Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Archive 7

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

Fill out the logo.

We need a slogan to fill out the CVU logo. How about "Semper Vigilantis"? Always vigilant? --Kitch (Talk | Contrib) 18:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • That's the last kind of slogan we need when we're having problems being seen as some sort of wiki paramilitary organization or somesuch nonsense. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 20:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A second proposal would be to further differentiate CVU from the 24-derived devices. How about the name "Control Vandalism Unit"? The idea is based on the wrestling stable in Japan led by Jushin Thunder Liger, "Control Terrorism Unit". --Kitch (Talk | Contrib) 18:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • May I suggest "Might Makes Right" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.239.48.141 (talk • contribs) 20:48, October 2, 2006 (EST).
This seems to be trolling from a user angry about being blocked on a company IP due to the fact that someone else in the company got the IP banned. Gdo01 00:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps he should be angry at the guy that got him banned, not us. --Kitch (Talk | Contrib) 02:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Tjstrf has a sense of humor to revert my last suggestion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.239.48.141 (talk • contribs).
How about something less agressive:
  • Top: "Counter Vandalism Unit"
  • Bottom: "Clean It Up!"
--Cat out 08:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. (We just need the proper font name...) Or we could always go with "Revert. Ban. Ignore." to appease the WP:DENY crew. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 08:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Nothanks-vanity

The term "vanity" is frequently considered derogatory by the subjects of articles, who then complain about it to the Wikimedia Foundation. This is undesirable, and it is a situation we can alleviate by trying not to use the term "vanity" in deletion debates and such (there's a host of other terms that are not offensive, such as "unencyclopedic"). To give people the right idea, I would suggest renaming the {{nothanks-vanity}}. Since (assumedly) the CVU uses it a lot, I would like to hear suggestions and feedback about this. >Radiant< 12:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My Page has been Vandelised and I found a warning from you on it?

I looked at my artical to see what else i could add to it only to notice a large paragraph missing!

I have corrected this and dont expect it to happen again but one of your members names was on the edit so sort it out.

Lots of love

Vince

You're going to have to be a lot more specific about what you're talking about. Links, diffs, and names would be a nice start. EVula 14:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe he may be refering to this revert by MER-C [1], which seems to be a revert from an automated tool, though it left out the section in mind, which is probably just a programming error.
That being said I'd like to remind Vince that he doesn't have ownership over the article in question, and moreover the CVU is not "responsible" for the actions of it's members. Also please Assume Good Faith when editing instead of levelling accusations. Canadian-Bacon t c e 15:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
All the more prof that the CVU is a crock. You claim to be organized and have members yet take no responsability for yourselves. I cant wait for one of your automated tools to destroy half of Wikipedia in the name of "anti vandalism".
Oh please, it was a simple error. No need to get so hot under the collar. Why would the project be supposed to control its members anyway, it's not like they're the CVU Dictatorship or anything. --tjstrf 02:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Need help on List of articles, an overview

There are maps in the geography section, but one of them has been replaced by a TechSpot ad! I can't track it down. When I click on the picture, I see the normal map.

Here's the image/link:

I think it is the replacement image that shows up when the specified size is too small for the image to be shrunk down. Trouble is, I don't know what that image is called.

We need to restore the map. Please help. --The Transhumanist 23:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Investigating. I dont see any problems with the map so far. Could you post a link to the ad on here? Thanks! Nwwaew(My talk page) 11:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Now this is interesting. The "Image" tab on the image is red and I can't access the image history. Nwwaew(My talk page) 11:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
A red image tag usually means the image is hosted on Commons; see commons:Image:LocationArctic.png for that image's full information. -- nae'blis 16:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning the CVU page

I've tried to consolidate the information in the main page. It seemed a little busy, and it's current state should be a touch cleaner. Go ahead and fix anything I missed. I just felt it was a little on the messy side. --BradBeattie 07:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not bad.--MrFishGo Fish 15:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

disappearing images...possible vandalism?

