Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Notification BOT

Has there been any development into this? Achowat (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
No. As soon as I'm confident that this is what CVU wants, I will start to develop the bot.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think such a talk page notice (or whatever notification we decide) for "Emergency Response Team" members (or whatever we call it) could be a highly effective tool, so I vote to go ahead if Cyberpower has the time to do it. If there's no dissension, the next step would be a simple functional specification—trigger conditions, how often it should check, what the message should say (include instruction to remove oneself from the list), once it's triggered, how long before it starts checking again, perhaps not post another message if there is already a notice on the page (or at the end of a page), etc. Mojoworker (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I can give you two options for the notification setup.

Like ClueBot and MiszaBot, one adds the subscription tag to their userpage with configuration settings.
Like the Signpost, we create a delivery list. (Harder to implement)

Which do you prefer?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I like option 2 better. But, I guess it depends on how much more work it is. Seems like a member list on a page here would make it easier to explain how to unsubscribe. Mojoworker (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to finish the development of the bot and am getting ready to post it in a BRFA. I just ran into a problem. This bot will check the template every minute, and therefore notify every minute. We should set a limit as to how often this bot should post to a page. I say once every 4 hours. Any thoughts? I would like some input so invite task force members to come and comment here.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You can start signing up at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Notifications list. Just follow the one simple instruction.

I still need some input as to the length of time the bot should wait out before sending another notification.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 06:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I propose replacing the Task Force with the Notification List, as they serve the same purpose, but the latter actually, y'know, works. Achowat (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with the Notification List replacing the Task Force. I brought the timing question up earlier when I mentioned "simple functional specification—trigger conditions, how often it should check, what the message should say (include instruction to remove oneself from the list), once it's triggered, how long before it starts checking again, perhaps not post another message if there is already a notice on the page (or at the end of a page)". So, it sounds like it will check once a minute, and wait four hours after being triggered until it starts checking again. That seems reasonable – four hours sounds like a good starting point. What will the message say? I think it should be succinct, since if someone signs up and then disappears, their talk page will eventually be clogged full with notices, unless you can do the test to "not post another message if there's already a notice on the page (or at the end of a page)". Mojoworker (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I know that SuggestBot has (or, at least, once did have) the capability or simply replacing its own notice with an updated notice (if there's already a notice on the User's talk). Is that something we should look into? Achowat (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So updating the notice if DefCon changes should be done instead? Should it remove it's own notice when vandalism dies down.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 18:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing Talk Page notices is sort of tricky business when it comes to other people's talk. Would it be possible to, say, have a conspicuous template that Task Force members could have on their Talk Pages that would be updated and still populate a "Change in Talk Page" message? Achowat (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Templates are a good idea but, I'm not going to make them. There need to be two. Assistance needed and no assistance needed.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

We could make a template that could be placed at the top of the page like the {{statustop}} template. Something like {{CVUNotice|status=xx}} where the BOT just fills in the xx part (and maybe a date/time parameter). That would still trigger the "Change in Talk Page" message and has the advantage that we could change the message text by editing the template. Mojoworker (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I say we give users as many options as we can. A top-icon, an invisible template, a standard box template. The more options we have, the more likely people are to use them. (But, as we test this Bot, we should probably stick to one format). Achowat (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

During testing, it will create a new section and notify them. We can add a template that can be configurable on how it appears the way they want it to. The bot will change it when they need to be notified to trigger their talk page.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 14:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Works beyond well for me. Achowat (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Unit in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on the Counter-Vandalism Unit for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Future of CVU/Drive

