Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Contents

Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges

Discussion is kicking off again over proposals to grant rollback privileges seperately to adminship, with lower requirements than typical on RfA. I'm sure this is something many CVU members would be interested in. the wub "?!" 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I greatly endorse the implementation of this policy. -MegamanZero|Talk 20:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Kind of related. It seems the god-mode light script, which many in CVU seem to use, screws up HTML tags in articles when it's used to rollback. I do not know if this is a known bug. But I guess for now I'll try to do manual reverts until this policy is accepted and IF I am accepted by it. -- SneltrekkerMy Talk 14:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I haven't used godmode-light since I got my mop, but I know this was a problem with an earlier version. Was this an issue with someone using an older copy or does it look like it's popped up again? Looking at Sam Hocevar's site, it looks like the script was updated on 9 January 2006. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, that's the problem, I'm using an old version of the script. -- SneltrekkerMy Talk 17:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • godmode-light always crashes when I try to use it (Failure to parse XML); having roll-back privs without the other sysop/admin privs would be very helpful, IMO. Avi 17:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I still think that reversion is a right that should only be granted to admins, anyone can become a member of the CVU with a simple user template and it would be an invaluable tool for vandals. I have no problems with manual reversion, until the day when I get nominated for adminship... haz (user talk) 18:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I now use godmode-light which is just as good as admin reversion. haz (user talk) 20:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, to the end user it's comparable, but really what that script does is automates opening up the old page in history, putting in the edit summary, and pressing "Edit this page". The admin revert button actually does a completely separate action from the server's side, and it creates less server strain. It's a helpful tool, but it's not "just as good". (Please note that this message has absolutely NO JEALOUSY involved due to this user's inability to ever get that script to work before he became an admin. ABSOLUTELY NONE. You'd be crazy for thinking that... *shifty eyes*) Mo0[talk] 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I still cannot get that blasted script to run. Oh well, just means all I add in the edit summary is "rvv" for now. 8-) Avi 22:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Charter

CVU does have members, as evidenced by the Counter Vandalism Unit Member category and subpages. So why do we state there are no members of the group? --nihon 23:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

CVU membership - dissolved not dissolved

CVU membership is hereby disolved. This does not mean CVU is a thing of the past it is just undergoing a major reform due to circumstances. Some people think they are exempt from wikipedia policies for being CVU members. Such people only use or attempt to use CVU to satisfy their ego and act like complete idiots. I had this in mind since I was accused of sockpuppetary at a revert war on WP:AGF (I love the irony). I have no idea who the RV war was engaged by, probably a vandal trying to get me blocked or something which could very well be marmot. I suspect marmot for almost every vandal/troll attack I recieve as its likely true. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this. As there is no leadership of CVU (based on the recent elections), I don't think one person should be able to dissolve CVU on a whim just because one or two individuals are acting poorly, or because you're feeling bad because you were accused of being a sock puppet. If someone is abusing the site, they should be blocked or banned, regardless of CVU membership status. This is just a kneejerk reaction and accomplishes nothing. --nihon 00:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nihon. I have absolutely no idea what all this is about, but Cool Cat you don't have the right to destroy CVU like this, even if you did create it. If you have concerns with the behaviour of specific users then by all means take it up with them or take it to RFC. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 00:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I have found some of the actions of some people who identify as CVU members at times embarrasing and unhelpful. I have also at times found some of the pretentious discussion, quasi-military attitudes, and attempts to introduce unneccesary process into this group to also be a bit silly. More than once, I've considered removing myself from the list of members. I've stayed because as an informal group of interested Wikipedians working to combat vandalism, I have found the resources and information to be helpful on occasion, as well as identifying some fellow editors that might feel the same way as I do.
This seems like a good time for interested people to discuss how to keep this group as more of an informal, self-identifying grouping of Wikipedians working against vandalism and sharing resources - and how to move away from some of the more silly and frankly juvenile actions of the past. This group doesn't need a "leader", and it doesn't need to pretend to be anything more than what it is - a grouping of like-minded people working to help make Wikipedia better. --Krich (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I have not disolved CVU (nor have found it), I only am saying we will no longer have a 'formal' list of members etc. As far as true CVUers are concerned nothing changed. There are people who make liabous statements, act like dicks, cause problems, and think they have every right to do so. The halo they are causing is destroying CVU slowly by polarising a community against CVU. Such people are likely vandals or clueless newbies. Either way CVU needs to be pruified from such problems. We either get rid of membership or need arbitrary rules for membership which I am not keen on as I would likely not meet the criteria. --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that you made this decision alone, without discussion here on the talk page first. I do respect the fact that you created this group, but things do revolve around consensus on Wikipedia, not personal fiat.
I'm afraid I also disagree with your last sentence. All "membership" means is that someone has self-identified with the goals of this project. That's just fine. No additional membership rules or instruction-creep-like processes need to be introduced. People act like dicks sometimes. They get called on it. No big whoop. The only other category I belong to is the Recent Change Patroller thing - lots of people in that cat act like dicks on occassion as well, but that doesn't mean we need to delete the category. Just call the dicks on their dickery, and move on. Feeling that some special process or qualification is needed for this group is part of why some folks think CVU is a means to self-aggrandize themselves. People who do that are seen for what they are, and special membership qualifications won't help - nor will removing what can be a helpful Wikipedian category, in my opinion. --Krich (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Director idea backfired, I wanted CVU to handle its own affairs and directors take care of trolls and other idiots but parts of the community declared CVU a military organisation with that. CVU is bounded to be destroyed without community support. We are supposed to be a body that solely exists "for great encycylopedia". You cannot foreibly do "good", thats the boundry of "road to hell is paved with good obsessions" territory. --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to come up with some simple statements of what CVU is and does, and then go with what Krich said above and let people self-identify with the group or not. Even if CVU was created by one person, one person can no longer make unilateral decisions which affect the entire group. The category does not need to be deleted, and membership does not need to be "removed". CVU is useful, regardless of the relatively small number of people who seem to have it out for us. There should be no requirements for CVU other than a desire to help make WP a better place by reverting vandalism as quickly as possible. As long as we make it clear that CVU members are no better or different than any other WP editor, I don't see any reason to "dissolve" CVU.

I also think that anyone who wants to keep CVU membership around needs to go here and vote Keep so that the few editors that have it out for the group don't get us knocked out. --nihon 06:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering that of those editors who have commented on this issue, so far only one has argued for removing the CVU membership category, I'm going to temporarily remove the "dissolved" statement that was added earlier. If the discussion and consensus moves toward getting rid of the category (or I guess if it is deleted at the CfD discussion), the statement can be re-added. --Krich (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the CVU is a WikiProject in all but name. No doubt we'd be considerably less controversial with a name like WikiProject:Vandalism Monitoring and Prevention. WP:VMP is even available! In any case, because we are so much like a WikiProject, I am firmly opposed to any sort of policy that attempts to establish requirements for membership. The only things we should ask of potential members is that they be willing to roll up their sleeves and shovel the shit while at the same time not slinging it at anyone else. We should have self-declared members, too, since it helps establish a community. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider, and one who finds the manner in which much of the way in which the CVU has conducted itself in the past quite annoying and off-putting, can I say that an informal group would be far better. Use Wikipedia:RC Patrol. Create a category Category:User RC Patrol. Hell, create a userbox if you want to. You don't need to be a "member" or a "community" to fight vandalism. As Nike would say, "just do it". You don't need lists of members, charters or anything else. You just need people who say that they are committed to fighting vandalism. This has the added benefit of not being misleading to newcomers to Wikipedia who think you have to be a "member" of CVU to fight vandalism, even though it explicitly says you don't have to. If you work in such a manner, you will find that the community becomes much more amenable. The way to get on better with the greater community is not to say "up yours" and ignore them. It is to listen and find a way to work together for the greater good of the encyclopaedia. [[Sam Korn]] 15:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, since the CVU is not even an "official" organization sponsored by the Foundation, we're already an informal group. There is no one person who is in charge of the group, there are no real requirements to join the group other than the basic "roll up your sleeves and get to work without causing problems" mentioned several times by different people already. Yes, there appear to have been some editors who think being a member of CVU somehow makes them better or more special, but we generally try to deal with those individuals as best we can. I personally haven;t seen any of the CVU editors telling anyone "up yours" and ignoring someone just because they are a member of CVU. All the people I've been working with have trying to "work together for the greater good of the encyclopedia," just as you said. --nihon 16:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally agree more or less with Cool Cat. I've always perceived and treated CVU as a loose collection of Wikipedia editors who have a strong feeling about preventing and removing vandalism, although I have no problem with the concept of membership in terms of people who declare themselves in meeting those ends, I do have a problem when it start being perceived as anything more than that loose collection of editors. I believe use of a category in itself is a move away from that perception, so I voted to remove the category and stand by that. I also believe that the number of people identifying themselves as CVU members has also caused a problem, without a formal structure procedure for removal etc. etc. we do end up with a problem as Cool Cat describes, many people identifying themselves under the CVU banner but probably causing more trouble than they contribute to the general goals of the other CVU "members". To that end I can only see two ways forward, a formalisation of CVU (which I don't see as workable nor desirable) or as Cool Cat suggests a removal of the current "membership" concept and making it quite clear that everyone is acting on their individual initative and fully accountable for their own actions.

I can also see that Cool Cat != CVU, but to many he is perceived as just that and he has also made an enormous contribution to CVU. As such he does get criticised by others for the actions of those he has no control or influence over (probably some he's never heard of before). I certainly wouldn't want Cool Cat to feel he has to basically walk away from this to distance himself from that unfair criticism, so I certainly believe we need to consider Cool Cat's opinion carefully and face that major reform may well be in order. --pgk(talk) 17:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Editors who are misbehaving should be dealt, regardless of a CVU logo or category on their userpages. There are things that are more useful for people loosely identifying with this project^H^H^H^H^H^H^H cause, such as the IRC channel, notice lists on here, etc. Many editors simply want to contribute, preferably in a vandal free environment, but do not want to actually have to deal with mopping it up. Our collective helps to make things better for everyone. I'm all for removing any List of participants or labeling the category as such, but feel there is nothing wrong with someone who chooses to identify themselves with this endeavor. Could this whole conversation be as simple as changing the userbox logos from "This user is a member of the Counter Vandalism Unit" to something like "This user participates in Counter Vandalism"? I'm still in favor of the markers and categories. xaosflux Talk/CVU 18:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Having though at bit further I suppose what I was saying above is that CVU is not a formal organisation, so having a formal membership seems out of place. Maybe CVU should be retitled and made more clear it's just a meeting point for those interested in anti-vandalism work and as per Xaosflux let people put userboxes saying "this user is an active vandal fighter" on their pages if they want. We also should remember that there are lots of anti-vandal editors who do not associate themselves with CVU, so a more neutral userpage decoration maybe more appropriate anyway. --pgk(talk) 18:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't look at an user's userboxes or WikiProject membership when dealing with vandals or trolls. I don't care if you call yourself a member of the CVU, if you did something blockable, a block is coming your way. This is an overblown issue. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree Titoxd, if someone does something worthy of a ban they should get it, regarless of being a cvu member, an anon, or even a sysop. There have been a VERY few instances where I didn't revert some large blanking, partially due to a cvu marker on the blanker's page (of course not all blanking is vandalism, and I try not to revert anything without good reason, but) it helped speed me on to the next article for editing or review.) xaosflux Talk/CVU 19:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that's exactly the point though. The indivduals are acting on their own account, yet we are finding that some people are lumping it together as CVU activity. It's not a formal organisation so why retain a formal membership? --pgk(talk) 20:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Afraid I can't buy that argument. The same can be said for the subjects of most WikiProjects, and yet most have member lists, and many include their own categories. It makes it easier to call for help or conference on topics. I'm saying this from the perspective of someone who doesn't do the IRC thing and therefore can't rely on that as a method of communicating with other members. The fact of the matter is there are many project space articles all over the place that talk about dealing with vandalism, but they are painfully decentralized. That is why I think a user entity like the CVU not only needs to exist, but it's important to associate faces (or signatures at least!) with it. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
That's what Wikipedia:RC Patrol did until CVU came in. My main gripe against CVU is its very title; the "Unit" is misleading, giving the impression of a set of Wikipedians who are detailed to fight vandalism. It suggests that Wikipedians are given specific rôles to play, and, by extrapolation, that they cannot perform others. While I fully understand that this isn't the intention, it is nonetheless an effect that exists. Out of curiosity, why do you need faces/signatures to associate with? This isn't a social club, after all. [[Sam Korn]] 20:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Nope, it's not a social club, but we're not working in a vacuum, either. It is a community, and having a list helps me more easily associate people with patterns and methods. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that the discussion has been pretty one-sided so far - in a good way. I haven't really seen anyone recently who wants this group to be some sort of quasi-official group, in any shape or fashion. Suggestions by a few to move in that direction have been dismissed in the past. So far, I see a fairly universal consensus for keeping the group as an informal project page where resources and tips for fighting vandals can be shared. I know that when I first came to Wikipedia, having all that anti-vandal information in one place was handy for a new person who wanted to contribute in this way. If anything, the movement here is toward making CVU even more informal, more like the Welcoming Committee or other casual associations.
I think Xaosflux's idea of slightly modifying the category to read "This user particpates in Counter Vandalism", or some similar reference is just fine. I personally don't give a damn about being a "member" of anything - I honestly don't see why some folks so object to the word member (it seems it's because a couple of people have acted dickish), but what we call the association doesn't really matter much. But there is no reason at all that I can see for picking CVU to decide suddenly that self-association with a helpful Wikipedian group is bad.
Perhaps Abe's idea of changing the name to something that sounds a bit less militaristic and quasi-official would be a good idea too. His WP:VMP moniker sounded good to me.
Sam, I think an informal association like this is all about individuals just "doing it". When I added my name to the member list not long after I started participating at Wikipedia, it was because this was a project page where I found a lot of centralized information that helped me to learn how to fight vandalism. No one "deputized" me, and until this situation sprung up yesterday, I don't think I've ever even referred to CVU before. I, (and everyone else I've seen), work on my own, bumping into others at times, but mainly just using this place as a casual information resource. If someone is acting like a dick, they should be called on it. CVU doesn't mean a damn thing, it's just a place, and a gathering place of sorts for people who are wierd enough to enjoy or at least be willing to spend time doing the mindnumbing work of removing the large amounts of casual vandalism that happens here. That's all I'm defending.
I see this project as being all about writing the encyclopedia. Removing vandalism, talking to users who vandalize and attempting to bring them around to being productive editors (or if necessary, identifying those users who are persistant vandals who do not contribute) is a vital part of making Wikipedia work. Having a place to learn how to do that properly, and seeing that many other Wikipedians see the activity as a worthwhile endevour, is a Good Thing for the project. This isn't about making a clubhouse, it's about working to make the encyclopedia better and stronger.
Let's move forward with toning things down a bit and making things more informal and informative. Removing the category won't help that goal, in my opinion. We are spending a lot of time discussing an issue that most of us already agree on, and that is rather unimportant compared to what we could be spending the time on instead - improving this group as a resource, removing vandalism, and making an encyclopedia. --Krich (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
How I see or want to see CVU:
  1. CVU is a list of users loosly binded in a completely informal manner dedicated in combating vandalism. The list of users category is like a sub page of RC patrolers category. Perhaps it should be as such or deleted.
  2. None of the CVU "members" are "protected" from any more than a complete "outsider"
  3. CVU has a structure thats nothing remotely close "millitary". No one is in charge as the supposive "commander in chief" (aka me (not my claim but some people see me as such)) cannot even get his "men" (CVU members) to delete a category.
  4. CVU "membership" should be treated no diferently than wikipedia "membership". None of the actions of the CVU "members" are my or anyone elses responsibility. If a person joins CVU and comit problematic behavior he should be treated with equal "sympathy" as an outsider.
  5. What CVU is and what it is not should not be discussed, its a waiste of time. CVU is nothing special. The Wikipedia namespace page is intended to guide newbies into being RC patrolers.
Any disagreements? --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Comments:

