Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

First-Responders

I had a idea just yesterday and thought perhaps I would list it here. We all know what first responders are, in case you don't I have a linky. Well why not have CVU First Responders. When I say this I mean a established task force not just the Vandal Fighters who we typically assume to be in the front lines. My suggestion would include a task force where you would agree to be available for a certain part of the day to fight a sudden outbreak of massive vandalism. We could have 2 hour shifts were you could sign up to be involved in one of the shifts. To inform you when it was your time perhaps we could create a bot to leave messages on the users talk pages when there shift began.

Because the force would not need to be that big we could have say a limit of 5 people a shift. Once again you have to be available during that shift. If you could not be available that day you would have to inform someone who could take your place during the day. If that is to confusing, how about have the task force just to contact first responders when vandalism was over level 3 so they be ready to immediately combat the threat. Just a thought. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I've been pushing for a task force like this for a while, didn't seem to get much of a response. I'd be happy to help out there. Maybe instead of shifts, we could just have a larger amount of editors (like 10 or 11) on it. Maybe we could have a template to notify taskforcies of who's online. I don't know how to create something like this. I could also help with the administrative part. Contact me, J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 00:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a great idea! Why not be bold make a sub-page of the CVU for it? --Mschel 12:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a good idea and I certainly don't object to it. However, I wouldn't want to be involved personally since, although I edit Wikipedia a fair bit, I do so on a voluntary, ad-hoc basis and often between other activities which have a higher priority. In other words, I don't personally have the will nor the ability to commit to constant RC patrolling for 2 hours on a regular basis. My fear is that you'll find the majority of editors have similar a similar mindset, and so won't want to be involved. The thing I love about Wikipedia is I can do as much or as little as I want, when I want - I for one would hate to lose that flexibility and this would tie me down too much. So again, in principle this is a great idea but I can't see it working in practice. Waggers 13:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have similar concerns, though, of course, I also think it's a good idea. :) What I'd like--and perhaps this already exists--is some way to communicate with others actively on RC patrol. Once in a while, I've run into vandals with whom I could use a little help or advice. Is there a sign-in sheet anywhere? :) --Moonriddengirl 13:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's sort of what I tried to propose with my template Idea. If someone could make a template that shows what Taskforcies are online at any given time, we could communicate more efficiently. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 14:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We should have an IRC channel. Is there one already? --Mschel 13:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed. See here. The problem with using a IRC channel though is that some people can't access it. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 16:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't get it at all, I tried two browsers. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 17:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You need an IRC client to chat in IRC. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 18:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Which would you recommend for something like this? J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 18:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ChatZilla. --Mschel 18:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ChatZilla, official IRC client of the CVU First Response Team. I like it! J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 18:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

*groans* Gracenotes^T § 19:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the best idea has sort of already been inspired by J-stan. Perhaps someone should create a tool that could be added to our monobooks. The way the tool would work is when one user was having trouble with a series of IPs would report the vandals to a special page. Then the tool would send up a orange message bar saying "Your help is requested on the CVU First Responders page" where you could view current attacks by a series of related vandals. Just a thought. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 16:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally if nobody likes that what about a tool that does the same thing except it just informs users when vandalism is at level 3 or higher instead of telling them to go to a page. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 16:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my idea was just to make a tool that alerts everyone as to what taskforcies are online. The CVU is unorganized; the only way to request help is through the talk page, but the taskforce should be organized. Users would be able to request help from the TF, and members could request help from other members. This would improve organization, coordination, and efficiency. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 17:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. That would improve the coordination of the CVU but I dont think there should be any commitments to anything since Wikipedia is entirely voluntary. There could also be other task forces, dealing with different types of vandalism or disruption on Wikipedia.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 18:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't I think of that? :) J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 18:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am so down with this idea! I think it all sounds great, you will have a problem with commitment though. I think small steps would be best at first e.g the idea of sending a message to all "first response" registered members once vandalism hits level 3 or 2 or whatever sounds fanstastic and do-able. Although I gotta ask how are the vandalism levels worked out? Ryan4314 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent)

In setting up an elite squad of on-call vandalism snipers, we should be careful not to A) Set such first-responders above regular non-first-responder members of the CVU, and B) ensure that enough members want to participate in what would amount to extra, focused vandalism-sniping. A sign-up page might work for that, to gauge interest.