First of all, great work everyone so far! The Academy is now up and running, self-sufficient really (we've now got an Admin in our ranks and STiki developers have given CVUA students and graduates an exemption from the usual requirements). I think the above conversation (though it has died a bit) is progressing towards making the Task Force a useful tool in alerting online editors of severe levels of vandalism. The question becomes, how do we 'fix' the other Divisions, how do we make them strong? "Tools" is an easy fix, the page information (I believe) is accurate, all that's needed is someone to make it look not-terrible (a project I fully intend on starting and completing shortly after UEFA Euro 2012; though feel encouraged to try to beat me). "Vandalism studies" and "The Think Tank" are going to be harder and, frankly, require a greater level of participation than we currently have.
To that end, I propose a Contest, a Drive of sorts. This will, hopefully, engage some new Users who may become active in the CVU and help us make the Unit better. There are many ways we can do this (most reverts, most reports, etc) but I have ideologic problems with that (because, well, I don't want to 'reward' people for getting other editors blocked and if there's a 'prize' for finding vandalism, then most 'competitors' will take a competitive attitude and, well, I see WP:AGF issues.
What I, therefore, propose is a "Long-Standing Vandalism Hunt". Specifically what I would like to see is a start time "Say, 00:00 UTC on 1 July 2012" and the only Vandalism reverts that count are those where the page was Vandalized over 24 hours from that start time. It'll run all of July, but only edits on or before 29 June would count. There are hidden nooks and crannies where Vandalism persists, and it might be quite a bit of fun to go looking for it, while also accomplishing a job that would otherwise not get done. We can give out Barnstars and other awards just like the Copy Editors backlog drives. Does this sound like a good idea, or am I crazy? Achowat (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Drives that encourage quantity, which is good, but this is sometimes achieved at the expense of quality, which… well, you get the point. benzband (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The approval for this task is facing a lot of opposition. I am a little skeptical if this task will be approved. I have to first find enough people who will support and sign up for it. You can help me with that. I haven't gotten to perfecting the code, primarily because the code repository where the code is stored.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Contests make me jittery. That is all. Theopolisme _TALK 16:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Tools

FYI, I started messing around with a new Tools page. It looks like crud right now and I haven't really done too much.... but, ah well... User:Theopolisme/Stuff if you want something to giggle at. Theopolisme _TALK 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

m Hope you don't mind [1]. benzband (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Gorgeous...already looks 100% better than what's there now. Achowat (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings

This RFC may be of interest to members of this project. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Keywords and watchlist functions

I'm not sure this is the right place to broach this subject, but I'd like feedback on what technical options might exist to alert editors to changes to particular words on Wikipedia across article space. I've noticed for example that many IP editors will change Palestine to Israel and vice versa when it is inappropriate to do so. I'd like to know if there is a way to highlight or redflag such changes so they can be examined to see if the change is legit based on sources and usage or not, so as to maintain article integrity. i bring this up here because when its done without regard for academic, historical and contemporary usage it amounts to a form of vandalism. Thoughts? Tiamut^talk 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC concerning the Counter-Vandalism Unit

An RfC has been launched and all committed vandal fighters and CVU members are encouraged to comment and vote.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Terminology

I've heard discussion of how it's not right to use any other term (e.g. "shoot") for fighting vandalism, but would it be allowed for someone who identifies as a carnivorous mammal-WikiFauna (e.g. WikiPuma) to say that they "maul" vandals? Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 20:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not? RAWR Theopolisme _TALK 21:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a pretty clear reason "why not". The reason is because when we pretend that reverting vandalism is a battle, we take a battleground approach. Even if we don't, the next set of anti-vandals come and will. We treat IP addresses as though they are arrest warrants. We fail to assume good faith and we revert more than we should. Do what you want on your user page (following the rules, of course) but the policy of the CVU should be (and, judging by consensus is) that likening the reversion of vandalism to any kind of combat or other physical confrontation is not a helpful endeavor. Achowat (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

New Page Patrol discussion

There's something resembling a proposal here to remove the CVU banner from Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol. Some here may like to comment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Militaristic userboxes

