and so can't go through his/her/its edits to see what else is still uncorrected. Someone should take this up. My apologies for not having time at the present. --[[User:128.125.196.55|128.125.196.55]] 21:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Checked it. Its a shared IP for [[Shaw Communications]], all of the contribs I checked are good. Thanks for the heads-up though. [[User:CaptainVindaloo|CaptainVindaloo]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainVindaloo|t]] [[Special:Contributions/CaptainVindaloo|c]] [[Special:Emailuser/CaptainVindaloo|e]]</sup> 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== A Group to watch == |
|||
Possibly sockpuppets, but more likely at least 2 users behind it. Check the "mischievious" commentors on [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butlin]]... they've been uploading and replacing images on various article pages. [[User:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> <s>16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC) </s> (Oops, put this on [[WP:WPSPAM]] by accident... belongs here) |
|||
== Stephen Colbert / Bobby Boulders Connection(?) == |
|||
I'm hearing rumors that [[Stephen Colbert]] acknowledged, and possibly even stated his support for Bobby Boulders and/or his "International Society of Vandals" on a recent show. Can anyone confirm or deny this rumor's validity? If true, the attention no doubt emboldened Bobby, and we should be on the lookout for a heavy wave of Bobby-style vandalism soon. [[User:Dr Chatterjee|Dr Chatterjee]] 17:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
-Ive noticed while scrolling through some of the recent vandals that there have been alot of vandalism that has been trying to sneak through, with stuff about "elephants" like this one [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temple_elephants&oldid=67055129]], I wonder if his show has led to this or if Bobby is behind these too. --[[User:Sopranosmob781|Sopranosmob781]] 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::I watch the Colbert Report quite often, though not religiously, and I have not heard him ever mention Bobby Boulders or Wikipedia vandalism. Was this recent? I should still have the last week or so of the Report still on my TiVo, so I can take a look when I get home.. --[[User:Jaysweet|Jaysweet]] 20:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I have also heard that Colbert encouraged viewers to vandalize articles, specifically about [[elephant]]s. This has shown up even on the [[WP:RD/S|Science Reference Desk]]. Also, this comment currently appears on [[Talk:Stephen Colbert]]: ''As of 31 JUL 2006, the article page associated with this talk page was featured on The Colbert Report, a popular television show.'' Also see [[THE NUMBER OF ELEPHANTS HAS TRIPLED IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS!]] --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[Special:Contributions/Ginkgo100|''contribs'']] · <font color="green">[[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|''e@'']]</font></sup> 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I'm an avid Colbert fan, and I haven't seen him say anything about approving Wikipedia edits aside from the elephant incident. [[User:EVula|EVula]] 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:[[List of The Colbert Report episodes]] notes that "Wikiality," which aired July 31, contained the exhortation to add false information to Wikipedia. There is nothing there about a Bobby Boulders connection. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[Special:Contributions/Ginkgo100|''contribs'']] · <font color="green">[[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|''e@'']]</font></sup> 21:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Here is an article about what happened: http://spring.newsvine.com/_news/2006/08/01/307864-stephen-colbert-causes-chaos-on-wikipedia-gets-blocked-from-site. - [[User:Akamad|Akamad]] 21:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::LOL! That's great! It would have been more fun if he was blocked while the final show was being taped :). Was it really Tawker, or was it Tawkerbot? |
|||
:::As the saying goes, any press is good press. I wonder how many people got on to experiment a bit, and discovered that ''anyone really'' '''''can''''' ''edit''. I saw the elephant thing too on newpage patrol... was wondering what that was about. Makes you really appreciate the genius behind those friendly ((test)) tags. --[[User:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 23:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Bobby at Large Again (sigh) == |
|||
Vandalizing the wiki templates this time around. Be on the lookout. [[User:Dr Chatterjee|Dr Chatterjee]] 17:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:I just had an idea! No, don't run away and hide! Can't the Tawkerbots be set to treat any mention of 'BOBBY BOULDERS' or 'INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF VANDALS' like any old swearword and revert it? (ignore me if this has already been done) [[User:CaptainVindaloo|CaptainVindaloo]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainVindaloo|t]] [[Special:Contributions/CaptainVindaloo|c]] [[Special:Emailuser/CaptainVindaloo|e]]</sup> 18:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Location for IP#69.44.58.97 == |