  1. I think it is the same as any other user category, though perhaps a little more organized than most.
  2. No disagreement here.
  3. Only a tiny number of editors on the site have accused CVU of being militaristic, and those comments were already dealt with. As for getting members of CVU to agree they want the category deleted, that's absurd. Since only you and a small handful of others see any reason why it should be deleted, and a large number of the actual members of CVU don't want it deleted, why do you think they would go along with your unilateral action? You didn't even have the courtesy to attempt a discussion first before causing this whole mess.
  4. See 1, above. I think, based on the responses of various other CVU members, that the majority of CVU members don't think they should receive any sort of special treatment just because they happen to spend more time fighting vandalism than someone else on the site. In fact, several of them have indicated that they don't think there should be any special treatment.
  5. CVU should be treated the same as any other user category or group. Therefore, one person (even if that person is the "founder" of the group) should go making unilateral decisions without first discussing those actions with the rest of the membership. --nihon 22:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
True but:
  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. Well I am held resposible for the actions of others, I am tired of being told CVU was a bad idea by a number of people. I never claimed to be in charge but people think I am, this incident proves otherwise. I had to prove thhat in a WP:Point manner tho and hence should be blocked for 24 hours or something.
  4. The people who demand special treatment (which they have even suggested on this talk page) is a serious problem. Aside from removing the membership category, I do not see a way to do that. Also see: User talk:Cool Cat/Archive/2006/01#WP:AGF.
  5. Yes
--Cool CatTalk|@ 12:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, to whomever wants special treatment by picking up one of the CVU's userboxes: HELL NO. If anyone is actually using the CVU as an excuse to vandalize/troll/bully/be a general idiot, they not only be blocked, they will be kicked out of the CVU, added to the IRC channels' autoremove list, and added to a public black list here on Wikipedia. If that's what it takes, then that's what we'll do. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree: anyone who is demanding special treatment or implying that CVU members deserve special treatment needs to be smacked down. CVU members are no better than any other WP editor, and do not warrant special treatment. --nihon 02:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thats what I wanted to hear. However how can we force a person not to use the CVU userbox? There are few people that are blocked regularly for trolling whom declare themseleves as CVU members. They do RC patrol to some end but in the end they are still are dicks that should be circumcised like there is no tomorow. --Cool CatTalk|@ 09:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
CC, we shouldn't be concerned with forcing anyone to do anything. In my opinion, we need to be much less concerned about defending the "reputation" of this group. If someone acts in an inappropriate way, it should be dealt with in the normal ways. Whether they choose to self-identify with this group, even having a userbox to that effect, really shouldn't be any of our concern - or the concern of anyone else when dealing with those inappropriate acts. --Krich (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

One thing I would say, maybe if some people are thinking that CVU is a military organisation, the first thing we should do is consider renaming ourselves. The very fact that we have a name which sounds like a military unit, could make people think we are treating ourselves as such. Think of the list... "Counter Terrorism Unit"..."Counter Espionage Unit"..."Counter Vandalism Unit" - They almost feel like the same kind of contextual use. I will still consider myself a member of the CVU for as long as I see fit. But we do need to consider killing the military image, really... Thor Malmjursson 14:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Talk to Thor

I wouldn't worry about it. I think we should just let how we work speak for itself. There have been a few changes, especially on the front page, that should help alleviate any such concerns. --nihon 20:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The CfD was recently closed with the decision made to KEEP the category. --nihon 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

There are over 8 userboxes I think. There really should be only two (or one with an image parameter since we can use if else statements in templates now).

There also is a need to reworded the userbox templates. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit/members

As the old memberlist was long replaced by the category, and it's use is controversial right now (and up for MFD), I added a brief version of the old information back to the main CVU page, attempting to use nuetral terminolgy for it's use, and not encouraging membership but still stating a way to associate with this cause, as there is no current consensus to remove the assoication. Hopefully this isn't too bold for anyone. xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I did some rearranging of a couple things on the main page to make it more clear. --nihon 03:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How to join?

I don't know how. Do I just place the Counter Vandalism Unit thing on my profile? Someone tell me.--Jnelson09 00:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly that. --Zsinj 04:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


The Status of Protest on Wikipedia

Wikipedia it seems does not delineate between freedom of expression and the right to protest and vandalism. Wikipedia is supposed to be a viable source of information. In my mind it must also be an "appropriate" source of information. But if we can't conduct peaceful, nonviolent protests on the texts of actual articles which people find disturbing (i.e. queef) what kind of message are we sending across to people who wish to protest but find themselves being blocked as a result of what editors consider "vandalism". I agree with the sentiments expressed by some that a template that has been termed as "nonsense" (Wiki-Protest) should be allowed in order for editors, WPs, and contributors to protest what they consider as harsh, racist, or inappropriate wikipedia articles in a manner outside of the normal spectrum for wikipedia. What do you all think about this? A friend of mine was blocked recently for participating in this kind of protest. -- Dominick_Turner

Wiktionary

I have been getting cries from wiktionary about the large amount of vandalism. Banana04131 04:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My bot is watching for that at #wiktionary-en-vandalism on freenode. No one is using the bot so its just posting results.... :/ --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
If they're having vandalism problems over there I wouldn't mind manning their vandalism IRC channel whenever I'm online. --Zsinj 02:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have Tawkbot2 monitoring for any changes, I am monitoring the channel as well. Tawker 00:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Defcon proposal for CVU

Have been looking at recent changes tonight and also been in channel on #wikipedia-en-vandalism - have seen an awfu lot of users getting blocked tonight for vndalism. In view of this, I would like to propse Defence Condition upgrade to WDefcon4 for the next 12 or so hours... seems to be a lot of crud going down tonight. Thor Malmjursson 06:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Talk to me

Feel free to do so, defon is editable :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Was bold. . . and changed it. Have noticed a lot particulary on articles on main page. Banana04131 02:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny

I got a real hoot out of the project page here.. Defcon ratings :O? Pages dedicated to trolls with all thier vital statistics? And a literal image of them? For instance Willy on Wheels is literally on wheels. Haha. Keep up the good work! :O) --Depakote 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Category?

Should the main page be in a category? --nihon 09:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Which one do you suggest? -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
How about those ones? (I added three to the main page). --nihon 02:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Reports to WP:AIV

I've noticed that a lot of recent reports were made by people who sent a {{test3}}, {{test4}}, or {{bv}}, then immediately reported the vandal to WP:AIV. Looking around, I noticed that WP:CVU#Combatting contains instructions for reporting vandals to WP:AIV. I wonder if we should clarify these instructions to say that you should first check to see if the vandal actually vandalises articles after receiving the {{test3}}, {{test4}}, or {{bv}}? WP:AIV is meant to be a rapid blocking tool for non-admin RC patrollers to report on vandals who need to be blocked immediately. WP:VIP is used to inform other people to "check" on whether someone vandalises after having been warned. --Deathphoenix 17:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


godmode-light

Is anyone else who is using godmode-light to speed reverts having a problem in the last couple of days? A change was made where the links at the top of the Special:Contributions page now has a link to the user's block log too. Since then, godmode pukes on me when I'm attempting a revert, seeing the "Talk" link as the last editor, not the actual vandal editor. Is anyone else seeing this? Anyone know a fix? --Krich (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

at de.wikipedia the Godmode makes broken links at user contributions.de:User:Klever
I coded the change to Special:Contributions, and am planning more. I suggest contacting Sam Hocevar for details on the script, however; though advise him that the page will be changing for a little while. Rob Church (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
My only issue with the version of godmode light is when doing contributions based reverts on registered users that have User Pages, it is ok on the rest. xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with WoW socks

There's been a spate of WoW and ...is Communism accounts created within the last few hours, namely User:NSLE on dozens of tires!, User:Deltabeignet on infinty wheels!, User:Durin on wheels!, User:Shanel on many wheels, User:§ is Communism, User:ABCD is Communism, User:ABCD on Wheels. An admin might want to block these.... --BadSeed 07:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Defcon

In light of recent issues, I think it might be good to get rid of the Defcon level indicator. It's only slightly useful, and likely serves as a way to encourage vandals so they can see how high they can get it to go. I think if someone is interested enough to identify with the cause, they will already be watching the appropriate pages and will know when things are going down. --nihon 02:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested pages to watch for new "associates"

For those wishing to associate themselves with CVU, should we have a short list of "Good pages to watch" in the intro section on the main page? --nihon 02:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I second that motion. --Buchanan-Hermit 05:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I want to clarify: This would be pages like Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit, and other useful pages. Not frequently vandalized pages. They'll find those easily enough. (^_^) --nihon 07:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiDefcon and WP:CVU

WikiDefcon and CVU currently show different vandalism levels, even though they link to the same template. Any explanation?

Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 21:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Try purging. FireFoxT • 21:24, 28 January 2006

US Government Staffers re-writing political articles on wiki

So this was brought to my attention from reading www.diggs.com & the Buzz outline, but apparently US Rep. staffers have been doing major rewrites of political articles regarding the people they're working for, or their opposition. The story was first reported by the Lowell Sun Online (http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_3444567) about one of the reps. from MA. Did some research & found that these staffers are still doing their POV articles as though there was no night! Apparently anything that is in the 143.231.0.0 - 143.231.255.255 IP range belongs to the US govenment offices. Keep this in mind if we see more of this kind of blatant POV editing on government officials and subjects. Later guys. --LifeStar 18:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Zinteresting. Hmm... We should watch those IP ranges. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Trademark/copyright vio

I believe the use of the Wikipedia and Wikimedia logos in the CVU logos is a trademark and copyright violation. --The Cunctator 07:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and it was determined that using them was acceptable. You can browse through the Talk archives at the top of this page to find the one or more times it's been discussed. --nihon 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Images have a clear link showing board permission. Please read the description pages first. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Sorry for taking this seriously. Please see: User:The Cunctator. User opposes any merit or organisation that propotes RC patroling and/or removal of vandalism. Also opposes semi-protection and god knows what else. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
User is a former arbitrator, and one of our most long-standing and respected contributors. Stop making personal attacks. Phil Sandifer 04:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not making personal attacks. He is/was with the userbox on his userpage. I am a long-standing and respected contributor as well, I do not declare stuff he is affilitaed like: "This user is a non-member of the Retarded Fascism Unit" which hurts me more since I know he is a former arbitrator who knows better. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't making personal attacks either, but I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I do not oppose RC patroling and/or removal of vandalism. I do oppose semi-protection, declaring "war" against "vandals", and the drowning of kittens. The Cunctator 01:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat is absolutely right on this one; the userbox is a personal attack, and Cool Cat's statements are on-target (if perhaps a bit embellished) given the clearly stated oppositions on the user's userpage. Essjay TalkContact 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not actually on target, no. But I'm sorry I hurt his feelings. --The Cunctator 01:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Few thoughts

Weighing in on this one, although I'm sure some misguided person will attempt to correct me. It might be prudent for the creator of the image to re-check with the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation to ascertain whether these logos are acceptable, in the light of the new policies on logo and trademark usage, which can be found on Meta. Also remember that the permission received was, at the time, a stopgap measure until a proper decision could be taken; there was no definite "yes" or "no" either way.