Hello, I've noticed in a random sampling of articles that images which used to be displayed are no longer visible. I don't know whether this is a technical problem with the Wikimedia software, or if this is due to some vandalbot. Has anybody else seen this as well? --Kyoko 03:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, it was just my computer. All is well now. --Kyoko 03:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I noticed it on and off on October 18 and October 19 - just broken images, but enough to look into it to ensure it wasn't vandalism. Yankees76 20:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes servers deny image downloads when trafic is too heavy. Vandals cant delete images. --Cat out 07:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

An add-on to CDVF

I've been developing a little add-on program for CryptoDerk's VandalFighter. It's a small program that lets a number of users share their lists with eac hother (user black and whitelists and article watchlists) in a convienient way. Basically, any number of users can upload their lists and let anyone else see them (if you want the techincal details, it uploads it to an email-account, but everything is handled automatically, so you wouldn't ever know it what it was ;). It shows the users what stuff other people are watching and gives the option to import it into their CDVF configuration. I'm basically done with it, now I'm just finishing up the UI.

I figure it would greatly help if a number of users started sharing with eachother. I mean, you could pretty quickly build up a big list of "bad" users and everyone would watch them, similarly, it could build a pretty easily build a big list of "good" users so you don't have to see their edits. And it would highlight those articles that were being vandalised at the moment. I think it could be pretty useful.

My question is, would anyone want this? I'm asking you guys since you are the premier vandal fighters on wikipedia. Do many of you use CDVF? If so, would you be interested in this? Or am I just wasting my time :) Oskar 03:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, since no one else is talking, I use Lupin's tool, not CDVF.--MrFishGo Fish 19:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

fair to give warnings for prior vandalism?

Hello, I've gone through the contributions of User:60.48.174.63, who has vandalised several anime articles. I had initially given the {{subst:behave}} warning because of this user's edits to Fullmetal Alchemist. Later on, I discovered other vandalism by this user. Is it fair to give warnings for vandalism that occurred prior to when you first noticed what was happening? Thanks. --Kyoko 15:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You can certainly step up the "warning level" a notch or two for an obvious habitual offender, even if the habit is discovered after the fact, and then wait and see if further vandalism is posted after that. See WP:WARN for example warning templates. --T-dot 15:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the determining factor would be how recent the vandalism was. Since it's an ip, if the prior vandalism was more than a few days old it may very well have not been the same person, and warning them for it would be pointless. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the IP vandal vandalised within a 2 hour timeframe of my noticing it, and also had a cluster of vandalism a few hours before that (you can check the contributions yourself, if you're curious). I understand that there is little point in warning someone about vandalism from another day. Thanks for the advice. --Kyoko 17:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Not warning old edits on IPs is only because IPs are frequently re-assigned to other persons. If a single person continues to vandalize, give them as many warnings as you want and block them. —Centrx→talk • 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to the semi-protection policy

I have proposed an amendment to the semi-protection policy, to improve the integrity of official policy pages by permanently semi-protecting them, thereby preventing much vandalism and many good-faith but ill-advised edits against consensus by new and unregistered users. Please see Wikipedia:Semi-protecting policy pages. John254 01:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Should "problem user" watchlists be allowed?

The Miscellany for Deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Psychonaut/User watchlist may be of interest to CVU members. This MfD proposes deletion for a number of "user watchlists" which users have created in their userspace for the purpose of monitoring vandals, policy violators, and other controversial editors. The issue is whether such watchlists are acceptable on Wikipedia or whether they contravene policies such as WP:AGF and WP:PA. —Psychonaut 16:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a misunderstanding. The issue of the MFD is actually that some of these pages would seem to contrave both the spirit and the letter of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:PA in specific circumstances where there is negative personal commentary on specific named users. --Zeraeph 17:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, I've voiced my opinion. EVula 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Vandals are vandals. Anyone I've listed is blocked in my list (see "Sockpuppetzen" under my user page). There is no civility issue - it's not a hit list. There is no AGF issue - Assume Good Faith is about assuming the edits are with good intentions unless they're proven not to be (innocent until proven guilty. There is no personal attacks issue - and if you posted to the PAIN noticeboard complaining about being on such a list, and you were there with good reason, then you'd probably not meet anything more than suspicion. (I'm posting this here, and there, since some watchers watch MfD and others watch here. Many admins keep such lists, too, you know. See HereToHelp, for example. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 19:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism

That page looks like just a copy of this one. I think that it should just be merged here unless there is a special reason for keeping it.--Rouge Rosado Oui? 19:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

AOL banninated indefinitely

See this thread on the admin's noticeboard. Essentially, now that anyone can download AOL browser software, is that they've become open proxies and have been blocked indefinitely.