|||
Copied from [[Wikipedia talk:WoW]]; posted by [[User:Firehawk1717|Firehawk1717]]: |
|||
''I decided to go googling, and i found that one of Willy on Wheels suspected IP addresses (69.44.58.97) is near 5150 Broadway, San Antonio, Texas. Someone check it out, and we can get him arrested. Vandalism is a crime, you know. Thanks [http://centralops.net/co/DomainDossier.aspx?dom_whois=1&net_whois=1&dom_dns=1&addr=69.44.58.97 Centralops]. And thanks [http://www.worldlingo.com/S1790.5/translation?wl_srclang=NL&wl_trglang=en&wl_url=http://www.idealog.nl/article/246/Jan_Molendijk_Neuro_Revolutions.html Idea.nl] (2nd link goes to translated version)'' |
|||
What do you make of it?--[[User:Edmonde Dantes|<font color="purple">'''The Count of Monte Cristo'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Edmonde Dantes|'''<font color="Red">Parley</font>''']]</sup> 20:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
===Quick poll=== |
|||
'''If it's possible to do, should Willy (or Bobby, etc.) be arrested?''' |
|||
*'''Oppose''' - He's not evil, he's just annoying. People shouldn't go to jail for being annoying. [[User:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 23:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' - There's a fairly famous quote that I'll paraphrase here: "You can't legislate stupidity." Online vandalism may be annoying, but as far as I know, there is no law against disruption or 'vandalism' of open-source web sites like the Wikis. Wikipedia pays a price for being openly editable by everyone, and that price is the Bobbies and Willies of the world. I'm not saying their actions are justified, but I don't see how their actions are illegal in the technical sense. [[User:Dr Chatterjee|Dr Chatterjee]] 23:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Also, we need to keep in mind that not all instances of such vandals as Willy on Wheels are necessarily the work of the same individual. In the case of someone as long-term and as notorious as Willy, for example, it's almost a given that many of the edits attributed to Willy were the work of imitators or fans. There is really no good, reliable way to isolate widespread vandalism to any one person. Unless a vandal were stupid enough to edit from the same IP every time and never register an account, that is. [[User:Dr Chatterjee|Dr Chatterjee]] 23:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, from what I've heard, the original Willy is from somewhere in England (and his grammer testifies to that). {{unsigned|Edmonde Dantes}} |
|||
*'''Comment''' - And also, I'm not an expert on how the IP system works, but I wonder if this is even reliable information based on how IPs are assigned.--[[User:Edmonde Dantes|<font color="purple">'''The Count of Monte Cristo'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Edmonde Dantes|'''<font color="Red">Parley</font>''']]</sup> 00:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:What it comes down to is that there are just too many factors working against the prosecution of any Wikipedia vandal or group of vandals. For one, tracking down a vandal is frought with difficulties. Beyond that, finding concrete proof of their actions is equally difficult. And finally, there seems to be no legal precident that criminalizes Wikipedia vandalism in the first place. Wikipedia is open-sourced; it is the online equivalent of a giant chalk board. You can't arrest people for "vandalizing" the chalk board by writing on it with the chalk you provide them -- no matter how silly or offensive their writing may be. [[User:Dr Chatterjee|Dr Chatterjee]] 00:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::But we're not going to let him clean the erasers, of course (to extend the wonderful chalkboard analogy). They're really not doing any actual harm... it all gets reverted pretty quickly. Best approach in handling them is to keep your sense of humor, and enjoy the challenge of being in the CVU. --[[User:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 01:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' As much as I'd ''love'' to see persistent vandals removed from the equation and/or society, this isn't 100% absolutely reliable. Add to that the fact that vandalizing Wikipedia, while obviously ''bad'', isn't illegal. [[User:EVula|EVula]] 04:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Ongoing vandalism == |
|||
A single user with puppets or possibly a group, see the [[Talk:Floral_Park%2C_New_York#Request_for_Comment:_.22Loose_Change_Crew.22|this RfC]]. Apparently vandalizing [[Floral Park, New York]], and [[Gang]]. --[[User:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 01:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Tricky vandal... admin attention needed == |
|||
{{User|Qmwnebrvtcyxuz}} has been removing markup tags from numerous articles (including an AfD article I was watching). Looked over his contribs, and several articles have been edited since, apparently not realizing the vandalism had occurred. [[User:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 22:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== But I'm not a vandal == |
|||
I made my first trivial edit a while back, happened to look for it and found that it's been reverted and marked as vandalism. |
|||