What I would remind all users is that the Wikimedia Foundation logos are, in fact, trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation, and are not licenced under the GNU Free Documentation Licence. Their existence on the Commons is considered controversial by some regular contributors there. Creation of a derivative work which could be considered to defame or dilute the Foundation or its trademarks, or one which would suggest an inappropriate relationship or contains implication of an endorsement from the Foundation is also going to be somewhat dubious.

The simplest and cleanest means of getting this sorted is to check again, and while there is no firm, Board-mandated answer (i.e. while you only ask, and get a response from, one Board member, which doesn't take into account new policies and precedents), vow to keep checking. The official position on this logo is also entitled to be changed without too much prior notice, so be cautious. Rob Church (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm.. Almost all wikipedia logos are in comons. They are the only unfree images allowed because of their interwiki usage.
As I explained this a thousand times. We work on foundations wikipedia. We dont work for the foundation, we are not payed for our efforts to remove vandalism, instead we are only bothered about the cosmetics of CVU (such as how the logo looks as if it is critical) by random people. Sometimes this "bothering" reaches to the point of harrasment (refering to the kim_ incident I experienced). Wikimedia.png is used on almost every page. Does that mean practicaly every userpage has a inappropriate relationship with the foundation. People are complaining the silly of everything regarding the CVU to no end and I am growing tired of it. My words are not directed at you RobChurch but to people who know who the hell they are.
If anyone has issues with copyright status of CVU logos, they should go directly ask the board. I don't have a reason to bother the board as I do not believe there are any issues with copyrights. --Cool CatTalk|@ 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am the creator of the images (they have been touched up since I created them, but I created the originals). They were listed as copyright to the Foundation when they were uploaded (I did it personally). I don't have a problem with the Foundation enforcing thier copyrights, in fact, I suggested creating a Foundation committee to review derivatives, and volunteered to serve on it. The problem is, the new guidlines are somewhat unclear, and there has been no effort to clarify. (I'm beginning to think the Board just doesn't want to touch the issue of derivatives, as everytime it is mentioned (here, in IRC, on the Foundation mailing list, Meta) the response is "We're working on it, we'll get back to you soon." Given that it has been months since the images were created, I really don't know what to do with them. What I do know is that the same thing done with these needs to be done with the others (such as the much-loved "admin-mop" which is also my creation, it was quasi-approved just as the CVU images were, and should suffer the same fate as the CVU images).

I've begun creating non-derivative alternatives to all the derivatives I've created so far, and I've created quite a few; my understanding from discussions with various individuals in the higher ups of the Foundation (I won't name names as I don't want to get yelled at for mistaking the difference between a person and the Foundation) that until a formal policy was adopted and announced, and some system for approving derviatives was approved (which has not, to my knowledge, happend), derivatives could be created and copyrighted to the Foundation, subject to later action. If the Foundation wants to get rid of them, I have no problem with that: What I have a problem with is individuals making arguments for the Foundation by proxy. I fully support individuals raising issues, but it has begun to cross over into "This is what needs to happen"; "what needs to happen" is an issue for the Foundation (either the Board, a committee empowered by the Board, or the Foundation's counsel on instructions from the Board) to decide. Until a representative of the Foundation (and I mean those with the power to legally bind the Foundation, such as the Board) speaking on behalf of the Foundation with the intent to bind the Foundation, and not speaking on their own behalf as a Wikipedian (which is a perpetual issue: When are they speaking for the Foundation, and when are they giving their opinion), gives an order about what should happen to the images, they should remain exactly as they are. If it is really an issue, then it is a big enough issue for the Foundation to take the time to address it. Essjay TalkContact 19:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My comments in a nutshell: I don't care what happens to the images, I've already created an reccommended the use of a new logo that is not a derivative. I don't have any problem with people raising concerns about the images. I do have a problem with anything being done about the images without all the facts being known, specifically, whether the Foundation opposes their existance. I will abide by whatever decision the Foundation makes, but it needs to be the Foundation that makes the decision. Essjay TalkContact 19:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Got to agree here, the foundation is the publisher, so if they have an issue with the use of the images in this context the foundation should stop publishing them, they are plenty capable of either asking for the removal or actively removing them. --pgk(talk) 21:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Stupid Vandal

User FireHoney has repeatedly vandalized Wikipedia, and must be stopped! See here for more details. User_talk:FireHoney --Steve Latinner 17:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Repartee

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? 84.160.247.104 03:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't edited in over a month...what more do you want? --InShaneee 19:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Anon, I've taken care of [[Repartee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and his sockpuppets. Consider this a non-issue for now. Yankees76 14:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

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. 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. Neospooky 11:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong. Epl18 16:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Stats

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) ikh (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway has; see http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tony_sidaway for his pages on the toolserver, which include statistical tools such as this. Rob Church (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that :) an interesting one: [1] semi protection rocks. See sharp drop in vandalism and continuing unreverted edits (aka non vandalism) --Cool CatTalk|@ 00:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I also have some stats located in the following two locations: User:Lightdarkness/Vandalism & User:Lightdarkness/Vandalism/Sandbox --lightdarkness 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? 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. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
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. Rob Church (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism

I like that ;) --Cool CatTalk|@ 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"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? --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

According to IRC convo he appears to be from AOL ips.  ALKIVARRadioactive.svg 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. Essjay TalkContact 02:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Although it may be obvious, for those who are missing it: the date above is 6 6 2006. :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 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. Funnybunny 21:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe Jimbo is going to make an announcement. --Rory096 21:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll bet mr treason is going to do something crazy.El benderson 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
He wouldn't dare betray us like that! --maru (talk) contribs 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


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. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 14:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Help please, i would like to be in the Counter Vandalism Unit

How do i get in? Please contact me on my user page. Auburnfan4--Auburnfan4 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You can associate with CVU by adding userbox {{user CVU1-en}} or userbox {{user CVU2-en}} to your user page. If you prefer not to use userboxes, you can add yourself to the Category Counter Vandalism Unit Member/wikipedia/en. Hbackman 04:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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! 68.110.9.62 23:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you vandalize, we'll revert it. Period. --Rory096 00:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not exercising your position appropriately. I have not vandalised. Prove that I did. 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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. Essjay TalkContact 00:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I love it when vandals object to our existance... :P --Cool CatTalk|@ 00:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed this guys (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. 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. 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. Waggers 10:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Anons are fine, unless they start vandalising, then they are dealt with little sympathy. --Cool CatTalk|@ 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. Yankees76 22:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep denying and casting aside random people who won't get with your program. That's trolling. 68.110.9.62 18:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Spotted a vandal

Guys watch out for 24.62.120.208 he's been messing around with articles like Podcasting. Zhanster 03:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV example?

Surely there is a better example of an NPOV addition than the one listed ([2]), 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? 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: [3], [4], [5]. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 22:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

defcon?

Where did the defcon go?

--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, {{Wdefcon}} still exists. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
As the template survived the deletion debate, I jsut retranscluded it on the Project page. xaosflux Talk/CVU 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. --Measure 00:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't good...

There's a group called the "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 busters? --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. Essjay TalkContact 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Bunker buster? Why can't we just use a MOAB? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a parody. BlueGoose 00:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's on MySpace, why should anyone care? JarlaxleArtemis 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 (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. —WAvegetarianCONTRIBUTIONSTALK EMAIL 16:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Finding vandal edits

Is there some way to find all recent edits by a range of IPs? 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. Vandal Fighter and 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. 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. (Steve 19:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC))

WP:AIV --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! --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. --Cool CatTalk|@ 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 :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess no one cares... damn you pgk, I wont admit defeat! :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 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
--Cool CatTalk|@ 04:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
A switch between diff links and wiki links, I mean. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Thats easy to code but wikipedia does not have a way to make [[ ]] links link to diffs. --Cool CatTalk|@ 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:

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. --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 [6] and Humanist. --Couttsie 21:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone did something, but the situation has improved considerably. --Couttsie 03:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone see this user page?

Roxanne Harman (talk · contribs) claims that she is Willy on Wheels. Anyone want to check out her user page?

  • She was blocked several weeks ago as a sockpuppet. --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 [diff]. Earlier today some of the changes were fixed [diff]. However, many were missed. I fixed it (but it took me a couple tries) [my restoration] and [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. --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.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. -- 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. —Wayward Talk 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. --Tachikoma 16:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It already has been done... just look at my user page for the code. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the userbox code! --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, 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? 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. CharlesM 01:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we just have to keep watching and reverting, then. Hbackman 01:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that the wave of vandalism is over for now. CharlesM 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, it's always better when a vandal is busy vandalising userpages instead of articles. - 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.--Tachikoma 01:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
You probably added it to your watchlist while it existed, and then it was later deleted. JarlaxleArtemis 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.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? :Hbackman 23:21, 15 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. 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.[7]). 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"? 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. —This unsigned comment was added by FTIII (talkcontribs) .

Thank you for pointing that out. I will correct this. - 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suyash (talkcontribs)

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. SWATJester Flag of Iceland.svg Ready Aim Fire! 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. Jlhc (talk · contribs · count) made 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: 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 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. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a joke/nonsense to me. I would've warned the user with {{test2}} or with {{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. 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. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 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. 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. --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. 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. 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 {{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 {{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 use common sense. -EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandal IP

24.199.204.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has committed various acts of vandalism starting November 20, 2005, its most recent example being here [8]. So far, it hasn't committed any vandalism since its last warning, but it should be kept an eye on. - Conrad Devonshire 05:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Help requested from CVU folks

Since the sockpuppetry by PoolGuy (talk · contribs) as GoldToeMarionette (talk · contribs), 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 [9] 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. --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. 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.) --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? --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. --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, {{vandal tags}} that you could use asking them to comply. Waggers 17:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
(P.S. Don't forget to subst it!) Waggers 17:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll third that idea. And sometimes when you're running high-paced 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 {{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. 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. Funnybunny 04:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, as far as I know, this policy will never fly. --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? --Straif 19:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning toolbox

I've received some good feedback on a 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. --Kbh3rdtalk 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 {{test}} 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. 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. 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 reasons discussed on the toolbox page. What I don't know is whether there are other widely-employed tools alongs the lines of Lupin, 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 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? --Kbh3rdtalk 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! 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? 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. :) --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? - Conrad Devonshire 01:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; I was able to take care of it myself. - Conrad Devonshire 19:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

New Anti-vandalism idea

After reading about the "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 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. - 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.187.17.155 (talkcontribs) 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Its just a place where Wikipedians who are dedicated to fighting vandalism can coorespond and learn about current vandal issues, new vandal-fighting tools, etc. It has been refered to as a WikiProject related to fighting vandalism. - 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 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? 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) --Mig77 09:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Volunteer

I'm keen to assist with this venture. Let me know what I can do.

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 Bugzilla #5643, but don't warn or block for it without good reason! Thanks folks. ➨ REDVERS 19:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

QVRS

User:General Eisenhower has established the 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. - Conrad Devonshire 23:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

so is this thing still going on? -- ( drini's page ) 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. - Conrad Devonshire 03:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Seems a bit militant to me. --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. 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.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.--Chodorkovskiy (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
That is a relief. :) Could you please direct me to the Defcon meter?DanielDemaret 06:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, see Template:Wdefcon, or you can add {{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. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
As long as it is not an error in measurement, it is good news. :) DanielDemaret 10:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
And thank you for the template. My user page has been a bit empty of late.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 sociopaths will try their hand here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
God I hope not... I rather not have to revert anything this week 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: [10] --Conrad Devonshire 22:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Godmode, as I understand it, is FireFox dependent. Could this be the problem? 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.--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,

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"? --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The SS, or Schutzstaffel Prodego talk 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 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 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. AmiDaniel (Talk) 23:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Wally. Some others are probably like-minded...especially the vandals.--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. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Gahhh ... now we're going to have the Wiki 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!). AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
*cough* Titoxd(?!? - help us) 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!--Chodorkovskiy (talk) 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. 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.--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 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.--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.--Conrad Devonshire 22:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
1.Wikipedia is not censored. 2. No personal attacks. 3. Do not feed the trolls. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. 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. - 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. 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?--Conrad Devonshire 00:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Beacuse I hated the arrogant tone of the person to whom I was responding. 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. - 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. 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 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!". 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.--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 this edit about 3 days ago. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks.--Anchoress 16:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Does the CVU have an Internal Affairs Department?

For policing itself. 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. 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 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 dispute resolution. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
C'mon, why stop if everyone here is so eager to cooperate?--Chodorkovskiy (talk) 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. 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. 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. Wallie 07:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
True, but for the time being this is not aa organization. --Siva1979Talk to me 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

From an Ex-vandal

As an ex-vandal, a message to other vandals. Go to 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. --69.67.226.10 00:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

What is with all these new squads?

First the QVRS, now this? What is going on? 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. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 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 , DIF'S It sometimes picks out something from my userpage to add to someone else's, DIFS in a manner I take to be mocking. Does it conform to any known BOT or vandal Thanks!  :) 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.:--Kitsumiti

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.