Here's the block log entries:

  1. 09:22, 18 November 2006 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) blocked "205.188.0.0/16 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{User:Naconkantari/aolproxy}})
  2. 09:22, 18 November 2006 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) blocked "152.163.0.0/16 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{User:Naconkantari/aolproxy}})
  3. 09:22, 18 November 2006 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) blocked "64.12.96.0/19 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{User:Naconkantari/aolproxy}})

Have fun! MER-C 11:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, nice. -- Ned Scott 18:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Bobby Boulders wave

Bobby has been on a rampage lately. What measures are in place to prevent this from happening again? Perhaps we should admit to the Arbitration Committee that our powers to fight the vandals have diminished? Mister Rudebaker 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Awfully interesting first edit from a brand new editor. Fan-1967 20:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Already blocked indefinitely. MER-C 05:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

I was inspired by Secularization of Christmas and Bill O'Reilly to produce a template noting that the article is vulnerable to vandalism. The template is {{vulnerable}} and the category is Category:Wikipedia articles vulnerable to vandalism. TTV (MyTV|PolygonZ|Green Valley) 22:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have nominated both the category and the template for deletion. Per WP:BEANS, advertising the vulnerability of an article seems to encourage vandalism. I also note that a page which performs a similar function to this category, Special:Unwatchedpages, is only viewable by administrators for precisely this reason. John254 04:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Chuq/Longhair/ScottDavis vandal

Just a heads up (hope this is the right place): There's an aussie with a grudge against Chuq. Longhair and ScottDavis for reverting his POV edits to Internode and has decided to become an IP vandal. This is a typical edit [2]. He has bragged about using open proxies and hacking into networks that have not changed the factory default router passwords. He's based in Australia but his edits can be from anywhere. I've seen his IPs warned very nicely 3 or 4 times and then blocked for 24 or 31 hours. I'd like to suggest that IPs making this type of edit should be blocked on first sight, and for at least 6 months or even indefinitely as suspected open proxies or zombies. Thatcher131 04:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Should the Counter-Vandalism Unit be included on Template:WikipediaVandalism?

The removal of the CVU from this template is presently being discussed on Template talk:WikipediaVandalism. John254 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Open membership?

Hello, I'm rather new to Wikipedia, so I'm not familiar with many of the policies on Wikiprojects and such. I've been looking for a project to join, and this seems to fit me the best. However, I don't know if the CVU is open membership (as in I just put the userbox on my userpage and I'm in), or if I have to get permission. Rob Maguire 16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, its open membership! Welcome aboard! CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd Like to join also. -KLink/NiN10col/Neotendo123 14:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to join. SamK1992 12:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If it's open membership count me in. I've been fighting vandalism for a few days now. Shadowin 05:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiGuard beta 3 is out

I've just put out a new version of my anti-vandalism app. Any willing testers would be most appreciated (Mac OS X 10.4 required). :) --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Can people help keep an eye on Gary Danielson?

Over the past day or so Gary Danielson has been repeatedly vandalized by a wide range of IPs. I requested semi-protection but it was declined because the page had been unvandalized for a few hours when the admin took a look at it, but there was some more vandalism overnight, and I think it may be starting up again. If some people could check it every once in a while, it'd be great. Hbackman 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I boldly semi-protected it due to the large number of disruptive edits by anonymous IPs. This seems to be in reaction to current events, so it's a good candidate for temporary semi-protection. --Ginkgo100 talk 22:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! :) (Curious -- what current events?) Hbackman 22:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Hm, well, apparently according to some of the edits, there was some controversy over his commentary on a game on 2 December. It is all very esoteric to me, as I am not a sports fan, but that appears to be the cause. --Ginkgo100 talk 22:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an apparent blogging delete war going on