So the Militaristic userboxes have been re-inserted to the front page. Is there anyone who is opposed to the de-listing of {{user CVU2-en}}, {{user CVU3-en}}, {{user CVU4-en}}, {{user CVU7-en}}, and {{user CVU/flier}}? It seems as though there was an agreement that pretending to play G.I. Joe was unproductive, and it seems as though a discussion is in order. Achowat (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Dan653 (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Of particular note is how many editors, through all the MFDs and the Huge Proposal we had at the early part of this year, pointed specifically to the "playing cops and robbers", "militarism", "glorifying vandalism" issues of the old-look CVU. There were corners of the project where the CVU was despised, was hated, because of the opinion that, instead of being a productive WikiProject, it was a bunch of teenaged boys pretending their program was more important than it was. Since the new-look CVU came around, the CVU was actually pointed to in this discussion as an example of the right way to go about organizing Users. This seems like a no-brainer to me, but I'm willing to entertain opposing opinions on the matter. Achowat (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The military userboxes are fine. I know everything on Wikipedia is super serious business, and nothing is allowed to be fun for editors, but this is ridiculous. If you don't like them, don't use them. I would like to add that it was particularly WP:POINTY and disruptive that you removed the categorization from over 100 CVU members by changing the userboxes. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right, and if you had brought up that to me, I would have reverted myself. But the fact, I'm afraid, stands that glorifying vandal-fighting is glorifying vandalism, and there are tons of problems that come up when we pretend we're engaged in some kind of actual combat. Mind you, no one is suggesting (in this discussion, at least) deleting the templates for people who already use them. Just to stop listing them and try to purge that mindset from those who counter vandalism. Remember, it's about Identify, Revert, Warn, and Report...we have no use for guns or fighter jets. Achowat (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Glorifying vandal fighting encourages vandal fighting. What are the problems? Where is the data showing that it somehow creates more vandals? Yeah, maybe 1 vandal out 1,000 cares that we have some userboxes on our pages--but most just like putting dumb stuff on pages because they are bored at school. You know what? A lot of people fight vandals when they are bored. Why stand in the way of a mindset that makes this constructive work more interesting for them? IronGargoyle (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Because even if it didn't actively encourage vandalism (which would be impossible to prove one way or the other), having a militaristic approach hurts AGF. It hurts AGF! That's the long and the short of it. If we're fighting a war, then the people we're fighting are the enemies. IPs are no longer humans, they're Charlies who need to be fought back. And, for the record, Wikipedia is serious work and the process of building an encyclopedia is, in no way, helped by likening that activity to risking your life on a battlefield. Achowat (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but this is coming from the person with the userpage full of military ribbons (and I seem to recall you asking me to make you a ribbon to represent a "vandal whacking stick"). How do you even know it hurts good faith? Where is the data? Does your vandal whacking ribbon make you assume good faith less? IronGargoyle (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No offense is taken. I display the ribbons earned as a "thank you" to the people who've decided to honor me with barnstars. I disagree that they are "military ribbons"; In my history I've been very involved with the Scouting Movement, who use similar devices, as do Police Departments and Fire Brigades and the like. What I do take umbrage to, however, is your ad hominem reasoning, that somehow because I avail myself of WP:RIB, somehow the issues that I'm bringing up (that have been repeated by countless editors in the 6 years CVU has been around) are less valid. And your suggestion that you will only agree that playing G.I. Joe hurts AGF is if I can provide data is akin to asking me to read the minds of other users. Achowat (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Comments amended and extended because I realized I wasn't being very nice

You don't have to read people's minds to provide data. Look to see if the people who use the militaristic userboxes are systematically more WP:BITEy. I will admit that I have no data that the militaristic userboxes encourage vandal fighting, but you don't have any data that it leads to less assumption of good faith either. It boils down to an IDONTLIKEIT vs. ILIKEIT argument until someone provides data. The burden of proof lies on who is accusing of hundreds of users of not assuming good faith though. IronGargoyle (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a miscategorization of my argument. No one is suggesting that the Users who use these Userboxes are more likely to hold a militaristic mindset. Rather, the argument is that they are indicative of an issue, that a militaristic mindset is problematic. One needs only to look through the archives of this page for examples of a gross lack of assumption of good faith, and such a thing is easy to show corrolation to the militarism. And I really don't think IDONTLIKEIT or the sort have anything to do with this. We're not talking about deleting templates or articles or anything of the sort. We're talking about what sort of direction this WikiProject should go in. It is my understanding (of, particularly, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) that if the members of the CVU are, more often than not, opposed to the inclusion of the boxes (opposed, more, to their listing on the front door) then we have all the consensus we need to change it. Throwing out a deletion-essay in an attempt to discredit the discussion going on here is a little disingenous, it feels. Achowat (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we did discuss this previously and there was consensus to remove them. And yes, it was a consensus of a small group of editors, but I believe it was unanimous. This small group of editors were the only editors active in the project and were working on ways of re-imagining the CVU, after an admin had proposed that the project be moved to inactive status. Mojoworker (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Support removal from main page BUT oppose any sort of deletion - grandfather in those who want to use the userboxes... but don't make them publicly "advertised" on the main page - so that as the vandal fighting population grows/changes, the militaristic aspect will be gradually phased out... without making anyone angry. Theopolisme _TALK 19:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Support removing them from the main page. We discussed this previously, during the major overhaul that happened when the project was going to be listed as inactive. Certainly people can keep using them if they so choose – I just don't think we should advertise them here. Mojoworker (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Achowat asked me here to close this discussion. As it's died down a little, I don't think a formal close is needed, but I will give my interpretation of the consensus (I won't state my personal view, just the strength of the arguments through the lens of Wikipedia policy and practice).