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. --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?El benderson 04:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Nope, just the userbox! Welcome to the CVU! --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. --DcPimp

Oh, sorry I didn't leave a date and time. I didn't know how when I wrote the above. 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. --DcPimp 12:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Sockpuppet," though it sounds silly, is a real term for a common phenomenon. This article can give you more info on these nasty little creatures. Best, 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? --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. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Great ideas! I'm doing that right now. --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. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 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. Waggers 11:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with 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. 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. --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. 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? --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. 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. --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. --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?—Argentino (talk/cont.) 14:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You can check out this tutorial which explains pretty much everything. --Scott 18:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The registration issue, again

There's another move to disallow anonymouse editing taking place right now. Kaiwen1 has apparently put up an 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. 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.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

bah standard bot vandalsim.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 maker give you too many problems, he can't be that difficult to deal with =D. 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.--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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.218.61.59 (talkcontribs) .

No results for Haz. Did you spell it correctly?--Firsfron of Ronchester 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.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. D Hill 19:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting Vandal

Tongiht, I've kept seeing vandals adding strings such as --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. - Xiong Chiamiov talk contact 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. -- 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. -- King of 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. -- King of 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. -- King of 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism at RuneScape

We're having a bit of a problem over at the RuneScape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) articles and portal with the sheer volume of petty vandalism (ie, "runescape sux lololol"). It is actually the 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, CaptainVindaloo t c e 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. --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.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 04:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Special:Log/Newusers. 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?) Xiong Chiamiov talk contact 00:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I recommend bookmarking that, actually. CaptainVindaloo t c e 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. 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, 70.168.56.34. Suggest indefinate block on both. 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 page) vandalizing — edit diffs are [11], [12], and [13]. Also, there's this vandalism via page move which was clear vandalism, and this page move may be vandalism or just unfamiliarity with the system. — 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. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs 18:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are many that do that [14]. --MrFishGo Fish 12:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia feeds the trolls

I read on 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, 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 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. -- 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... __ 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. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs 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. 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? Pete Peters 19:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


220.237.23.86, blatant vandal

See user contributions. 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? --Brian G 19:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Most vandalism report pages are aimed at current vandalism. You could try informing the counter vandalism unit and give them as much information as possible. - Mgm|(talk) 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. --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 [15] and [16]. The two edits are mere minutes apart so I suspect the user put it in but then had second thoughts and removed it. IrishGuy talk 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. --Brian G 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

IRC Channel

I cant get access to the CVU IRC channel. Can someone help me out? --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?--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.--Konstable 01:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks to be more POV issues than vandalism. Try opening an RfC SB Johnny 11:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Error using popups tool

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?--Conrad Devonshire Talk 06:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, its working now.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Removal

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 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? IrishGuy talk 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. He seems to be blocked at the present time, his IP was also blocked this morning. SB Johnny 11:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

62.237.141.28

Help with this 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.

RIPE Whois

--Mig77 09:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure this is vandalism? The edits look legible to me.--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. --Mig77 12:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps just tag it with {{fact}} and see if he comes up with a source? SB Johnny 12:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Traced it to the original snake oil article and tagged it with {{fact}} --Mig77 15:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

ImagePatrol Idea/Guide

See 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.--Andeh 14:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster false signatures

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. [17]. Is there anything that can be done? IrishGuy talk 01:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Be very, very careful when examining talk pages. Grandmaster was replacing messages that had previously been removed [18]. Do not feel bad, as I have made similar mistakes, but be very careful and thorough when suspecting fraudulent user talk.--MrFishGo Fish 11:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How may I become a member?

I found no link on this page's main page. 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!--MrFishGo Fish 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.--Konstable 14:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To those just dropping by - no need to bother, the page is now semi-protected.--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. Kingfisherswift 15:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny page

Dc one.png

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: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.--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 #REDIRECT [[cibolo,texas]]. 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.--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.--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. 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pbmax (talkcontribs) .

Thanks for the tip. Someone has kindly protected the page from editing by new and anonymous users. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 19:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Spammer

User-multi error: "User:144.160.5.25" is not a valid project or language code (help). is spamming links to 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. IrishGuy talk 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. 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. SB_Johnny | talk 23:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

He's back again... SB_Johnny | talk 17:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Current puppet is TheGreatLarryBirdJersey33. ((blatantvandal)) tag was removed by user.SB_Johnny | talk 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. 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?

--Sopranosmob781 21:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom = Arbitration Committee. 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). SB_Johnny | talk 21:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone post more information about any patterns in his vandalism? --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 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.SB_Johnny | talk 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. 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 :). SB_Johnny | talk 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. 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. 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? SB_Johnny | talk 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. 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.

--Sopranosmob781 21:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

True. This page and Hezbollah seem to be frequent and primary targets. 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.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 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? 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.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 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. 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. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 03:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tawker's bots are really good, maybe someone can try and contact him about this. --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.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 08:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have created a subpage on Bobby Boulders (WP:BOBBY). Feel free to update it as needed.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 09:16, 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? --Jaysweet 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Another user apparently agrees with me, plus someone who I believe based on context to be the same individual is making accusations on my user page that he/she refuses to justify. Is this enough to report as vandalism and take action against? --Jaysweet 21:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in Progress

I just reverted the vandalised page Anime. The vandal, 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. --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. CaptainVindaloo t c e 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. SB_Johnny | talk 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (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. 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 [[19]], I wonder if his show has led to this or if Bobby is behind these too. --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.. --Jaysweet 20:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I have also heard that Colbert encouraged viewers to vandalize articles, specifically about elephants. This has shown up even on the 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! --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 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. 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. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 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. - 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. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Location for IP#69.44.58.97

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WoW; posted by 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 Centralops. And thanks Idea.nl (2nd link goes to translated version)

What do you make of it?--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 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. SB_Johnny | talk 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. 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. 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). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmonde Dantes (talkcontribs)
  • 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.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 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. 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. --SB_Johnny | talk 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. EVula 04:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose arresting him will only make him famous. It is however illegal, under some law about 'interfering with telecommunications' or some such, sorry I can't provide verification, but I'm sure it is illegal to intentionally vandalise or otherwise disrupt wikipedia. It just won't be in our best interests to reward vandals with that level of recognition. User:Pedant 06:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing vandalism

A single user with puppets or possibly a group, see the this RfC. Apparently vandalizing Floral Park, New York, and Gang. --SB_Johnny | talk 01:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tricky vandal... admin attention needed

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk · contribs) 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. SB_Johnny | talk 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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somerandomnerd (talkcontribs) .

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 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. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 23:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Something interesting I've noticed about CapnCrack

Recently on the page about the vandal CapnCrack I posted a sentence which tried to explain his motive for vandalism (based on 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 [20] and [21]). 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?--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 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.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Um, why would that matter in the first place? SB_Johnny | talk 01:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Because he doesn't like being refered to as "gay".--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 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). --SB_Johnny | talk 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. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that we feed the vandal? Yanksox 05:48, 9 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. 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. This is a good way to do it, but it doesn't catch everything. Thanks. —BazookaJoe 03:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean... went through about 10 using link you provided, and 4 were vandalisms. I could clearly spend all day going through them, but I don't see it as a very high priority: it's primarily just silliness added to the image description, and so has little effect on a reader's experience of reading an article. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Though I agree with you that it isn't nearly as high priority as, say, the vandalism of the current FA, I think it's unfair to marginalize the images just because they don't disrupt an article. Wikipedia, despite the fact that we all believe in it (obviously), is still seen as a hotbed of chaos and anarchy. To let the images go to hell just because they aren't in the main namespace is unfair.
I'll bookmark the link BazookaJoe provided to catch some random crap, but if that link could be posted somewhere on the CVU main page so that other members can use it as well, that would be optimal. Also, is there a comparable link to Special:Random for images? I generally use that on the weekends for random article maintenance, and I'd be happy to add images to my patrolling. EVula 20:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding. My other concern about uncaught image vandalism is the removal or malicious modification of copyright tags. And you don't need me to tell you that's a bad thing (for example). :) By the way, my friend told me that it's Special:Random/Image. —BazookaJoe 00:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
When I'm Vandal Hunting I trty to catch Image Vandlaism (And caught several attempts at it) I have also listed two images for deletion becaused they were used to vandalise. Æon Insane Ward 17:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if a bot could be designed to watch for changes to copyright information? --SB_Johnny | talk 09:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Suspicious IP

Based on this edit, I wonder if this IP might belong to Johnny Knight (see WP:LTA).--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 17:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by a CVU "member"

It's quite ridiculous that a vandal is a so-called "member" of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Does he really believe that adding a {{User wikipedia/Counter Vandalism Unit}} tag gives him immunity? That user has a long history of vandal activities, mostly arbitrary reversion and deletion of articles which does not settle with his POV. Which is also quite ridiculous, as the user is also {{user NPOV}}...

More than 75% of the user "Contributions" are either POV or vandalism, or both. A few examples:

Sincerely, – Fuzzy 18:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can put a CVU userbox on their userpage, because anyone can edit (...and the fact that anyone can edit seems (unfortunately but inevitably) to lead to vandalism, which is why the CVU exists). Fuzzy, you might want to open a Request for Comment about the user if you find his/her behavior to be problematic, though I'm sure a few members of the CVU will be watching now (I personally haven't looked at the conrtibs yet, but I will later this evening). --SB_Johnny | talk 20:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I asked El C to ask the user stop vandalising. I hope no further admin intervention is required. BTW, I also haven't managed to decipher Yousaf465 comment below...Fuzzy 14:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed and removed. Having been banned on 5 July 2006 for vandalism definitely makes it inappropriate for him to be "misrepresenting" himself. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think wikipedia is not a place for proving israeli or arab point of view.Why do't you block a person with total zionist(this might seem anti-sem. but this is the correct word other than israeli for the citizens of israel)Pov.The Hassan Page is edit is total Allegation that whole world consider Hibullah a terriost,if Usa does consider it doesn't apply to whole world.Hamas was not the party which fire rockects on Israeli occupied areas.This a well know fact and has been proved by Press(independant press not the kind of propoganda press has was the case in ormer USSR).Gaza beach incident was not a blast it was a clear indication of a artillery use so describing it as a blast is same as proving the two plus two three.Yousaf465

...... what? American Patriot 1776 06:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I should have looked at those summaries. This is an edit-war problem on 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict and related articles (which has of course been raging for the past month). --SB_Johnny | talk 09:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzy, this issue is about a POV edit war, or perhaps POV andalism. You really should try asking for mediation, or else open an RFC. This issue is a bit outside the scope of the CVU. SB_Johnny | talk 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

IP confirmed to be that of sockpuppeteer

Above I posted a link to an edit by an anonymous IP that hinted that it was used by a sockpuppeter known as "Johnny Knight". I believe that this edit may confirm my suspicions. The IP has since made more edits to his WP:LTA entry claiming to be the vandal.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 07:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This IP also made two edits to WP:VANDALNAME. One, (which I provided a link to above), added "Johnny Knight" to the list, while the other added "General Tojo", suggesting a possible connection between this IP and the General Tojo vandal as well.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 07:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no connection. Tojo is confined to the 88.104.0.0/13 range and only vandalises the user pages of editors who revert him. All his other edits are POV pushing and reverting all edits of a select few editors. Reread the report on him. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  16:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiDefcon

hi, i am just wondering who decides WikiDefcon, has it ever been at level 1 and what differences are there to wikipedia at different levels. i mean do all article become locked at WikiDefcon 1 or something, because i think that would be cool--Greg.loutsenko 23:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the last few days have seemed to have more vandalism than normal or alot more, I usually just look over a few article that I've spent alot of time on and those are being vandalised viciously, namely the Eric Clapton article. Is this more widespread or just limited, the defcon would say I guess but who decides the defcon? - Patman2648 00:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Defcon is changed by members of the CVU (Any member that can edit a semi protected template) to reflect how much vandalsim is in progress. In some cases such as if Willy on Wheel or the Communism Vandal strike members of the CVU set it to 2 (Due to the nature of the vandalsim and the quantiy). Most cases the highest we go to in a given week is 3. If it is set to one it would be because several Vandalbots got into the Wiki and the CVU and Admins were overwelmed and were unable to keep up. It is all based on what is noticed. If you see it be bold and change it to alert others.

Here is the Critiera for each defcon

LEVEL Description
1 Very high level of vandalism.
2 High level of vandalism.
3 Moderate to high level of vandalism.
4 Low to moderate level of vandalism.
5 Very low level of vandalism.
0 Vandalism levels unknown.

Hopefully this should answer your question. Æon Insane Ward 17:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

When would level 0 ever be used? If the current level of vandalism is ever "unknown", then wouldn't it just be assumed to be the most recent confirmed level of vandalism?--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 03:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
On that one I have no idea I think it is for the IRC Channels being down or something....not sure Count. Æon Insane Ward 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Just for reference, a few days back there was a database lockdown due to network issues, followed by sporadic reachability of the site by several users. Wdefcon was set to zero for this. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder

I just wanted to remind everyone to monitor the "current issues" section of WP:CVU and see that it is up to date. When I updated it a while back it was several months out of date.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 03:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How uber sad are some people?