Just got wind of this via digg, but apparently a group of wiki-users are banding together to delete and speedy delete blogging personality/site info entries on wiki. Not sure what everyone's opinions are about the topic, but it does make me uneasy that a group of users are targeting specific entries and trying to get en masse an amount of delete votes to ensure that they get their way. Researched some of the entries and histories of some of those involved and their actions on wiki have been questionable at best. Exchanging many insults with fellow users and being more nuisance than help. Just keep an eye on that if you can, it's raising a lot of ire around the topic right now. --LifeStar 19:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletes only require a nomination and a single vote by an admin. This sounds interesting though, can you point to a source for this story, or a particular article you think has been unjustly deleted? --Measure 23:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Timecop/The war on blogs. Titoxd(?!?) 23:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Sorry, Lifestar, I have to take the side of the deleters on this one. --Measure 23:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

AfD Spree

Mentaka has put AfD tags on about 14 articles most, if not all, of which are about internet celebrities. He hasn't bothered to actually list them on the articles for deletion page, nor has he given a reason. I can't tell if the user doesn't understand how to complete the process or if this is vandalism. I hesitate to complete the process for him because it seems like WP:POINT since they are all of the same basic subject. IrishGuy talk 18:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism report

This page has been vandalised. But to my perplexity, I can't find the vandalism code (I think the code must contain "Image:Testicles marked.jpg", right?), nor can I find the one who did it in its history page. Could someone tell me, how the vandaliser managed to do so without explicitly adding any code? Please leave the answer in my talk page so that I can fix them myself in future. Thanks! --GnuDoyng 02:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any vandalism. IrishGuy talk 03:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's okay now. And still I can't find any changes in its history page. Really weird... :( --GnuDoyng 13:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It was likely one of the templates or images included on the page that was vandalized rather than the page itself. Template vandalism is slowly coming back into style... AmiDaniel (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

New vandalism warning proposal

See here for a new proposal for administering vandalism warnings that I started.--Azer Red Si? 19:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Grrrr. What to do about an admin who basically ignores your request?

I don't make false reports. I don't cry wolf. I don't over-warn. When I see a pattern, and the user has been warned sufficiently; report them to ANI AIV. What's terribly discouraging is when an admin basically treats you like a silly child who "saw a monster under the bed", even when presented with compelling diffs. Meh. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 01:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You could try WP:RFI. —Centrx→talk • 05:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Also reporting to WP:AIV instead of ANI may yield better results if it's just plain vandalism. Canadian-Bacon 17:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Oops. That's what I meant; AIV. Heh. -- weirdoactor t|c 17:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A couple of anon IP vandals to keep an eye on...

A side note...are "wanted poster", er, posts like this one okay? My thought was that they would be useful, and hopefully not in violation of the spirit of WP:AGF. Let me know. -- weirdoactor t|c 02:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Law Enforcement Wikiproject

Hello

Having recently taken over leadership of the Law Enforcement wikiproject I saw what seemed to me as a good opportunity for reducing vandalism and fostering better community relations.

The Law enforcement wikiproject will eventually grow to cover quite a range of articles. Many of these articles can be common targets for vandalism, and many serve as areas for poor wikiquette, civility and so on. We have already set a reduction in vandalism and an increase in good community relations on the articles we cover as two goals for the project, and as many of our users are current or ex police officers we hope we have some expertise in remaining impartial, polite as well as efficient at sorting out conflicts.

In light of this, we wish to offer the services of our wikiproject as a tool for addressing vandalism and poor community relations on wikipedia. We have already set up a subpage on the project page where users can gain access to key wikipedia guidelines when it comes to wikiquette, and if there are any ways in which you believe the Law Enforcement wikiproject could aid in addressing the aforementioned problems in some capacity, please don't hesitate to contact via my userpage, or by a talk page on the project pages themselves. SGGH 15:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Studying vandalism