Essentially, the consensus seems to be that the userboxes should not feature on the main page, but should not be deleted. The only really relevant argument in the discussion was that having militaristic userboxes does not assume good faith. Whether people like them or not seemed irrelevant, as did whether those involved were using them (or other ribbons). There cannot really be a consensus regarding deletion here, however; any discussion at WP:MfD would usurp the consensus here not to delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think Wikipe-tan would want these kept around, but doesn't care about them on the front page! — xaosflux ^Talk 03:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Can I join?

Can I join? Anna|talk 23:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course! Anyone who wants to help counter the attempts of Vandals is more than welcome. If you are a new-ish user, perhaps you'd even want to enroll in the Counter-Vandalism Academy to help you learn the ins-and-outs. Achowat (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Reddit Reports

Hi everyone,

I've lately noticed that pages that are making the front page of reddit are facing subtle, but heavy vandalism (see Berners Street Hoax for an example). I've written a quick script which would update User:Legobot/Todayilearned or another page, and using Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Legobot/Todayilearned, it would be easy to check for any new edits to those pages.

Does this seem like it would be useful? Right now I've just run it once, but I could set it up to run multiple times a day (and even add more subreddits like r/wikipedia).

Let me know what you all think. Thanks, Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 06:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic idea - anything to help! Do you have a link? I'd be happy to check it out. Theo polisme 12:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I linked it above, but the useful link is: Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Legobot/Todayilearned. It shows the recent changes to all of the pages linked on the report. Thanks, Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 17:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Pages to mark as dead, historical, or redundant

Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Questions. Little used. Suggest archiving and redirecting to talk page of main page. More to come. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Marked as historical, soft redirect to WT:CVU. No reason to draw out. Questions can be posed here. Theo polisme 11:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Next step: At there is an absurd number of userboxes (also on the CVU mainpage but not quite so many). One standard neutral one should be enough and would demonstrate that at least the project is mature if some of its members are not. Concerns have been raised in the past about the use of the words fight and fighting. IMO these are adolescentisms along with pictures of guns anything else that represents aggressive combat. We need to find out how many are in use, deprecate them, and replace any that are being used by transcluding the standard neutral one to any user pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The CVU UBX issue is one that, unfortunately, we're going to have a much harder battle over. Like, an MFD is the only thing that's going to end them. While the current-look CVU is one that is full of people who realize that Counter Vandalism is a pretty mundane, routine task, the old-look CVU is chock full of people who can get more riled up about the activity if they think they're fighting a war. That's not a wrong way to look at it, per se, just not the Best way. TR said it best, methinks, when he said "In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing." Yes, it'd be better if we didn't play G.I. Joe, but if it gets the work done, so be it. So I think the current solution (Have them exist, but don't list them anywhere on CVU pages) is appropriate. Achowat (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung, we made a concerted effort to de–militarize the project when it was revamped early this year. There was recently a discussion about the Militaristic userboxes where (somewhat surprisingly) we had a lot of push–back from an admin who wanted them retained. It wasn't a formal RfC, but I think the consensus was to leave them in place, but not advertise them at the CVU. Mojoworker (talk) 19:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As Acho and Mojoworker have said -- they aren't causing harm. Nowhere in any of the CVUA pages are these userboxes advertised (unless I'm missing something). In my brief search, I found th re e 'militaristic templates'. Using this toolserver script, there are 154 transclusions of these templates. I think the real question is though, numbers aside, what is the problem with using these? Is the problem the CVU's reputation? "...would demonstrate that at least the project is mature..." - this is implying that people are judged by userboxes. Yes, I suppose so... But how many people actually look at the 154 userpages that transclude those templates? It just seems like making a mountain out of a molehill, at least to me - why not spend our time, rather than arguing about word choice, working on this? Theo polisme 20:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Userboxes: a fight we proabably win, but it would be a phyric victory. Too much trouble for 3 userboxes on 154 pages. Dan653 (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