This is the ultimate in plaigerism from the Counter terrorrist unit from 24. I am surprised wikipedieia hasn't been sued of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.170.243 (talkcontribs)

...says the vandal who made this edit. IrishGuy talk 20:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Joning

Hi, i just wanna know how to join. Killswitch Engage

Just add yourself to the list on the main page, and/or put a userbox on your userpage :). SB_Johnny | talk 11:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

IRC authentification

How does this work, exactly? --SB_Johnny | talk 11:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Randallrobinstine is back

I just though I should let you know that Randallrobinstine has resumed sockpuppet vandalism.--67.67.217.220 03:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous bot?

user:203.217.13.143 appears to be a bot that is removing links to specific sites, especially, for some reason, http://www.crystalinks.com . --Eliyak T·C 19:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

official imprimateur

I'm concerned that CVU gets an "official" look-and-feel from having these two logos work in the official project logos. I had to go halfway down the page before I ever saw a disclaimer that it is not an official arm of the Wikimedia Foundation, and having their name and logos at the top of your page certainly could lead some to question this... I'm sure you're tired of hearing this, but was there ever a response to Wikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Archive_4#Trademark.2Fcopyright_vio from The_Cunctator? -- nae'blis 20:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. These logos should, at the very least, not be saying "Wikimedia Foundation", regardless of trademark law. —Centrxtalk • 20:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
And is this project related to Meta or other Wikimedia projects? I think having just the left one with the Wikipedia logo, without the "Wikimedia Foundation" text, would be best. —Centrxtalk • 03:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Please take copyright and trademark concerns to the board. And yes at least I am tired of dealing with this. --Cat out 20:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Will vandals will be allowed to remove legitimate warnings from their talk pages?

Despite the outcome of Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll, whether vandals will be allowed to remove legitimate warnings from their talk pages is presently being discussed, again. Please share your thoughts on this matter at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings John254 22:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd - we have NEVER allowed polls conducted within what is essentially a wikiproject to set sitewide policy, especially when there was substantial objection - 9 people when the "consensus" option had 19 votes - to even trying to determine consensus that way. Phil Sandifer 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I explained how I construed the results of Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll in great detail here. Note that some users gave conditional comments that depended on whether the warnings being removed were vandalism warnings , so the substance of each comment must be considered. Furthermore, the Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll was not "conducted within what is essentially a wikiproject" -- it was generally publicized in the centralized discussion template, requests for comment, and the header for WP:AIV, in addition to the Counter-Vandalism Unit's project pages. Finally, in the templates for deletion debate for the warning removal templates, there was a strong consensus to retain the templates, and, by extension, the policy which authorizes their use. John254 22:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Did it get mention on the mailing lists? Village pump? The weekly what's going on? You ran a sparsely advertised poll for under a week. And deletion debates - particularly ones that gather only 13 votes - are not adequate gagues of sitewide consensus. Compare the participation in this poll to, say, Wikipedia:Trolling poll, which was held two years ago, when the site was appreciably smaller. Or Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement. Consider also a longstanding taboo against voting (And remember - RFA is not a vote as such. It's a poll used as a tool for what actually picks administrators, which is bueraucrats). This is not how you form policy. Simple as that. Phil Sandifer 23:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Restoring language prohibiting the removal of legitimate warnings that has been present in Wikipedia:Vandalism for months is not "forming policy" -- it's merely maintaining existing policy that was eliminated against consensus. After the removal of policy language prohibiting the removal of legitimate warnings that has been in Wikipedia:Vandalism for nearly 3 months [22], it is incorrect to insist that the restoration of this language amounts to "forming policy". John254 14:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been disputed, added, removed, and clarified since January, when it went in as an example, you're right. There's never been a clear consensus of support for the blanket classification of removal of warnings as vandalism. -- nae'blis 17:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WoW's page up for deletion

Just so that everyone here knows about this - the page Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels is up for deletion, discussion can be seen here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels 2. If you have any thoughts on this discuss them there.--Konstable 04:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Putting CVU up for Deletion

Before you laugh me out the door, I'm going to nominate the Counter-Vandalism Unit for a deletion discussion, on the grounds that it glorifies the fight against vandalism, and thus glorifies vandals by association. Witness the countless attacks on this page by vandals over the last few months. They're like moths to a flame, and perhaps it's time to put out the flame. If you disagree with me, please feel free to do so on the deletion talk page that I will create. Please take this seriously, and do not attempt to remove my deletion notice out of hand without considering the facts of the case. Dr Chatterjee 00:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: The above account has been blocked indefinitely; it is the account of a user banned for disruption.Centrxtalk • 05:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The CVU should not be Deleted! It is an Needed Project! Æon Insanity Now!EA! 02:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Do you have any evidence that those who vandalize the CVU page vandalize other articles/pages when otherwise they would not have? --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Taking your proposal seriously, I still fail to see a reason. Ginkgo100 summed up one of my concerns, but the other is that the value that this project brings to the community in general (a central place for those interested in pro-actively preventing vandalism) versus that of being a lightning rod for vandalism needs to be compared. By extension, it could be argued that because the project's existence attracts vandals, the project's existence makes it easier to identify and deal with vandals; with that logic, the project's existence becomes extremely beneficial to the entire Wikipedia project, albeit in an unexpected manner. (sorry if that didn't make sense; I'm tired, but wanted to throw in my two cents before heading off to bed) EVula 05:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This has been debated in the past and the reality is vandalism will continue to occur whether this page exists or not. The only main difference will be that there will be less coordination with other vandal-patrollers and available online resources. I don't see the need for deletion and would rather encourage promotion of groups like this in order to let others know that there are actually people on wiki who are trying to raise the bar on the articles, not bring them down. --LifeStar 15:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Each time the CVU page is vandalized, a real Wikipedia article is saved from vandalism. I would actually say that the CVU vilifies vandals, as opposed to just ignoring them. No, I'd rather see my own user page deleted than this one. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I Agree with all above (I have also worn myself out aruging for it in the MfD) Æon Insanity Now!EA! 18:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree completely with Chodorkovskiy; I'd rather see his user page deleted than this one, too. EVula 15:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
With same logic Wikipedia:Wikiproject Anime and Manga glorifies vandalism to anime related articles. This is simply a wikiproject against vandalism. Stephan Colbert vandalised wikipedia in a televised manner, now THAT promotes vandalism. This page is not glorifying anybody. --Cat out 20:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You can't use MfD for this kind of dispute resolution! This is something for WP:ARBCOM and NOT the deletion process. Whether or not this group stays as it is, or is "deleted" or whatever doesn't matter, these documents, past discussions, etc, should be kept at the very least for historical records. This is a completely inappropriate process, a major WP:POINT violation, and has to be one of the most retarded thing I've ever experienced on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 06:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh heh, sorry. Knee-jerk reaction. It's the end of summer and it already looks like snow. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Reversion Tool in Common Use

I have had to revert due to vandalism but the procedure was somewhat long, especially because I had nothing to automatically create a description for the reversion. I have seen many reversions that have the format "(Reverted edits by XXX to last version by XXX)" so I am just wondering if there is a tool for non-admins that creates this tag and makes the process faster. "Godmode-lite" looks like something that would work, but any input is greatly appreciated. If this is the tool that makes the tag, how does one use it? I couldn't find much data on this topic, so I apologize for asking if this information is somewhere else on wikipedia.

I'm very interested in revision software too. I have tried using Vandal Fighter witch is great for finding vandalised articles but it dose not have a revision tool and I have applied for VandalProof but I think my number of edits are too low. Dose anyone have any advice or suggestions. Zippokovich 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I have it! use the popups tool

Zippokovich 21:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Logo problem

The current CVU logo flagrantly violates the policy on such matters: [23]. Is there an explicit exemption? If not, those logos need to be deleted stat. Phil Sandifer 04:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, note that the existing permission (A note on Angela's talk page) is contingent on the lack of a policy on the logo, which now exists, so it doesn't apply. Phil Sandifer 04:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Note there are comments above, at #official imprimateur, on this very issue, but no one involved with this "unit" responded. Even if there weren't an issue with Wikimedia logos or trademarks, these official-looking images absolutely do not belong here. —Centrxtalk • 04:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
So... ummm... official answer on this? Because I'm going to delete soon otherwise... Phil Sandifer 04:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Angela is aware of the Counter-Vandalism Unit's logos [24] and has not deleted them appears to imply permission for their continued use. If you believe that these logos are inconsistent with Wikipedia's logo policy, I suggest that you contact her to request deletion, rather than speedily deleting them yourself. We don't need to unnecessarily create more entries in Wikipedia:Deletion Review. Furthermore, given the extensive efforts of members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit in RC patrol to protect the integrity of Wikipedia, it might be more appropriate to thank the members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit than to speedily delete their project page and quibble about the Counter-Vandalism Unit's logo. John254 22:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The fact that Angela, several months ago, when different policies were in place, did not delete the images does not imply a permission that continues after the policy directly changes. Furthermore, the idea that your efforts to clean up RC patrol - something that was being done perfectly well before you came along - somehow gives you a pass to have copyright violation logos that serve no purpose is absurd, and frankly more destructive than vandalism, which would continue to be reverted even if the CVU were deleted and all its members left Wikipedia. I mean, thanks for your efforts, but don't mistake yourself for being necessary. Phil Sandifer 22:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Phil's right. My comments were made before Wikimedia:VIG existed, and possibly even before the trademarks committee existed. I suggest you contact BradPatrick since he's part of that committee and also the Foundation's general counsel and is therefore able to give permission for this sort of use of the logo. Angela. 05:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
"Wikimedia visual identity guidelines" states that "No derivative of the Wikimedia logo can be published without prior approval from the Foundation." However, like all policies, "Wikimedia visual identity guidelines" does not apply ex post facto. Since the logos were uploaded, and thus published, before the "Wikimedia visual identity guidelines" were enacted, and were clearly permissible at the time they were uploaded, their retention doesn't appear to be a copyright violation. In any case, I would have absolutely no objection if a member of the Wikimedia Foundation deleted these logos. I would object, however, to a non-member of the Wikimedia Foundation deleting a logo whose use the Wikimedia Foundation has previously permitted. John254 23:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Bull. The rules clearly apply. The ex post facto part means that you can't be warned for putting up the copyvio image. It does not mean that you are not obliged to bring the logo into compliance immediately. Phil Sandifer 02:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it matters whether there is specific conflict with Foundation policy. The logos should not say "Wikimedia Foundation"; this group/area is not any more special than any other. WP:RFA doesn't have or need any logos and it is far more official than this. The Wikipedia one alone, without "Wikimedia Foundation", is the absolute maximum of what is appropriate, but I don't see the reason for a logo at all. —Centrxtalk • 23:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Now, it does also so happen that it conflicts with the Wikimedia rules for logos; it is rather disingenuous to say that they were "clearly permissible" when uploaded as the "permission" was just Angela saying she would bring it up with the Board and then apparently there was no follow-up. Also I don't see why Wikimedia Foundation rules for logos would not apply after the fact; the same is true for policies in general, the only thing you wouldn't have after the fact is, say, blocks for persistent violation of policy. —Centrxtalk • 23:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
To quote in relavent part from Angela's statement [25]:

My latest email on this topic mentioned the logos you'd made (along with many other examples), noting that the CVU logo is now widely in use, with no conclusion from the Board, and that I didn't think it was an issue based on past precedents. No comments were made in response to this to suggest these logos were not ok.

The Wikimedia Foundation didn't object to these logos in October 2005. Again, since the Wikimedia Foundation has previously considered this issue, why not let a member of the Wikimedia Foundation make the decision whether these logos should now be deleted? John254 00:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation set up clear cut rules that the logos are in violation of, and did not make any move to grandfather the logos in. Angela's statement was clearly "Well, we have no direct policy about it." That situation has clearly changed - there is a direct policy, and the logos violate it. It is unnecessary, following a reversal of policy, to go and directly tell everyone who is now in violation of it. They should be able to look at the policy and figure it out themselves. The Wikimedia Foundation has better things to do than to play a game of chasing down everyone who is violating that rule, and respect for it demands that you don't ask them to. Phil Sandifer 01:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
To be even more precise, Angela directly said "I can't give you "Board approval" since the Board has no official logo use policy yet." That has changed - there is now official logo use policy, and the CVU logo violates it, with no explicit grandfathering of an exception. This settles the matter straightforwardly. Phil Sandifer 01:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
In regard to trademark violation and logo rules, I suppose that could be true, but in regard to whether the images belong regardless of trademark/logo they still don't belong here, or anywhere, and should be removed from this page. —Centrxtalk • 00:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Absent any copyright problems, I believe that the images should be retained, as the historically accurate insignia of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. John254 01:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
But you're not absent any copyright problems - these are clear copyvio. Phil Sandifer 01:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
If they were not a copyright/trademark problem, they would still not belong included on this page, and they have no historical value; they aren't rejected policies with reams of text that can warrant future reading, they are pretty logos. —Centrxtalk • 02:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's let Angela or Danny decide whether these logos are permissible, rather than continuing to debate exactly how far these logos were authorized when they were uploaded, whether they have a grandfathered exception to "Wikimedia visual identity guidelines", and other questions to which no one outside of the Wikimedia Foundation has any conclusive answers. John254 02:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's just untrue. There are conclusive answers here - they violate policy. Period. There is no reason to say otherwise besides a stubborn insistence on having your very own pretty thing. Phil Sandifer 03:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Neither Danny nor I have the authority to grant use of the Foundation's trademarks. Angela. 05:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If i may suggest pragmatism:

theres no need for the images to be deleted asap, and the images might be deleted soon anyway, along with this page, as it is currently in deleteion review, and, if it gets undeleted, will likely go up for deletion anyway; it will probably be deleted as a result of this, but, if not, will probably be heavily modified. there will probably, simply put, not be any need for this argument about logos.