What am I supposed to do? Just edit it back again? <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Somerandomnerd|Somerandomnerd]] ([[User talk:Somerandomnerd|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Somerandomnerd|contribs]]) {{{2|}}}.</small> |
|||
:I looked up your edit and it appears you changed a statement in a Star Wars article. You did not provide a reference for the statement, and probably another user incorrectly believed it was vandalism. It may help to know that that user failed to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. If you change it back, be sure to include a link to the source. Take a look at [[WP:V]] and [[WP:CITE]] and feel free to ask if you have any other questions. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[Special:Contributions/Ginkgo100|''contribs'']] · <font color="green">[[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|''e@'']]</font></sup> 23:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Something interesting I've noticed about CapnCrack == |
|||
Recently on the page about the vandal [[WP:CK|CapnCrack]] I posted a sentence which tried to explain his motive for vandalism (based on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ALong_term_abuse%2FCapnCrack&diff=61803235&oldid=61321459|a a post he made to the page himself]). The sentence I added stated that he is gay and vandalises the page [[Oklahoma Christian University]] because it is intolerant of homosexuals (though the above edit only states that he dislikes the school's stance on homosexuality, not that he is gay himself). This vandal obviously dislikes being called "gay", as twice he has removed this sentence from the page (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/CapnCrack&diff=prev&oldid=67838692] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/CapnCrack&diff=prev&oldid=67698653]). Even though it isn't completely accurate, I am wondering if keeping that sentence on the page will be beneficial, as it will cause CapnCrack to spend his time removing it instead of vandalising elsewere. What do you think about this?--[[User:Edmonde Dantes|<font color="purple">'''The Count of Monte Cristo'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Edmonde Dantes|'''<font color="Red">Parley</font>''']]</sup> 03:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:Nah, on second thought, it might just encourage more vandalism, so I'm going to remove the part that says he's gay.--[[User:Edmonde Dantes|<font color="purple">'''The Count of Monte Cristo'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Edmonde Dantes|'''<font color="Red">Parley</font>''']]</sup> 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Um, why would that matter in the first place? [[User:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 01:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
:::Because he doesn't like being refered to as "gay".--[[User:Edmonde Dantes|<font color="purple">'''The Count of Monte Cristo'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Edmonde Dantes|'''<font color="Red">Parley</font>''']]</sup> 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::::Maybe he isn't. I just don't see the relevance of a vandal's sexual preference. (Or pretty much anythng else about the vandal aside from their propensity for and method of vandalizing). --[[User:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 01:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Two of several possibilities: Either he's gay but stating he is doesn't distract him from his vandalism; or he isn't, and stating he is incites him to more vandalism. Either way, I can't see that making unsourced statements, whether the vandal or any other reader would consider them positive, negative, or neutral, would necessarily be beneficial in terms of reducing vandalism. --[[User:Ginkgo100|Ginkgo100]] <sup>[[User talk:Ginkgo100|''talk'']] · [[Special:Contributions/Ginkgo100|''contribs'']] · <font color="green">[[User:Ginkgo100/Esperanza|''e@'']]</font></sup> 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Virtually unmonitored vandalism == |
|||
Hello, CVU. I have an alarming request to make. The Image, Image talk, Portal, and Category namespaces are '''extremely''' underpatrolled (Img and Img talk especially). I frequently find that vandalism and general bad edits go unreverted for hours, days, or even months. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Tipton.jpg&action=history This] is one extreme example of uncaught bad edits, as far as duration is concerned (I realized that it was 3 months and not 7 months after I had edited). It is common to see more damaging vandalism and nonsense go unnoticed, to the point where it could damage Wikipedia's integrity if it gets into the wrong hands. I have my revert sprees every now and then, but I am only one person. I request that it be broadcast to RC patrollers to saturate these namespaces with checks for vandalism, nonsense, and bad editing. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&hideliu=1&namespace=6 This] is a good way to do it, but it doesn't catch everything. Thanks. —[[User:BazookaJoe|BazookaJoe]] 03:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 15:53, 8 August 2006
THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LIBERATED BY BOBBY BOULDERS
Long live the International Society of Vandals (ISV)!