As someone who only recently removed the militaristic CVU userbox from his userpage, I don't see what is wrong with them. On bot userpages, a large amount of them (including my own) have a picture of a plane/tank, with the caption: "WhateverBot aids in Operation Enduring Encyclopedia", or something to that effect. I don't think anyone cares about that, and as long as people aren't going crazy over userboxes, it's just a fun little joke. Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 23:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this everyone. My concerns may appear OTT to some, but it really is time now to demonstrate that but Counter-Vandalism is not an online 'shoot 'em up' game. It is a most essential function on all Wikipedias, and should benefit from a mature and serious approach and presentation. No one suggests that Wikipedians should not occasional express light humour - I do myself - but cathartic release can best be kept to dialogues on user talk pages. Editors, especially those engaged in maintenance areas, are indeed judged by their userboxes and user pages as anyone who frequents RfA, and the admins who work on PERM will know only too well. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

SVT

The Wikipedia:Subtle Vandalism Taskforce appears to be dormant, but seems like it's a natural fit for the CVU. Should it be added as a task force of the CVU (or at least linked to from the main CVU page)? Mojoworker (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason not to do so - Theo polisme 00:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we should MFD it. Dan653 (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The best course of action is to mark it as Historical, and MFD if necessary. There is literally nothing about "subtle vandalism" that isn't in the CVU mission already, and I don't really see the benefit of linking to a dead page on the CVU main. Achowat (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it falls under the mission of CVU of "producing tools to assist in removing vandalism, providing advice on dealing with vandals, and sharing information with other Wikipedians dealing with the same issues". But subtle WP:SNEAKY vandalism is quite a different problem than blatant vandalism, and amelioration would benefit from a different approach. I haven't been following things at CVU very closely, so I may have missed it. My question is where is the CVU specifically addressing dealing with subtle vandalism? I don't see anything on the main page. Is it (or will it be) part of Vandalism Studies? Is it (or should it be) covered as part of the CVUA curriculum? Is there an essay on SV we should we link to (or write one if none already exists)? Or, perhaps vandalism is vandalism and SV doesn't warrant any different treatment or special methods... As time passes and Bots, semi–protection, Pending Changes protection, edit filters, CVUA graduates, new anti–vandalism tools, etc. become more effective at removing/preventing the blatant vandalism, what's left will be subtle vandalism, and it can be a much bigger problem than blatant vandalism, in part since it may go undetected for a long time and be propagated across the internet by sites crawling Wikipedia content – I've seen it happen and it's a real pain in the ass to get it fixed. Compared to blatant vandalism, it's a lot more challenging to detect, difficult to teach how to deal with, and all around more heavy lifting – and won't attract newbs trying to pad their edit counts... In any case, I would wager that SV will become an increasing problem and it's best to give some thought as to how to address it sooner rather than later. Deservedly or not, I know the CVU has had some credibility problems recently. Don't get me wrong – I think the CVUA has been a great success. But what are the plans for the "meat" of the project? I think Vandalism Studies is a great start. But I also think thought should be given to incorporating some coverage of subtle/sneaky vandalism here at CVU, and the ideas from the SVT page may be a useful starting point. Mojoworker (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I still think we should mfd it, but also include wp:sneaky into the curriculum. Dan653 (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair it's not completely dormant, however that's not really an issue. The problem is that it's difficult to get a critical mass of people, and over the years I've tried to do that at SVT but it's a difficult task and I haven't been the most aggressive about it either. I would be more than happy to see it integrated with CVU. Like Mojo says this kind of vandalism is of a different variety than most of CVU's focus, so it would be nice to see an area focusing on that.