also, if this project survives, there are not only copyvio, but also 'do not glamorise vandalism' arguments against the logos (and DNGV arguments against the name CVU), which, imo, both should be rolled into one argument to redesign the logos.

basically, i wouldnt like to see this project cause a lot of inneficient and unnessesary argumentation that draaaaaaaaaags on and gets messy. i suggest we let the DRV and probable second MfD arguments take their cource, and, if neccesary, have a second argument about renaming CVU and redesigning the logos that combines the copyvio and DNGV arguments into one. --DakAD 03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Delete them. They only serve to romanticize vandalism and therefore encourage it.--Lorrainier 09:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT a matter of debate or discussion. Please take it to the board. If they see a problem with it, they can delete it.
Furthermore, this has been discussed before. Board was asked twice about the issue (once for the permission and second for the confirmation). Images were created before the guidelines just like many other logos such as medcom logo.
--Cat out 20:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You never got permission. You got a lack of refusal. Big difference. Phil Sandifer 20:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You never got board approval for the first or second speedy deletions. Why not pick on the medcom logo? Or the admin mop? Most of commons:Category:CopyrightByWikimedia, and w:Category:CopyrightByWikimedia should be deleted or else CVU logos should be restored.
--Cat out 14:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • N.B. these logos were deleted from commons:
  1. 23:33, 1 September 2006 AlisonW (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:CVU2.svg" (unauthorised adaptations of WM logos)
  2. 23:33, 1 September 2006 AlisonW (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:CVU2.PNG" (unauthorised adaptations of WM logos)
  3. 23:32, 1 September 2006 AlisonW (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:CVU2.5.PNG" (unauthorised adaptations of WM logos)
  4. 23:28, 1 September 2006 AlisonW (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Counter Vandalism Unit.png" (unauthorised adaptations of two WM logos)
    xaosflux Talk 20:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Umm... Help

I have not logged on nor edited articles in a while however, I just recieved a message saying that my Ip (70.50.199.91 (talk · contribs)) has been vandilising articles and will be banned if i don't stop. Umm... what the hell, I have not vandilized any articles nor know of anyone else in my household who even goes on wikipedia. It could be because we have a wireless interet conection and someone is stealing it or something and i have no idea what else to do or where else to complain. So could you help me out and give me some sugestions, seriously, this is pissing me off. --Gilimonster 18:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

where did you recieve this message? --Dak 19:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A fe minutes before posting this. --Gilimonster 19:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

yes, but where? i can't see a vandalism warning on your userpage, or your ip's userpage? --Dak 12:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
If it's your wireless, you should secure it. Someone could do a lot worse than vandalize WP from you IP, and if they're vandalising, they might not be the sorts of people you want sharing your bandwidth anyway. ----SB_Johnny|talk|books 20:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a static or dynamic IP address? --Ineffable3000 17:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A more general critique

I've been very critical of the CVU in the past and present, and I feel like I owe its members a clearer explanation of my problems. They are, broadly, as follows.

  1. The idea of a war on vandalism is unhelpful to Wikipedia's general appearance. Vandalism is, of course, one of the classic objections to Wikipedia. The strongest response, however, is that it isn't a problem - that the wiki method organically deals with it. To make it something that we have to wage war on, with official logos and a Defcon is to tacitly admit failure of our fundamental model. Vandalism ought to be able to be handled - and in fact has always been handled - quite well without any organized structure, which is a key aspect of Wikipedia.
  2. The CVU increasingly occupies a blurred position. It bears the logos of the project, makes recommendations as to database locks, occupies a place in the vandalism category, etc. And yet it also explicitly lobbies and interprets controversial policy. This is unacceptable - either it is an official body - something it clearly lacks consensus to be - or it is a WikiProject, in which case it needs to stop acting like it has any sort of official force.
  3. The CVU is ultimately an agent of instruction creep. Vandalism fighting can and will persist without it. But it serves to create rules and structurs to govern that which works fine without them. This ought be stridently resisted.

Phil Sandifer 03:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: your first point, wikipedias growing alot, and thus attracting more trolls, vandals, and general pilloks. vandalism has, by all accounts i've heard, gone up significantly from the early days when it may have handled it well. wether it's the CVU, the RCP, or people adding problematic pages to their watchlist, some form of special reaction to vandalism is, imo, neccesary to adequately supress it. in fact,the above three phenomena are all directly results of the wiki method. whilst some people leave the problem of vandalism, others deal with it as-and-when it's encountered, and yet others focus primerally/soley on removing vandalism.

Other than that, i'd tend to agree with you, and add the following:

the counter vandalism unit, hinting at a counter terrorism unit, and its logos and defcons and 'club-like' nature, makes vandalism more of a game for dedicated vandals, as, to an extent, i imagine the warning templates also would do. thusly, the CVU is bad.

however, imo wp benifits from teams of people specifically focusing on counter-vandalism actions, and the CVU is an encoragment for people to consider RCpatrolling etc as a way in which they can contribute to wp, (compare the consept of a 'counter-typo unit' :-D ). thusly, the CVU is good.

maybe if we keep the consept -- an introduction to how you can help wp by reverting vandalism, whilst making it less game-like and 'fun' for the vandals, the CVU would be all good? maybe we could add a few features in, like making the members of the CVU available for aid in problematic vandalism pages (like halfway between dealing with it on your own and going to the requests for administrator interventions page)

basically, i think theres alot of potential in the CVU, but it needs changing --DakAD 03:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain what it does? You see vandalism, you revert, you post on AIV. What coordination is needed? The #vandalism-en-wp IRC channel is useful, but no one there is a member of whatever this "CVU" is, and its usefulness is only due to it being real-time, everything else can be done with existing noticeboards. My usual encounters with "CVU members" is new users who actually turn out to be vandals or sockpuppets. —Centrxtalk • 03:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do not generalise. --Cat out 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

well i'll be, it actually exists.

the purpose of CVU is, essentially, the same as the typo team :-D

people who want to focus improving wp in one particular way can have a page that brings together all the useful info that they'd need, a list of other members that they can ask for advice, and an interface with the community, eg bot writers. (see User:JoeBot ), a place for any vandalism/typo specific discussion, etc. --DakAD 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner, I reccomend you to rc patrol rather than pursuing this senseless debate. Attacking this wikiproject from every angle (copyrights and et all) waistes everybodies time only. --Cat out 20:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have done countless hours of RC patrol in the past, and I agree absolutely with everything Phil says. Actually, I say I "have done". What I mean is "used to do". I was put off by the holier-than-thou "official" nature that the CVU engenders in its members. I'd add another objection to Phil's list from above: it makes a big deal out of vandalism. "But vandalism is a big deal", I hear you cry. Only if you want it to be. If you want it to be something that is trivial, unworthy of mention, the way to achieve this is to go about getting rid of it in an understated, non-hysterical manner.
And if you think that the CVU will stop another Siegenthaler happening, you're very mistaken about your own efficacy and worth. Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That's much of my first point. Vandalism isn't a big deal. It's a natural wasteproduct of the Wiki process that we ar quite good at eliminating organically. The CVU is, to continue the biological metaphor, the equivalent of shoving a healthy person on dialysis. Phil Sandifer 16:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Dude, its a wikiproject. In no way is it "official" in any way. I do not recall anyone claiming that it ever was.
The point of CVU is not to pevent a Siegenthaler from happening, but instead serve its purpose as a wikiproject: increasing efficency in dealing with vandalism. We can debate how to make it even better, I certainly do not mind that.
Sam Korn, you are a member of Arbcom (which requires to be elected and etc), the CVU "membership" is very different. CVU "members" are simply wikipedians who happened to put a category or userbox on their userpage. If they act in an inaprporate manner they should be dealt with just like any wikipedian. Vandals for instance had "join" this wikiproject in the past and were blocked for vandalism. The concept of joining is a VERY loose affiliation. In that sense I am affiliated with Anime, Star Trek, Japan, and Turkey wikiprojects. That doesnt make me an expert on any of these issues nor does it give me an "authority".
--Cat out 14:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
If it is unofficial, it should
  1. Stop using or trying to use official Wikimedia logos in its design
  2. Remove itself from all categories that contain official pages
  3. Delete the Defcon system
  4. Stop tagging pages as "watched by the CVU"
At which point I'll buy its unofficial status. Phil Sandifer 16:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I dont care if you are convinced or not at what its "official" status is. None of your demands have anything to do with all of this and are also nothing more than a series of strawmans arguments. I'll reply to 2 out the 4.
As for your demand #1, Template:Userpage displays the foundations logo on a large number of pages at an interwiki level. I never heard anyone declaring themselves board members or being mistaken for it. Why, every page displays the wikipedia logo. Certainly not everything is affiliated with wikipedia because of it?
As for your demand #4, many pages are tagged with unofficial wikiprojects such as "Anime and Manga".
--Cat out 02:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The Anime and Manga tag does not constitute a warning to editors. And yes, I should think every page on Wikipedia's servers is in some way affiliated with Wikipedia - this hardly strikes me as a difficult proposition.
The central problem here is simple. If the CVU is a WikiProject, it has no standing to make official warnings of any sort - that would violate article ownership. The line between "Project X is working on this article," or "This article falls under the purview of Project X" and "Project X is watching this article, be warned" is vast. If the CVU is anything other than a WikiProject, it ought not be trying to lobby policy issues, and it ought have dramatically more community support than it does. Phil Sandifer 04:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
If you have problems with the wording, please say so directly. You or anyone is welcome to suggest alternative wordings in the form of a suggestion. If I understand this correctly, only frequently vandalised articles are tagged with the template such as George W. Bush (actualy that article isnt tagged and I have no idea what you are talking about). The templates serve (or should serve) the same function as the Anime and manga userbox: primarily to advertise this project so that there are more volunteers to work on related articles.
I am unaware of any lobying commited by the CVU as a hole. This does not mean that members of the CVU are prohbited from policy discussions. Same people are also not prohibited from agreeing with each other.
--Cat out 08:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Another critique

I agree with the points that Phil has made, and I would add a couple of my own:

  1. Similarly to Phil's first point, I consider the "war on vandalism" mentality unhelpful, mainly because of its implicit promotion of incivility and intolerance of newcomers, and its militaristic or gamelike connotations, which are clearly contrary to the tradition of the project. The mentality is also likely to attract the wrong kind of people to the project, and the wrong kind of contributions.
  2. Simple vandalism is not that big a deal. It has always existed and it has always been dealt with. Overexaggerating or overemphasising the problem of simple vandalism (which CVU seems to do in practice, with its heavy focus on real-time intervention) directs people willing to spend their time and effort helping to address problems of vandalism away from more complex problems, where they are really needed.

Given that the resources listed here are already listed elsewhere, maintaining this organisation does not seem particularly helpful. I would like to see the users involved with this page choose to close it, and move on to pages like Wikipedia:Requests for investigation or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where more dedicated users would be most helpful.

Feel free to discuss these critiques rationally below. --bainer (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This project was intended to improve civility, never was it in any way a millitary community (how the heck do you go military on a wiki?). With same reasons, RC Patrol is also a highly military term... CVU is hardly an organisation.
Live RC feed is hard to deal with. Hundereds/Thousands of pages get vandalised on a daily basis. Leaving them unattended means when a random person loads a page, they will find something unencyclopedic such as a very large penis picture. Dealing with that is not irrelevant. Dealing with such vandalism does not require a wikiproject, such vandalism will happen with or without this project. How long will pages stay vandalised, thats what this project intends to shorten.
Any suggestions of improving the system will be warmly welcome.
--Cat out 14:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You're describing a problem that doesn't exist, though - vandalism has always been caught and caught fast. There was not a massive rash of uncaught vandalism when the CVU was founded, nor a reduction of said non-existant rash following it. Phil Sandifer 15:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Cool Cat, I didn't say that the project was intended to be a military community, I was merely observing that the project has militaristic or game-like connotations, described (by itself and its members) as a "unit" engaged in a "war", attending to a "Defcon" level. Clearly there have been members in the past who have regarded the unit as a military-style organisation; the users who eventually left for this site, for example.
On the matter of simple vandalism, remember that the famous IBM "five minute reversion" study was conducted in 2002. Simple vandalism has always been an issue, but likewise it has always been dealt with because it is easy to spot. I'm not saying that it should be left unattended, merely that it should not be overexaggerated, and complex vandalism (where the attention of dedicated users is most needed) forgotten as a result. --bainer (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I started this thing and it was NEVER military (it was originaly the title of my IRC bot). No one was giving orders around here at any given time. I was never the commander general.
Unless I am explicitly prohibited to use "millitary terms" on wikipedia, I will cotinue to do so. Wikipedia isn't a stragner to millitary terms. RC Partoling for instance is a millitary term as "patroling" is a millitary term. Also, many of the every day words we use can be millitary: Unit for instance is a disambiguation page and there is no mention of "millitary" there. As for defcon, I do not care much about it. But having a defcon does not make this a millitary organisation.
www.countervandalism.org is in no way affiliated with Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit is in no way affilated with anyone. CVU is just a wikiproject, nothing more or nothing less.
Thats a strawmans argument. Of course vandalism had been dealt with before the existance of this wikiproject. It will be dealt with with or without this wikiproject. However, with all due respect the 2002 study is heavly outdated. We deal with an increasing amount of vandalism on an increasing number of articles with increasing frequency and we need increasing number of people RC patroling with the increasing demand for it. This wikiproject is intended to help satisfy the increasing demand and is mostly a howto and secondarily a colaboration place for people discussiong stuff like "how to deal with vadals" away from the daily vandalism routine.
--Cat out 02:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've always viewed the CVU as slight tongue-in-cheek, but certainly not unhelpful. Really, they aren't actively hurting anything, and if they raise awareness of vandalism then are indeed being a positive influence. It's no different than any other wikiproject. If some people think sniping vandals makes a fun game, then let them play that game to the betterment of wikipedia. --tjstrf 20:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

CVUtan

Cvutan.png

Just to show that I want everyone to suffer: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geni (talkcontribs) .