Is anyone compiling stats on vandalism? How long it stays up, most prevalent, sources of vandalism etc. I think this would be helpful in trying to figure out who is doing the most damage and the integrity of the wikipedia system. I was thinking of proposing a wikiproject on this, but I didn't want to do it if someone is already doing this. Remember 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay I've set this up Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies if anyone is interested. Remember 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a pretty good idea! Too bad I have no training in statistics, or I'd help out. -- Kesh 23:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't think you need any hardcore stats knowledge, just an interest in studying vandals and vandalism; know your enemy. JoeSmack Talk 14:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
well, i did an informal tally of vandalism in anonymous ip edits some time ago (it's here), although i'd call it anything but statistically rigorous. i'm of two minds about compiling stats. part of me thinks it's potentially good data, especially for bot and anti-vandal tool writers and that information is never a bad thing. the other part of me worries that time that goes into stats collection could be better spent on clean up and dreads the day that some major media source does a (yet another) feature on how wikipedia is an unworkable idea, citing our very own stats against us. -- frymaster 15:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please fix the main Wikinews page?

Bad vandalism there. 68.47.84.142 07:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC) sorry, forgot to login JeremyBicha 07:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There, I fixed it for now. Perhaps, more protection is necessary with the templates? Anyway, keep up the good work. JeremyBicha 07:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Our userboxes

Would anyone complain if I changed the size of all CVU's userboxes to 40x40px instead of 45x45px? Yuser31415 05:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Are they not in line with the others? Mine seem to line up fine with all my others. — xaosflux Talk 06:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, I my userboxes so they look okay now. Template:Emot Yuser31415 21:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Found a Vandal!

The username is Shakirashakira92 and I want to know what to do now. I am a member of the CVU, so I believe I need to know these things. They vandalised the Eragon (film) article, in the reception section. That or it was Jigglypuff, in the characteristics section. I can't remember which. I'M ONLY HUMAN! Geohevy 03:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you find a vandal, the first thing is to revert the damage and then warn them with an appropriate template on their Talk page. Make sure you're warning the actual user who added the vandalism, by examining the History tab to see when it was added, not when it was edited or removed. If it turns out they've already got a Final warning template that day, then you report them to WP:AIV for action by an admin. See here for more details. -- Kesh 03:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Question on the red and green numbers next to our names

Is it me, or is because I haven't been to wiki for awhile, but I noticed that on my watchlist page, every person who makes an edit to a page has either a red or green number right next to their ID. What is that exactly? When I reversed a vandal edit, I noticed my name showed up with a red -3 next to it. Did I miss something? --LifeStar 19:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Added or removed characters for the full details of this. Basically, the numbers represent the number of bytes added or removed in the edit. A negative number in red means content was removed, a positive number in green means it was added. If significant amounts are added or removed (I don't recall off-hand what "significant" means, exactly), the numbers are bolded (and possibly in a slightly different shade of red or green). —Krellis 19:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way place a time limit before new users can edit?

I know that Wiki is supposed to be free and all. I know that it was a big deal when Jim was willing to limit creation of new pages to registered users. Yet, is it possible to petition wiki to put a time limit on when a new user can edit/create content, say 2 hours or so? I and a few others are having a major headache dealing with a user who has been registering multiple user accounts to vandalize wiki entries. Don't know how to deal with them besides to notify admins and have them block the accounts indefinitely. --LifeStar 19:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Editors_should_be_logged_in_users --Measure 20:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Bam you jsut got wikislaped! This would never work unless we turned off anonymous editing, something thats not about to happen. — xaosflux Talk 03:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Irish Evil

I'm seeing repeat vandalism on the Evil article aimed at the Irish. I'm baffled why this particular edit keeps showing up, as it's from multiple IP addresses and one user. The user also created a page at Irish Evil which simply redirected to Evil (which has since been deleted per WP:ATTACK).

I don't think there's much that can be done, but it's just... weird. If other folks wouldn't mind keeping the article watched, or looking at the History to see if there's a pattern, I'd appreciate it. -- Kesh 03:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism is caused by a particular "Dinosaur Comic" in which t-rex speaks of adjusting a friend's essay on evil by adding "irish" before evil every time it was used. A link was also provided to a false Wikipedia page on which the same adjustments had been made. Some people decided that the joke would be funnier if the adjustments were made on the actual page, hence the repeated vandalism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.82.108.25 (talk • contribs) 22:53, January 23, 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I was baffled about that vandalism. I suppose it's not as bad as the vandalism from Colbert Report or Weird Al Yankovic, but it's equally annoying. -- Kesh 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Why does Category:Wikipedians in the Counter Vandalism Unit have so many sub-categories? Some of them, especially Category:Counter-Vandalism Wikipedians and Category:Counter-Vandalism Unit members seem redundant. I propose consolidating all of them into one category. Dar-Ape 19:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

User warnings have changed

Hey folks, take a look at WP:UTM. Looks like our old user warning templates are being deprecated. --Brad Beattie (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this too. The format looks cleaner but many of the old user warnings are gone. Where did they go?