MfD doesn't seem necessary to me. I'd be perfectly fine with redirecting to it (maybe even a subpage of CVU) and continuing the work there, hopefully with more eyeballs and such (and thus more suggestions, awareness...). Also there are some older signatories that would probably be confused if it disappeared. Redirect (and semiprotect if necessary as a vandal target) should be adequate.

More to substance though, and I don't frankly care what form it takes, I would like to look into ways for CVU to have some resources and discussion about the sneaky vandalism. Sometimes I come across suspicious edits where I'd like another person familiar with it to look and there's not a good forum for that right now (this was the original intent of SVU). I'd like to know what people think the best way to do that is. Shadowjams (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Merging as a "Division" of CVU wouldn't be hard at all. We did it with VanStudies, and neither project was worse-off for the experience. Achowat (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I doubt there'd be objection to this, how should we go about doing that? Would creating a subpage be a good approach (it would obviously be different, but with the SVT focus)? Shadowjams (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think creating an SV subpage would be a good start so I've WP:BOLDly moved the Wikipedia:Subtle Vandalism Taskforce page to Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Subtle Vandalism Taskforce as a start, and added a link to it from the CVU main page. Hopefully we can get some editors to work on it and address some of the features/issues that Shadowjams and I have mentioned. I don't know if it will be any easier to get a critical mass of people here, but it seems like a good idea to centralize things here in any case. Mojoworker (talk) 21:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

City College of San Francisco

On and off for a few months, a group of red link editors have been making just awful edits at the above article. Not the usual "joe is cool" kind of vandalism seen typically at school pages, but just really bad, completely useless editing. Horrid spelling, no eye toward any kind of structure, tons of absolute triviality. They just started up again tonite with new names. Just asking for a few extra eyes over there. Thanks. Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Questions#What Warning Should be Given? - benzband (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Just replied there. Should I move it? A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 16:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. The Q&A page is marked as historical. benzband (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. That page is no longer operative. Please continue discussions here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

A problem that might interest you...

I saw this and thought you might be interested.--Müdigkeit (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A quick question about the acadamy

I have rollback rights and use Huggle in order to fight vandals, but I have never been confident enough to go after the more subtler forms of vandalism. Would the academy be able to help me identify this sort of vandalism or is there another place I can go to learn about it? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The Academy was designed to help new users learn, as it were, the basic part of counter-vandalism. Subtle vandalism is an issue, and one that needs to be dealt with. I don't know is The Academy is the best place to go. I would suggest looking to one of the more experienced members of WP:SVT for guidance. Pretty much any experienced user would be willing to help you out, it just seems that a structured program like The Academy might not be the best place to find what you're looking for. Achowat (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I am always happy to discuss subtle forms of vandalism. Just drop a note on my talk page linking to examples if possible. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Twinkle vs. Huggle

I've been using Twinkle to revert vandalism, and while there are things I don't particularly love about it, it's a pretty good tool. Is Huggle markedly better in any way from Twinkle? I don't have rollback so I cant judge for myself, but if Huggle has useful features that Twinkle doesn't, I wound probably apply for permission to use it. Thanks, Jonathanfu (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

They're quite different. Twinkle only helps with reversion (i.e. you have to find the vandalism/diff yourself), whereas Huggle uses various algorithms and feeds to generate "probable vandalism", which you then click a button to revert/warn in one step. So, yes, they are quite different — see also, WP:TW and WP:HUG. _{This was probably the shortest summary I could give...if you have more specific questions, I'll be happy to help.} —Theo polisme 04:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see. I'd forgotten that Twinkle and Huggle both have wikipedia pages. Thanks a bunch. Jonathanfu (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Robot, go to work

Idea: a robot counting the word "vandalism" in revision history Edit summaries (and maybe measuring time before reverts) could show the weight of vandalism and flash a warning on Talk page or Project page for editors to deal with. It seems to supplement the CVU tools. Just a suggestion if anyone wants to take it further and relieve editor attention. This should make it easier to manage vandalism, direct attention to suffering articles, and shift efforts from tedious recurring edits, to battling otherwise unopposed vandalism. ClueBot already helps us with the simplest vandalism.