/me applauds! — xaosflux Talk 12:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Not bad. :) Me likey. I'd prefer her with a mop though since people will call us military because she is holding riot gear... --Cat out 14:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
so will that be a gateling mop or a howitzer mop?Geni 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Gently cleaning/holding (just like how a maid would do). A new wiki-tan image might be drawn for it. :) --Cat out 14:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I can see why a mop would be appropriate, but I think she'd look very cute with a feather duster, and maybe a little frilly maid's cap. Her costume already looks a bit like a french maid outfit. -- Vary | Talk 16:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm would think that would be more sutiple of the various syntax repair people. Unless you are tlaking about a RPFD with a tandem warhead.Geni 18:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I would advise a mop as the mop represents admins, something we aren't. American Patriot 1776 19:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

AAAHHHHHHH *dumps alcohol in eyes* --Chris (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this some sort of bad joke? Did I just die and go to hell? What the hell is that... that... thing over there -> ?--digital_me(TalkContribs) 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It an attempt to blackmail the foundation.Geni 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I certainly think that it will accomplish that ;) --digital_me(TalkContribs) 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Geni, that is brilliant. Best laugh I've had all week. +sj + 21:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

OMG that is OUTSTANDING I feel out of my chair I was laughing so hard. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 03:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

All chuckles aside, this little "joke" is evidence - obviously intended to belittle and insult a group of Users within the Wikipedia organization, those devoted to actively cleaning up vandalism. At this point we need a mature independent Administrator, who is not a stakeholder in the argument whether the CVU should or should not be allowed to exist, to look at intervening on the behalf of some Users, who are clearly under attack as a group for whatever reason. --T-dot 14:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Being POV (PRO-CVU) I think this logo is great, and am in NO way insulted by it, not think it should be seen in any way as a personal attack by [[User:Geni|]. — xaosflux Talk 15:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
the logo is not an attack on the CVU. While I would not describe myself as being pro CVU (I hate being pro things people expect you to get involved and stuff) I'm yet to see what I think logicaly sound argument against their existance. The image is mostly a joke (I have a very strange sense of humor) but not one aimed at the CVU (if anything it contains a slight dig at the foundations policy on the use of their logos).Geni 16:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Attack on the CVU or not, you guys plagiarized the WikiProject Anime and manga's logo and I thought you guys didn't vandalise other people's work, considering yourselves part of an anti-vandal organization. What i'm trying to say is...you guys vandalized the logo of WikiProject Anime and manga! I thought you guys were supposed to PREVENT vandalism, not PROMOTE it! Is the CVU trying to have a good laugh before it dissolves by its own MfD? 74.225.117.237 18:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
credit is given to the two works it is derived from. That covers both plagiarism and copyright. One of the side effects of the GFDL is that people can create derivative works.Geni 18:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, and this is one of the potential project mascots for all of wikipediak meta:Wikipedia_mascot#Wikipe-tan. Vandalism would be if the production copy was chaged, forking is NOT vandalism. — xaosflux Talk 18:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
even if it weren't licenced under GFDL, the fact remains that plagarism/copyvio != vandalism. --DakAD 19:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice job, CVU. I, at least, find the juxtaposition of girl+riot gear hilarious. --tjstrf 18:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Abso-freaking-lutely hilarious. EVula 18:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

To above I didn't think of it as a Personal Attack. I think the image is cute and funny! Æon Insanity Now!EA! 00:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

With the help of ja:利用者:Kasuga, I created a new logo. Its released with a free license and does not use any wikipedia/wikimedia logos. Enjoy. --Cat out 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Current Deletion Discussions

  1. THE COUNTER-VANDALISM UNIT IS NOW BEING CONSIDERED FOR DELETION AT Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination). Please feel free to vote there. --Cat out 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. Category:Counter-Vandalism_Unit_members is up for renaming at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_1#Counter-Vandalism_Unit_members, please discuss it there. — xaosflux Talk 03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Huh. Checkuser shows that Dr Chatterjee = Bobby Boulders = WoW. Looks like that funny stuff in my eyes was just wool after all! Well, back to vandal thumping... --SB_Johnny | talk 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
No suprise there... Really... --Cat out 23:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

New logo avalible under a free license

New CVU logo

New logo, will certainly slience the copyright complaits. The previous logo will undergo a board review. --Cat out 21:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The "Wikimedia Foundation" text still needs to be removed. —Centrxtalk • 21:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Why? In anycase asuming we have to do that, can someone mirror the top text to the bottom? My photoshop doesnt go that far... --Cat out 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if it is a legal necessity, but this page/project/group is not a affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation; having "Wikimedia" or "Wikipedia" might be fine, but "Wikimedia Foundation" is the non-profit organization in its official capacity. —Centrxtalk • 22:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
We are affiliated in a volunteer sense in no war are we official. I think the logo should have some connection to the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects and since I cant use the logos, this is the only thing that comes to my mind. "Wikipedia", "Wikimedia", and "Wikimedia Foundation" are equaly problematic on the image (or not problematic at all).
I'll wait for what the board/trademark commitee has to say. If they complain I'll react accordingly... If they dont, there really isnt a problem anyways.
--Cat out 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, nevermind, someone was eager to censor it already. --Cat out 22:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is the foundation you will have to worry about but all the people complaining you are trying to appear official. You will find a foundation free copy of the logo in the history on commons. oh And I can't find a way to mirror the top text on the bottem without creating it from scratch. What is the font?Geni 22:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't circular logos where the text goes around the entire image usually go upside down on the lower half? In that case, all you'd need to do would be copy-paste and rotate the upper text to the bottom. (Example: I thought I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes...) --tjstrf 22:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I tried that it sucked.Geni 23:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I didnt add the text as my photoshop skills suck. User:Silsor chose that font and I doubt he'll remembers it. --Cat out 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Win, very win. I liked the old Wikipe-tan one to start with, and since this doesn't have that supposedly negative police force connotation, the new one is less controversial. Good job. --tjstrf 21:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't she have a paint roller instead :)? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 23:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Why paint roller? --tjstrf 23:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Well cleaning vandalism up sound more approporate, and paint roler wouldnt fit the maid outfit. --Cat out 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I like! Æon Insanity Now!EA! 23:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The array of userboxes has been updated, and is on display at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. — xaosflux Talk 02:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's humiliating. Oh well, it's worth it if it keeps the CVU alive. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 05:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What's humiliating? That you now have the best logo ever? --tjstrf 05:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh I have no probelm with Wiki-Tan. It's the house-wife-with-a-mop that gets to me. We are not sysops. Also, did you see the expression? She looks hardly successful, even though the CVU is meeting its objectives quite nicely. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 06:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not a housewife, it's a maid. You may have a point with the sysop thing. Her expression is a happy/determined one, not sad or anything. You must not have zoomed in on the image. --tjstrf 06:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I still don't like it. Maybe if her legs weren't like that... and she was smiling... Yeah, like the Russian oar girl. But still, the mop... What was wrong with riot gear anyway? --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
You mean asside from the image not scaleing down to well? andyway you can use Template:User CVU3-en if you want.Geni 15:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am. I even substituted it so my user page doesn't change every time PC is in. I just offered my opinion about the official CVU logo.--Chodorkovskiy (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

could use both but it isn't really my place to make any judgments.Geni 16:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
What's with the new logos with anime? Can't we have more designs like the blue logo. The wierd anime girl logo is wierd/  Demonblade  11:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I've remade the blue logo, smoothing out some of the rough spots and making the seal round again (it was cut off at the edges). I also added a new version with "CVU" in the center, which should be beneficial to the userboxes, etc. I may come out with a new design soon. As you may know, the logos are based on CTU. --TinMan 12:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The anime logo is necesary because people are complaining that we are some sort of millitary organization strictly based on the logo. Since no millitary has an anime charater as their logo, that slicences that. Also, she is cute. :P --Cat out 20:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. All she needs now is some sort of a battlemech with the letters VP engraved on it...--Chodorkovskiy (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no JSDF-tan yet? They need one. Also, I've discovered I do possess the image editing software necessary to place curved text on the bottom half of the logo, I just don't know the proper font. Any tips? --tjstrf 20:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

remove deletion at the top?

It's five days should the deletion tag be removed?---Scott3 Talk Contributions Count: 950+ 00:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

MFD runs for 8 days, but it has now been closed. — xaosflux Talk 01:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

???

Why did the CVU logo go through so many changes? Toronto fille 01:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In a nutshell, there were copyright issues with the derrvited images, out of a nutsehll:see above. — xaosflux Talk 06:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Name to suit our logo?

Why not change our name to suit the logo? Sailor Moon is under trademark no doubt, unless someone wants to claim fair-use. What about "Anime Maids of Wikipedia" or "Wikipe-tan Janitors Association"? I'm sorry... The logo just makes me want to drop on the floor laughing every time I see it. But seriously is the logo staying? And what about choosing a new name?--Konstable 03:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Maids of Wikipedia" and "Janitors association" make me want to drop on the floor and die. CVU is perfectly good as it is.--Chodorkovskiy (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, about the matching uniforms: you can always get the ones as pictured on this page... Titoxd(?!?) 06:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Now that's a logo I can live with. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we can use that one to replace the {{test4}} hand hrm.--Konstable 06:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Chodorkovskiy above, leave it be, especially now that we just got done with rounds and rounds of deletion disucssions. — xaosflux Talk 06:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I like "CVU" to be honest. --TinMan 18:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Anime Maids of Wikipedia" is too long. How about "Animaids of Wikipedia"? Factitious 20:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Lets leave the name alone. but I do like the french maid. Just picture it a vandal sitting there vandaising a way and the message pops up with a french maid saying this is your last warning, I would die laughing if that happened to me. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 05:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
While I like the idea, the image in question is copyrighted. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

MfD messageboxes

I'd like to see a message box at the top of this page that says something like "All prior nominations of this page for deletion have been made in bad faith by known vandals. Nominators of this page for deletion should provide evidence substantiating their reasons for nomination". Just a hurdle, the wording can change -- Clappingsimon talk 09:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Those boxes are being transcluded from Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/oldmfds, although they may have been started that way, the third nomination was full of content/context based discussion as well (non-consensus, closer to keep then delete it felt like though). — xaosflux Talk 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not just mention that they (the first two) were "bad-faith nominations"? --tjstrf 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Watching the FAs

How about putting the following suggestion into the "detection" part of the project page: "temporarily put the daily featured article on your watchlist, as it is bound to become a target for vandals". Or something of the sort, you get my point. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A good idea. I generally try to do it if I have the time, and I've caught a lot of vandalism like that (even if I did have to sully my contribution list with a Pokemon character...). EVula 16:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Being useful

When the CVU manages to stop obsessing over its logo and the placement of the deck chairs on the Titanic, it might be instructive to figure out how John Seigenthaler, Sr. spent over a day vandalized without any of our committed vandal fighters reverting it? Phil Sandifer 16:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I think it is absolutely unforgivable that some of us didn't catch a fairly well-hidden bit of vandalism. I bet some CVU members even had the audacity to do other things, like go to the bathroom or, dare I say it, sleep. We should always be refreshing the Recent Changes link, letting all our muscles atrophy except for those we use for the keyboard and mouse.
I applaud you, Phil, for being brave enough to stand up against these lazy, good-for-nothing volunteers. Just because nobody involved in the CVU gets paid doesn't mean they have the right to not catch every single mistake.
Bravo, sir. You are a shining beacon of humanity, and your parents should be revered as gods for bringing you into a world that isn't good enough for you. EVula 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that 24 hours of vandalism to that particular article stands as a particularly shameful debacle. It is probably, after main page vandalism, just about the worst vandalism we could have had. Phil Sandifer 17:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Heh-heh... I think what EVula is saying, is that the ridiculously large amount of support WoB got with his NFDs forced the CVU to take its concentration off RC patrol in favor of survival. It's been a busy week. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 17:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I find it telling that CVU prioritizes its existence over its job. Phil Sandifer 17:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please forgive them for having a self-preservation instinct. (Also, WoB=Willy on Boulders? lol.) --tjstrf 17:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
If you weren't an admin, I'd think you were trolling. You do realize the CVU can't do its job if it's not there? --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
What you mean is, "I think you are trolling". If you are going to make statements like that, please try to make your point properly. As to the other half -- perhaps Phil thinks that the CVU's existance is unnecessary for people to do its job. Is this really an unreasonable opinion? Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I believe he's pointing out that going and complaining about a single instance of uncaught vandalism, and blaming an entire group for it, is inflammatory. If not trolling, then exceedingly poor judgment. --tjstrf 17:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I mean what I say and I say what I mean. I am not accusing Phil of trolling (yet). My view on the importance of CVU is obviously very different than Phil's, hence the comment must have made sense for him. That aside, I suggest we all go back to our "jobs". --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the point Phil is trying to make is that Wikipedia's anti-vandalism process did not work here. As it is a prominent article, it should be asked how this happened. Phil's opinion is that the CVU distracts its members by its own navel-gazing rather than enabling them to fix problems like this. Again, I don't think that view is unreasonable. OK, it may not tell the whole story, but perhaps it tells part of the story, and perhaps the CVU should ask itself how it can improve so incidents such as this don't happen again. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Finding a single unreverted piece of vandalism does not imply anything of the sort. I'm afraid you're going to have to conduct a study on the correlation between being in the CVU and the amount of vandalism reverted by the user. Moreover, you'll have to do it with a sufficiently large number of users to have a solid case. Only then can such claims be made seriously. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth. Your assertion that CVU is useful to someone fighting vandalism is just as meaningful as Phil's one that it isn't. They are equally valid opinions and equally without evidence to support them. All I can suggest is that you accept that Phil holds this opinion. Try to figure out why he does, then see if there is a fault that needs rectifying. Don't descend into the world of "anyone who opposes CVU supports vandalism" that I have seen. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I could ask you to do the same; you'll notice I did exactly what you suggested in my 17:39 comment: "My view on the importance of CVU is obviously very different than Phil's, hence the comment must have made sense for him." I agree, there's no point in name-calling. In fact, I'm already thinking about a way to prevent the incident in question from happening again. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks like we're all behaving ourselves nicely then.  :-) Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, a more serious response: your link is exceedingly misleading. For the record, there wasn't an entire day of no edits that passed between the addition and removal of the vandalism; there were nine. If you're looking for a reasonable summation of what happened, here it is: "shit happens" (an alternative one would be "we're only human").