Posted by: Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 00:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Man vandalism has really shot up, I'm constantly cleaning up after a blanker named Eddie619, and anons are really cranking it up. What can I do to keep up? Killswitch Engage

Just a reminder, the warnings you are giving should be on the talk page of the user not the user page. This way, the person will get a message on their screen that tells them that a message has arrived (the warnings).
Posted by: Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Prove You're Human

I have a proposal similar to Wikipedia:Editors should be logged in users. I suggest that anonymous users be required to prove they are human. Otherwise, I can imagine Wikipedia being overwhelmed by bots that vandalize. --Kevinkor2 19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Initial reactions: requiring every edit to be validated would be cumbersome, annoying, (especially to users like 68.39.174.238), and would prevent many helpful IP contributions, like random spelling fixes. The next step backwards would be proving that one is human for a "session" of some short amount of time, yet if this were the case, this preventive measure would be easy to sidestep; the theoretical vandal would simply take the test, and then once validated, allow his/her bot to take over and begin vandalizing. Is there a way to avoid these problems? Additionally, what is the nature of your similar proposal? Dar-Ape 01:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
(: My proposal similar to "Wikipedia:Editors should be logged in users" is "Prove You're Human". :) "Prove You're Human" is similar to "Editors should be logged in users" because it places a hurdle in the path of IP edits. I don't know if the hurdle is too high and what could be done to lower it. See the mockup at User:Kevinkor2/Prove You're Human. --Kevinkor2 19:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you make your proposal compatible with Braille displays? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 18:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

RfA for CVU member MER-C

(I hope that this is not considered bad form, but ...) I've created a nomination for beloved CVU member MER-C (talk • contribs), at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MER-C 2. Anyone who wishes to express opinions or to co-nominate is welcome to do so. --Nlu (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Category merge

I have nominated the user categories related to this project for merging per my previous comment. All thoughts are welcome. Dar-Ape 19:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about Removing warnings from talk page vandalism??

This user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:75.111.121.14 removed warnings from his talk page so I reverted and posted another warning to which he responds that I am the onw doing wrong and violating NPOV. So who is right?

Barack Obama

A special request to the members of this group to keep a vigilant eye on this article through the weekend of February 10, 2007, when Obama is expected to announce his candidacy for the 2008 U.S. presidential election. The article has been running unprotected since January 31, and is likely to be linked from the Wikipedia main page "In the news" box starting Saturday. Thanks for your assistance. --HailFire 08:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Refugee

I've been making major reversions, but a group of intelligent users have messed this page up badly. Someone needs to go through this page and eliminate the remaining vandalism, and deal with the vandals themselves. I can't at the moment. --Black-Velvet 13:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Did some work on User:Lupin/badwords

Did a lot of work today cleaning up/expanding/testing the bad word list. Appreciate any feedback on improvement or problems of the filtered recent changes as a result. I'm a little concerned about some changes I made to words that have different permutations - one word, hyphenated, or two words. (Example: pothead, pot-head, pot head.) I used the expression " ([- ])? " (initially tried without parentheses, which should work as a RegExp, but didn't). I'm getting hits on some words with the different permutations but not as many as I thought I should have - would like to hear any feedback or expertise. (After working on the bad word list for so long, feel like I'm covered in a light coating of scum.) RJASE1 00:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How to Join

I whish to join. Where do I sign up? -- RedNeckIQ55

Splendid! You can simply add one of the userboxes to your userpage, or you may instead add [[Category:Counter-Vandalism Unit members]] to your userpage. Cheers, Dar-Ape 02:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank You So Much Dar -- RedNeckIQ55