Parameters:

amount of word "vandalism" on 50-revision page and/or past month
percentage of word "vandalism" out of all edits on 50-revision page and/or past month
adjustable trigger level for the above and for revert time before notifications:
notification on Talk page
report to overall statistics pages (viewable only for auto-confirmed accounts? to prevent highscore efforts)

Reposted from Wikipedia talk:Vandalism. TGCP (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps correlate with Wikipedia article traffic statistics to find the articles that have many page views but also a lot of unopposed vandalism. A high number of page views usually means many editors reverting vandalism, but not always. TGCP (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Reverting a banned user's contributions (music)

I don't have time to do it now because there are so many of them, but every single October/November contribution from Special:Contributions/196.28.58.243 should be reviewed and probably reverted. This user added random songs to the list of singles from many albums/artists. Even though most have been reverted, I see that some have not despite the ban. If you know of a better place to report this, let me know! --Radiodatastream (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Radiodatastream! This page shows all of their unreverted contributions. I'll go through it now--they are only a few. —Theo polisme 22:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Your page only lists pages where that user made the last contribution: unfortunately because this is old vandalism (3 months old), there are certainly many pages that were vandalized and where someone made an unrelated edit without noticing or reverting the user's vandalism. --Radiodatastream (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that does make it a bit more complicated. :) May want to bring it up at the administrator's noticeboard or somewhere of that ilk. —Theopolisme (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Then again this task takes a lot of time and doesn't need administrative privileges, so do you really think this would be the right place? --Radiodatastream (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

AN and ANI are already totally swamped with issues that don't belong there, mainly due to wannabe admins wrongly thinking their participation on those noticeboards will look good for their future RfA. No, this task does not need any admin privileges, perhaps the place to ask for help with it is on the appropriate project (music? and/or music project sub genres?), and perhaps asking known active counter-vandalism workers to join in the clean up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Trainer page

I think something wrong in this page. Inactive Trainers should be above the second table! --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. —Theopolisme (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism By 213.93.250.184 in January 2013

I've been looking at Special:Contributions/213.93.250.184 and I think all contributions from that IP address are vandalism. Some of the changes are still in the most recent versions of the articles. The person is adding nonsense combined with fake sources and is adding internal links and other stuff to make the changes seem legit. I'm just an IP address user myself, maybe someone else can give that person a warning. Plus, it may be a good idea to check out all the articles the person touched, to see what needs to be reverted. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, a lot of changes from that IP address are related to people and things in the Netherlands, so it would be advisable to ask a Dutch Wikipedian to look at this. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ask User:The Banner. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Would've been nicer if you'd written something like "Ask User:The Banner, please." or "You could ask User:The Banner." instead of "Ask User:The Banner". --82.170.113.123 (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"Please ask User:The Banner, "Ask User:The Banner, please" ,User:The Banner please ask, I think the user know the provocative speech in a variety of ways.--User of CVU (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

At least you got a helpful reply which was more than any other users could be bothered to do. Keep looking gift horses in the mouth and see how much help you get in the future - so much for our efforts of user retention. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata and Interwiki links

Wikidata has been deployed to the English Wikipedia. Wikidata manages interwiki links on a separate project on pages such as this.

Further information: m:Wikidata/Deployment Questions and https://blog.wikimedia.de/?p=13892.

All interwiki bots that run on the English Wikipedia have now stopped adding interwiki links.

Removal of interwiki links on a page linked to a wikidata item that contains the links is NOT vandalism. Please use this script which can identify if the links are found on wikidata.