User:24.59.193.92 added the "killed and then ate" bit (which I have to admit is really funny) at 13:34 Sep 6. Within a minute, RoughNeck2000 had reverted most of the vandalism; he apparently missed that one bit (how? Not sure, as I'm not him. He was patrolling for just the "its" stuff, though, so he probably went straight for that, as per the edit summary). Following that, there were several other edits, including two by an anti-vandalism bot, before it was caught.

Are we seriously expected to catch every single bit of vandalism on Wikipedia? Because if we are, I should resign right here and now (the exact phrase: "fuck that, I'm out"); I'll do my best to revert what I can, but I'll be damned before I'll have someone throw in my face the fact that something slipped through the cracks. Maybe you think it is okay to bitch and moan at people who do this out of the kindness of their heart (and in their free time), but personally, I think you're being a dick. EVula 17:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Every single one? No. Vandalism to Siegenthaler, of all articles? Yes. Yes, you are expected to catch that. Phil Sandifer 17:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Your unreasonable expectations are your problem, not mine. I don't particularly care for being told that it was my fault (in any way) that an article I'd never edited before was vandalized (I'm taking it as personal as I apparently should, given Phil's over-arching declaration against the CVU in general and his response above to my question). I catch as much as I can; no more, no less. If you have a problem with my level of anti-vandalism activity on Wikipedia, feel free to process me through whatever system is in place for crazy-stupid situations like this one. The fact that you broadly proclaim that everyone here is wasting their time is utterly infuriating; the fact that it is coming from an admin is doubly so (and incredibly disheartening). I'm also curious as to why you didn't catch it, either; as an admin, I would think that it is your duty even more-so than it is mine or anyone else's here (barring the admin members of the CVU, of course). EVula 05:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we all just cool down a bit, this is starting to get VERY incivil. Maybe we should all go take a short break no? Canadian-Bacon t c e 17:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be incivil, I'm just trying to fully convey how pissed off I am about Phil's tone (seriously, bitching out volunteers is a big peeve of mine in real life). If I came across harsher than I intended, I apologize for my poor phrasing, but not the sentiment. EVula 17:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It's understandable that people are pissed off on both sides of this, and yes we're all volunteers here and that's part of the reason why it's so stressful. We all just fought one of the harshest XfDs in as long as I can remember and I think we ALL need to just cool down and take a break. It wasn't directed at any one person. Canadian-Bacon t c e 17:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Phil, if you wished to be helpful and solve the problem you mentioned, I would suggest watchlisting the bio page in question. And yes, calm is good. (Also, I'm glad I'm not the only one who found that bit of vandalism funny.) --tjstrf 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok let us all calm down here. Yes I do think that Phil's comment was uncalled for but also there is some incivility being directed back at him. Reguardless of what he said (or if you agree with it or not) doesn't give us the right to rake him over the coals also however Phil should not have made the comment that why he did (I'm going to assume he ment it in good faith). This is starting ot get out of control so lets just drop this and move on before this becomes a serious issue. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 05:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Besides entertaining our vandal audience, we're wasting time. I suggest we start working on a way to distribute all major articles between CVU watchlists.--Chodorkovskiy (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Gay, Russia

Please watch out for vandalism at Gay, Russia due to its obious atractiveness. Our glorious RCP'ers missed this today. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It lasted a full 20 minutes. How fucking horrible. I'm going home. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Oy vey... Some articles seem made for vandalism... added to watchlist. EVula 18:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I know it lasted 20 minutes, but I had a notion that someone had an eye on RCP at all times, more or less, and an IP edit to Gay, Russia must be on of the most suspicious recent changes ever!! :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I use Lupin's tool, which singles out that kind of vandalism really well. (Of course, I wasn't using it this morning...) --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Will Wikipedia:Voting is evil become a guideline?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Voting is evil where it belongs. -- Drini 22:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing warnings

There appears to be a long-standing dispute that I just got caught up in, regarding whether removing warnings from one's talk page should be considered vandalism (and possibly by extension, a reason to block said user). I've heard people claim consensus supports this, and others claim consensus opposes it. I am aware of several lengthy discussion pages on the topic - however, I would appreciate it if someone could give me a quick summary of why people think this is necessary. I hope it will be possible to reach some sort of compromise on the issue, to alleviate the dispute. >Radiant< 13:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings. It's pretty brief and to the point.--MrFishGo Fish 18:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Upon analyzing the situation, I think the main issue for the policy is not what we think should happen, but what in fact does happen. See also Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#Removing warnings, once more. >Radiant< 10:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Page Needing Protection

Could you guys watch The Wealth of Nations? I can't keep up with vandalization stuff, but that seems to be what you do best. I don't know where to put it on a watch list, but it should be there. Thanks. --יהושועEric 02:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm watching it now. If you want to watch an article yourself, go to the article while logged in, and click the "Watch" tab at the top. Nwwaew 13:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have created a new SVG version of the logo, based on the blue one. Peter O. (Talk) 13:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

AKA Vigilantes of Wikipedia

You all can have all the logos you want and deny the military implications of the group name until the cows come home, but in the end you will still be percieved as a bunch of vigilantes by lots of newcomers and infrequent editors. The very idea that people need to self organize to "take action" against vandalism (real or percieved) looks like a self appointed posse of judges, juries and executioners. Whether the "need" exists or not, you all have to deal with how it looks to others who dont share your dedication and enthusiasm to your percieved cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.10.18.77 (talkcontribs)

Based on your history of vandalism, I think you simply don't enjoy getting caught. IrishGuy talk 01:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
How can we be vigilantes and an organized group at the same time? If the CVU was disbanded, we would rightfully be called vigilantes since we would all revert vandalism purely on the self-interest of pages we care about. On the other hand, if the CVU became more cohesive we would be called a self-appointed organized group of judge, jury, and executioner for our concentrated grip on Wikipedia pages. I find it impossible for us to be both at the same time. Gdo01 01:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Add to that the fact that under the above definition, all justice systems on Earth are vigilantes - they all started out with a bunch of random people not happy with the way things were... Unless you believe in divine right. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone else has already covered the inherant conflict that the "CVU" is either officially part of Wikipedia thus giving approval to its activities or if it is not then it is in essense nothing but individuals banding together to change what is perceived as vandalism.

Counter Vandalism Unit needs some accountability

[THIS CONVERSATION HAS NOW BEEN ARCHIVED. DO NOT DELETE OR OTHERWISE CENSOR THE DISCUSSION.]

Your self-appointed counter vandalists saw fit to disallow me from deleting messages left for me on my talk page. After repeatedly restoring these messages, they then block my whole account, and then locked down any editing of my main user page and talk page. The irony, is that I was trying to request the wikipedia administrators to delete my user account. My one page that I tried to create was immediately deleted by another user, and I agreed to that, but my requests for deleting my account or changing the username were also deleted from the request page as well as my user pages. So I'm saying you guys are out of bounds and out of control in this case.

Update: Ironically, I was censored and blocked just for saying this by the admin Centrx (talk · contribs), an anonymous person who got admin power after a mere 3 months of heavy activity (see also Husond (talk · contribs) and many other examples), while making little to no meaningful contributions to Wikipedia's real content. Looking up some other bad admins like Nlu (talk · contribs), Luna_Santin (talk · contribs), and Xaosflux (talk · contribs), I found similar patterns. If someone can become an admin after just 3 months of heavy activity, that means the system can be gamed and taken advantage of, as it has too often (I have numerous references to that fact).

Update 2: Censored again by admins Husond (talk · contribs) and Naconkantari (talk · contribs).

Update 3: Centrx (talk · contribs) has blocked me from any editing and completely deleted any history of this discussion. Furthermore, he is now preventing any unregistered user from editing this page. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Wikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist

If this isn't the right place to make a criticism of the self-appointed Counter Vandalism Unit and bad admins, then where is? I know I can post this to Wikipedia Review or other sites which accept criticisms of Wikipedia, or popular news sites like Digg or Reddit. I posted a link to a person stating a similar point of view to Reddit today, and it got upmodded almost 500 times. See: http://reddit.com/info/nz6z/comments This expose on the abuse of power by Wikipedia's admins was the top story on the front page of Reddit all day today, and is still at #2 at the time of this writing, and it is already one of the top ten links ever posted to that site. So this episode has resulted in an enormous amount of negative publicity for Wikipedia.

The quality of admins has precipitously dropped in the past 6 months. Now anyone can easily and anonymously game the system and become an admin after a mere 3 months of heavy editing activity, while making little to no meaningful contributions to Wikipedia's real content, including, ironically, Centrx (talk · contribs), who deleted this statement and blocked my entire IP address range. Who needs China, when the censorship is already so rampent within the Wikipedia system? If they agents of censorship in China only knew, they wouldn't bother with trying to block Wikipedia. Maybe they are catching on now. People are starting to wake up to the unimportance of Wikipedia's real information.

Some initial specific suggestions (again, I will be rewriting this sometime in the future):

  • all admins must use real names
  • all admins must have content expertise and have made most of their contributions to the content of Wikipedia, not talk pages, user pages and special Wikipedia pages.
  • all voting on requests for adminships can be done anonymously, with only an indicator of one's current admin status being made public
  • a detailed record and analysis of all the user's edits must be made available to voters using things like Interiot's tool
  • admins are put on probation after first given powers. certain powers are restricted or must be seconded by an established admin
  • powers can be limited, such as no deleting, no blocking, no locking
  • every year an admin has to go up for re-evaluation. the same process every time
    • I know, you're thinking, that idea is ridiculous, the vandals would have a field day and many good admins would have their powers taken away. Well I say that is a good thing. Wikipedia needs new and more qualified admins. Even the U.S. Senate, a system that 90% of Americans think does a poor job, is a more efficient system than Wikipedia's. At least senators have a 2% chance of not being re-elected. Only 14 out of over 1000 Wikipedia admins have had their privileges revoked in the history of this site. That's 1.5%. And only a few admins have voluntarily offered themselves up for a re-evaluation.

Of course, none of this is going to happen. That is why Wikipedia is already starting its slow spiral of death just like usenet and the original wiki.

--Purposely left unsigned.

If you have such disbelief in the system healing itself, then why bother? In my opinion, and that of many others, the Wiki process is self-healing. Legitimate users would be reverting vandalism with or without the presence of a formal Counter-Vandalism project. The project is merely for these editors to gather together, coordinate, and discuss issues. What you're asking is for the system to become more bureaucratic, which is something I'm opposed to - it's not ArbCom, it's not MedCom, it's the CVU. It's a WikiProject, and sometimes people seem to get this idea that it's more than it is. I think we need a Wikipedia:What the CVU is Not entry if such misconceptions continue. it's not some official effort to annihilate all vandals from the face of Wikipedia - it is simply a collection of concerned editors with similar goals - to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. Just my two cents. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm having some difficulty taking this post seriously. Centrx (talk · contribs) made his first edit in January 2004 [26] and became an admin in July 2006 (RfA). I'm not particularly inclined to do any additional research in to Purposely's claims, as it seems that he or she has some bone to pick and thought this was the proper place to bring it. It is not. EVula 22:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This was from a user banned for some other trolling, and was previously posted and removed from this page, e.g. [27]. You can remove it if you want—it is clear inflammatory nonsense from a banned user; I thought he might feel as though he got his satisfaction and would stop fooling around if it was left up. —Centrxtalk • 23:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Please note that members of the CVU are not necessarily admins. No special privileges are granted; This is just a collection of individuals working together to help combat vandalism. Admins and CVU members are not the same, nor is one a subset of the other. --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)