Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

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 [[1]], 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). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edmonde Dantes (talk • contribs).
  • 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 (talk • contribs) .

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 [2] and [3]). 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 Overwhelming degree of vandalism or extremely dangerous incitement. Drastic measures recommended.
2 Multi-page vandalism of similar nature by a number of sockpuppets (page move vandalism or other vandalbot attack)
3 Significantly elevated levels of vandalism from shared IPs and experimenting users.
4 Low to normal levels of vandalism from shared IPs and experimenting users.
5 Very low levels 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.170.243 (talk • contribs).

...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. —Centrx→talk • 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. —Centrx→talk • 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 [4], 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. —Centrx→talk • 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: [5]. 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. —Centrx→talk • 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 [6] 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. —Centrx→talk • 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. —Centrx→talk • 23:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
To quote in relavent part from Angela's statement [7]:

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. —Centrx→talk • 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. —Centrx→talk • 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. —Centrx→talk • 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

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

/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(Talk•Contribs) 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(Talk•Contribs) 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 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. —Centrx→talk • 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. —Centrx→talk • 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)

SVG logo

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.10.18.77 (talk • contribs).

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 [8] 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. [9]. 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. —Centrx→talk • 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/u/Wikipedia_talk%7ECounter-Vandalism_Unit_Archive_6_e8d0.html"