If you have any questions regarding wikidata please use the talk page Wikipedia talk:Wikidata. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Trivialist

Just as I was packing up for the night, I came across some of User:Trivialist's edits like this removal of categories. Not quite sure what his angle is, seems like there may be genuine edits in there but I haven't time to look through them - would someone mind taking a look? TIA. Le Deluge (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

So far, it looks like his their edits are AGF, but the category removals don't seem to add up. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 14:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

"Citation needed" facilitates uncaught linkspam

By luck, I just found this case of uncaught linkspam. When an external link is added where an article says "citation needed", it is less likely that people who watch that article will check on it, which means that grass grows over the edit and it has a higher chance to stick. (I at least wouldn't have noticed it if it hadn't been for a minor coincidence.) For that reason, I would like to raise awareness of this among vandal hunters. — Sebastian 21:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Dreadstar has bit the dust

Hello, everyone. I've got some bad news, but I'm sure most of you are aware of this: Dreadstar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has left Wikipedia for the third time, he was driven off Wikipedia due to issues with an abusive editor over at WT:BASC#User:Will Beback appeal voting results. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Add Barnstar

Should we not add the "Defender of the Wiki" Barnstar to the list of awards for this unit? -- Thus Spake Lee Tru. 19:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Be bold. Theopolisme (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't Know how to add it.-- Thus Spake Lee Tru. 21:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I think 122.168.204.68 may be a vandal, but since I have a COI, I'm not entirely comfortable reverting it, lest I be accused of some mischief. I thought I would leave a note here instead if anyone cares to look into it. CorporateM (Talk) 20:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I took care of it. Hard to tell if it is truly bad-faith vandalism, but unexplained removal of content is subject to WP:BRD at the very least. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! CorporateM (Talk) 20:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Multiple warnings before administrator intervention vs. revert, block, ignore

It seems to me that these two concepts are incompatible, though I have no strong feeling which is the better policy. Am I missing something? --Yaush (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@Yaush: They're not incompatible, but they apply in different situations. Neither works as a blanket approach - they're opposite ends of the spectrum described at WP:Vandalism. If someone is repeatedly and blatantly vandalising then a warning isn't going to stop them and RBI is the way to go. But sometimes it isn't that clear cut; what one editor thinks is vandalism could be a newcomer with a genuine misunderstanding, or someone trying to add or remove unreferenced material, or a content dispute, or an accident, etc. In those cases, friendly warnings and the opportunity to talk about it become crucial, and WP:AGF is paramount. RBI is a blunt instrument and isn't always the right tool for the job. WaggersTALK 10:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That does make things clearer. I suppose the choice of which approach to take will always be a judgement call. --Yaush (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Opinions requested at Template talk:Vandalism information

Hello everyone -

A couple of days ago I posted some thoughts on the Vandalism Information template at the template talk page. 48 hours later, I had a facepalm moment and realized that probably not too many people watchlist that page directly. I would appreciate thoughts and opinions from more experienced vandalism counter-ers! Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 02:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

How to be a member?

May I ask on how to enroll/join this group? Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 03:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You either add one of the CVU userboxes to your userpage, or add Category:Wikipedians in the Counter-Vandalism Unit to it. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 04:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Questions to fight vandalism

May I ask on what are the tools used for fighting vandalism in WIkipedia articles? Thank you for the reply. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 01:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Software

Twinkle
Huggle
Stiki

Logs

Pending changes
Recent changes
Watchlist

are some. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I do use Twinkle for now since I'm not gained the rollback rights yet. Well thanks again for the information. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 01:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism obvious on page but not in edit section

On the page Utrecht there are various remarks obvious on the page that shouldn't be there, notably about people called Lewys, Damian and Sara, but when you click "edit" to remove these remarks, the remarks don't show. Which in my view is very odd. The IP that added the remarks, is blocked now. ClueBot NG appears to have tried to revert it. But it's still there, in the article space. What's happening here? Who can help us? Mark in wiki (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Unusual. Please report at the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) as this appears to be either a bug or the page has been hacked. Thanks.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I was able to remove this by restoring to the last unvandalised revision. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it and for restoring a correct version of the page. I've posted a message at the Village Pump, like you suggested. Am interested to know what was happening there. Mark in wiki (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Template:User wikipedia/CVU-Vandal Fighter

In the Participants section, why doesn't the bit about Template:User wikipedia/CVU-Vandal Fighter show up properly? George8211^{what did I break now?} 22:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed It was because the template had been vandalized. Thanks for pointing it out. Mojoworker (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit metadata

Of possible interest to you: Grants:IdeaLab/Edit metadata. Thanks!
--Gryllida (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)