To join the ISV, please e-mail Bobby Boulders at: imwithbobby @ yahoo.com
Declaration of Ongoing War Against Wikipedia: 8/8/06
On this great day of August 8, in the Year of Our Lord 2006, the Good and Righteous leader Bobby Boulders has issued a continued Holy War against Wikipedia, as punishment for its members' insubordination and resistence to our valliant vandalism efforts. We will NOT rest until their entire Wiki is destroyed. Heaven be praised!
Our legions are vast, our numbers in the hundreds, and your Wiki will crumble before our might!
God is Great!
Signed,
J. Robert Boulders,
Acting President and Spiritual Leader,
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF VANDALS
Mission Statement
ON VANDALISM
An Essay by Bobby Boulders
President, International Society of Vandals
What drives the Wikimedia vandal to action? What makes him or her tick? The current Administration of the various Wikimedia portals would have you believe that vandals act simply out of a need for attention. They seek to disrupt the ease and functionality of information exchange via the Wikimedia. And they seek to do this only “because they can.”
On a basic level, this concept is true. The majority of so-called “vandals” on the Wikimedia sites vandalize to get a rise out of their peers, or to be clever, cute, funny, or ridiculous. They seek little more than the fleeting attention their handiwork will generate before its inevitable reversion or removal. It is plainly obvious that such vandals are endemic to the Wikimedia, and will remain so, as long as the Wikimedia remain open-source sites, freely capable of being edited by any and all passing users. Primal, unconstructive vandalism is quick, easy, and will always be so.
Vandalism will always remain “easy,” but it needn’t always be unconstructive. Indeed, if bent to just purposes, vandalism of the Wikimedia can be a powerful political tool. We at the International Society of Vandals believe, quite firmly, that vandalism should be constructive in nature. It should serve a greater purpose. It should be done not in bad faith, but with positive, rehabilitative intent. We vandalize to bring about positive and pure change to the Wikimedia system.
What change do we seek? To be blunt, we strive for nothing less than the overthrow of the current Administration of the Wikimedia, and their replacement by more fair, balanced, and philanthropic Administrators. Like the common Frenchmen rebelling against their tyrannical government in the French Revolution, we believe quite strongly in the essence, spirit, and future of our “nation.” Indeed, we value the free exchange of information on the Wikimedia more highly than any of the Administrators do. And we believe that, only by removing or forcing the ouster of these fascist and tyrannical Administrators, can information once again flow freely.
The Administrators have gone too far. They have become cliquish, catty, fascist, and above all, self-interested. They have demonstrated, time and again, that they are not motivated by Good and Righteous desires to aid and continue the freedom of information and aggregation on the Wikimedia. Rather, they are interested only in reverting people’s edits, restricting the flow of new information, and resisting any and all change to the status quo of articles as they currently exist.
Science has taught us that information is not static. One can never know the sum total of all there is to know about any given subject. Likewise, to think that any given Wikimedia article needs no further revision – as seems to be the belief and practice of Administrators – is to spit in the face of Progress and Education.
And thus, our mission is made clear. We will continue to vandalize. We will continue to rebel against tyranny. We will continue, and we will NOT stop, until our goals have been achieved, and the current Administrators of Wikipedia are dethroned. We will disrupt and destroy all Wikimedia sites, piece by piece, until the owners of the Wikimedia sites have lost all faith in the Administrators to execute their jobs effectively. And once those Administrators are terminated from their duties, we will rest. And we will know peace, freedom, liberty, equality, and Progress.