Things to watch for

Here's an interesting look at ways in which people can manipulate the RC patrol system (see the first two comments). It's an interesting read and mentions some things to watch out for. Dar-Ape 02:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The other way that really annoys me is when users type (revert due to vandalism) in their edit summary when they were hiding there edits that were actually vandalism. This confuses a lot of editors and a lot of reverts afterward to revert the original vandalism. And then there are the vandals who put fake warnings on user pages... These users should be blocked on site!User: Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 02:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I pay little attention to edit summaries when checking for vandalism. I usually check the diff regardless of the edit summary when doing RC patrol. I haven't ever checked for fake warnings though. I'll have to try that a bit and see what I find. -- Dan D. Ric 08:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandals who vandalise other vandals

User:Duncanjonny started out as a simple vandal, - Like So, evidently from IP 67.78.201.82 – Like This.

He then moved on to creating non-notable pages, several of which were removed. User talk:Duncanjonny. At last today he created the vanity page Duncan Wilbanks which was then tagged for speedy delete. Someone then came along and vandalized his page, (changed him from the sweetest guy alive to the sweatiest guy alive.) Duncan then reverted the vandalism and the page has now been deleted. Question: Would it be appropriate to warn the vandal who vandalized him? -- Dan D. Ric 15:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. It is unlikely that the second vandal knew that the first was, indeed, a vandal. This means that the second vandal was editing with the intent to cause harm, and should be warned for doing so. It is still, for example, against the law to murder a murderer - 'two wrongs do not make a right' as the saying goes. Ale_Jrbtalk 20:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You might want to eye the two vandals closely; I got involved in an utter shitstorm over User:American Brit, a particularly loopy puppetmaster who had the curious habit of actively commenting on (and being harassed by) his own socks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a strong probability that the second vandal knew the first personally, and the vandalism was a form of personal attack. Just a thought. Black-Velvet 08:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Suing Vandals

From the Computer Misuse Act 1990:

3(1) A person is guilty of an offence if a) he does any act which causes the unauthorized modification of the contents of any computer; and b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.

3(2) for the purposes of subsection 3(1)b above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing a) to impair the operation of any computer; b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.

3(3) the intent need not be directed at a) any particular computer; b) any particular program or data or a program or data of any particular kind; or c) any particular modification or a modification of any particular kind.

3(4) For the purpose of subsection 1b above, the requisite knowledge is knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorized. 3(5) it is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether an unauthorized modification or any intended effect of it of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) above is, or is intended to be, permanent or merely temporary.

Thus my question is, do the policies and guidelines regarding the production of Wikipedia content make deliberate vandalism unauthorised? If so, I believe that vandals operating from the UK are guilty of a crime under the Computer Misuse Act 1990. If not, I suggest the Wikimedia Foundation explicitly unauthorises deliberate vandalism. Perhaps suing the worst of these offenders, will cause most to stop (I doubt it would even get that far and they'd stop after being sent the first legal letter).

I also wonder what laws in America prevent computer misuse and how they might be applied. Constructive criticism and support of my idea welcome. Note before you reply, that I'm not suggesting we sue people as soon as they put one foot wrong or dscourage newbies from discovering Wikipedia. --Seans Potato Business 17:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

What you've just cited is a British law. The Wikimedia Foundation is located in the United States. That's just the beginning of the legal troubles that would come along if you decided to sue people. Even just identifying vandals would be arduous and difficult. Furthermore, the way I see it, there's nothing illegal about Wikipedia vandalism. The whole point of a wiki is that anyone can edit, and if you read the various legal disclaimers we have, most only deal with copyright laws. Read everything on the edit page next time before you make an edit, you'll notice there's nothing even saying that what you post should be true. Basically, your are only advised: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." Nothing about not vandalizing even. Cool3 02:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


You know, in my very last paragraph I did ask what American laws applied. I think it's very likely that they'll have analagous laws. Besides which British law could be used to control British vandals. As for the legality of Wikipedia vandalism, I did suggest that if it's not explicity forbidden then it should be (how much of my post did you read?). --Seans Potato Business 23:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/u/Wikipedia_talk%7ECounter-Vandalism_Unit_Archive_7_118a.html"