Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit: Difference between revisions

; Archives
	October 2005 – November 2005; November 2005 – December 2005; December 2005 – January 2006; January–February 2006; February–July 2006; August–October 2006; October 2006 - February 2007; February 2007 - June 2007;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:40, 10 August 2007

This page was previously nominated for deletion:

Speedy keep, 23 June 2006
Speedily deleted, 29 August 2006
Deletion overturned, 2 September 2006.
Keep, 10 September 2006
Speedy Deleted and Speedy Restored 09 August 2007

ACHTUNG

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

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

I suggest you read up on WP:VANDALISM. The place you're looking for is WP:AIV - but please read the guidelines first. Waggers 14:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I added his name to the list of repeat offenders (does that sound too dramatic?), so hopefully action will soon be taken. --MKnight9989 14:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see what that is! J-stan ^Talk 02:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's seen the light. Hallelujah. haha. Clever vandalism, don't ya think. --MKnight9989 13:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original, yes. Clever, perhaps. At least it wasn't something like "I'M THE COOLEST AWESOMEST PERSON EVER" or the names of who dies in the recent harry potter book. That's getting a little old. J-stan ^Talk 14:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said brother. --MKnight9989 14:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Task forces

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

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

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

Machine Learning and Vandalism Detection

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

Kenxle 14:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Kenxle[reply]

I think Wikipedia needs "Deputies"

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

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

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

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

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

Such ideas have been proposed before, but they generally are not accepted. The reason is that if you can trust a user to not abuse this, why aren't they an admin? Vandals have to be warned before being blocked, all the way to test4. Inevitably this power would be used before that more often then admins violate that rule. It also creates a whole new level of bureaucracy to go along with granting the right, etc. Prodego ^talk 19:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why they would not be an admin is because RFA is broken. MessedRocker (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Why aren't they an admin?" is an easy question to answer. Like I said, I, for example, would probably not succeed in an RfA because I have not contributed enough new material to mainspace articles, and from my experience that's one of the things people like to see from a potential admin -- that you've "paid your dues" so to speak. I just don't have the time to put together the kind of solid references I would want to see in a mainspace article, yet I think checking my contrib history makes it pretty clear I could be "trusted" not to abuse a 5-minute block power. I'm sure there are probably hundreds of users out there who fit the same criteria (i.e. they like reading Wikipedia and catch a lot of vandalism-in-progress as a result, but can't spend enough dedicated time to do the sort of research required to make quality additions to the mainspace).

The extra layer of bureaucracy you mention (not to mention the effort to implement such a feature in the software) I think is what ultimately kills the idea. But I wanted to float it anyway cuz it's always been on my mind. heh... --Jaysweet 19:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think one could make an argument that there are certain situations that would justify a very short block (e.g. 1 or 2 minutes) even before reaching test4. If somebody sprays a racial slur over four pages at once, do you give them a test1 and wait for them to do it twice more (perhaps hitting far more than two more pages, maybe hitting 8 or 10) before you WP:AIV?

That's another problem I see with Wikipedia's anti-vandal policy, in an admittedly noble effort to not WP:BITE, the policy doesn't have enough teeth against blatantly malicious vandals. It's one thing if an elementary school kid blanks an article and replaces it with "I like pie." We'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But if somebody blanks a page with a blatantly racist or homophobic message, are we seriously saying that if we are patient we can reform this person into a serious editor?! heh... --Jaysweet 19:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be via WP:IAR but if somone is mass-vandalising pages they may get a block from me before any warnings. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Whitespace

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

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

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

Might I suggest using Twinkle. It has a few buttons to rollback and report vandalism. It doesn't work in Internet explorer. In the meantime, I'll report xem to AIV. Thanks, Informant. We need more of you (But not really). Would you consider joining the project, and a taskforce for it? See above for a few details, but the basic idea is to create a small, loosely organized group of editors who take info like yours and use their preferred type of vandal-thwacking to combat it. If you have questions, then post on my talk page. J-stan ^Talk 02:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why's there a link to sockpupperty in your message? Oyster guitarist 02:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was using it for humor. By saying we need more of him, it was making it seem like we needed more sock puppets of him. Just a joke. J-stan ^Talk 02:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I get it now. Oyster guitarist 02:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance sought

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

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

Massive Vandalism in the Youruba Mainpage

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

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

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

Sure. J-stan ^Talk 22:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Help/Advice for Gahanna article

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

You probably want WP:AIV. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 05:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation: New Leaf Discussion

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

Can i join here?

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

Yep, anybody can join, except vandals. Add your name and userbox to join. Also, new posts should go on the bottom. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 02:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling up the reserves

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

Inactive?

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

Check out WP:AN, there's a discussion on there. --Deskana (banana) 23:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just commented on there I didn't mean to wheel anyone (although it looks like wheeling was welcomed) after seeing this (never would have gone to find out why a project satus was changing on the admin noticeboard instead of right here first. Typically project endigns are Active Project --> Inactive Project / Completed Project ---> Historical Project. I think we should try out normal step two (inactive) first to see if the members are still interested in running this. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sending out a member notice to gather project members feel for inactivity. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still consider myself to be a member but I'm on an extended Wikibreak at the moment (only dropping in and out occasionally) but I intend to resume my duties as a member as soon as I return. AlanD 00:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely active. If someone can summarize why the project would be disbanded, and what (if any) alternatives are being implemented, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! ^Ariel♥Gold 03:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I indicated on the main page that everything CVU used to do is pretty much taken care of by recent changes patrol. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

This is a Wikiproject. Just like any other Wikiproject, the project page contains useful information for its members. Just like any other Wikiproject, that information is replicated elsewhere in Wikipedia. That is not a reason for closing the project down or redirecting the project page.
There are some users who don't like the name of this Wikiproject. That being the case, a new name can be proposed and discussed here; if/when consensus is reached, the project can be renamed. That's very different to closing the project altogether.
Stability and inactivity are two different things. The project page is fairly stable, and is not edited much at the moment. That does not mean the page is redundant, nor does it mean the project is inactive. As with a lot of other Wikiprojects, the talk page is where a lot of the action happens, and this talk page is pretty active. Waggers 08:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the name is an issue from what I understand. I remember in one of my postings recently I mentioned where the name came from. The only issue I remember that I had was the use of the Wikimedia owned trademarks, but that has been long solved now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Press coverage

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

Who can join here?

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

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

Up for MFD Again

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

Why? Seems it's been speedy kept in the past. Don't really understand the point of the nom. Leuko 15:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 148: / Line 148: @@
 ::You must be kidding about this project being inactive. The scope of the CVU goes far beyond that of just this page. The activities we engage in in regards to reverting vandalism and cleansing its possible long standing effects are what this entire project is all about. Making this project "historical", "inactive", deleting it, or renaming it is completely unnecessary and I wonder why it was even called for. Come to think of it, doing so is just plain silly. [[User:Evilgohan2|<span style="color: #DD0000">ⒺⓋⒾ</span><span style="color: #AA0000">ⓁⒼⓄ</span><span style="color: #660000">ⒽⒶⓃ</span><span style="color: #330000">②</span>]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Evilgohan2|talk]]</sup> 17:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
+I agree with the above.  Whole heartedly.  The idea of the CVU being inactive is quite comical.  We had our laughs...time to knock off this nonsense. '''[[User:Ganfon|<font color="Blue">Gan</font>]][[User Talk:Ganfon|<font color="Green">fon</font>]]''' 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 == Press coverage ==