Second, in advance of a fancy pager-type notice system, maybe we can start a page for the members of this first-responder team. Whenever anyone wants to come "on-duty", they can simply edit that page to indicate that they're on-duty, available, or otherwise on the case. Anyone with an issue or request can message any on-duty member via their talk page, and can avoid waiting for help from a member who isn't there. This also has the virtue of being something we can do right now. Thoughts? ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely with what you have stated. I thought that we had already decided about having a page for the first responders. The only purpose of the pager like tool would be so that if one user is having particular trouble with lets just say a group of related IPs that they could contact other FR so that could help combat the outbreak. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you as well Ultra, But the problem with having an "on duty" that needs editing to "clock in", ppl will inevitably forget to "clock out" and leave themselves on the list. Think baby steps ppl Ryan4314 15:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• This is a very bad idea, that runs counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. It once again draws undesirable parallels to the military, and it is an overly bureaucratic solution to something that isn't in fact all that problematic. >Radiant< 11:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with radiant above. Not comfortable with the distinction of levels of users in this context. Navou ^banter 13:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this topic is still active, but I, a lowly new guy, like the idea, and could possibly be one of these First Responders. Please get back to me. Leonard^Bloom 22:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonard^Bloom (talk • contribs)

IRC

Moving this to a new header as the old one is getting clogged. Would it be a good idea to have an IRC channel for this project? I know about #vandalism-en-wp, but it would be nice to have one just to discuss vandalism, #vandalism-en-wp is flooded with RC so it is not really be possible to use it for discussions. --Mschel 19:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is better suited for the task force idea. There are many lone wolf members of this project, and the CVU is really just about cleaning up vandalism, not making vandal fighting an RTS. I do think it would be a wonderful backbone (or at the very least, vertebrae) for the First responder idea. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 19:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Could it work for both? --Mschel 19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It could, I'm not ruling that out, I'm just saying the CVU is more about just getting in there and fighting vandalism, and a task force would be an organized team who would get more use out of it. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 19:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I would get more use out of something other than IRC. I'm not particularly technologically savvy, so I'm not sure how the whole template thing would work as far as making clear what other CVU folk are active, but I could easily tack something onto my user page to show when I'm around. --Moonriddengirl 19:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, I would like to say that the first responders thing sounds like a great idea. I would prefer it if it were not on IRC since not everybody can access it and it would be easier if everything was within Wikipedia itself. --_{Hdt83 Chat} 22:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, lets establish a few things, first of all we all like the idea of a CVU First Responders Task Force. Second, a issue that needs to be decided is how the task force will be able to communicate as a unit. IRC is a option, however something on wikipedia would be better. The template idea by J-stan is awesome, now is the question on how to make it. Any ideas? Is it even possible? --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you know exactly what you want you can request it on Wikipedia:Requested templates where template coders can help. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 23:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay I will look into that momentarily. Now another issue that needs to be addressed is how is the TF going to communicate quickly? By the way, before I make a active request for a template, let's make sure that is the way we want to go. I made a straw poll below. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Like #wikipedia-en-cvu (=ChanServ= Registered: 1 year 38 weeks 4 days (17h 15m 8s) ago)? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again something on wikipedia itself would be better as not everyone can use IRC. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes to clarify the subject of the poll it is regarding the template proposed by J-stan to work in conjunction with the first responders task force proposed by me and whether or not we should create a template for creation request. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 00:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See my solution below. I don't even think we'd need a template, unless editors want it in their userspace or something. I think we should let First Responder go live before we create it. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm contact at #wikipedia-de-rc where normally 20—30 vandal fighters or admins are online. … If there's a questionable edit you're able to discuss it; if you really need an admin you're able to find one there quickly. … On #wikipedia-de-rc we have a bot which displays new reports to the AIV and new inappropriate user names. A good bet: Don't tout it, so that you're making it to easy for IRC vandals to find it. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Why on earth do you need a vote to create a template? Just design it already, if people don't like it they can choose to not use it. >Radiant< 09:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be also choosey?

I want to raise this point independently from the survey so as to keep visually clear all the users vote. Am I to understand that there will be some sort of tools that will be written and handed by J-stan? If so, shouldn't we (the members) of this present CVU, be selective of those who join these task forces (The CVU)? Just by making sure a user has had at least 3 months at WP and has not engaged in spamming activities, sock puppetry or too many times getting into irrational disputes with other members (3RRs, trolling, etc, etc) we can eliminate potential problems and run smoother the Task Forces. That's my opinion. It's not like the way admins get chosen, but maybe we should always vote to include new members according to their contributions and behavior. Especially, how they regard or treat others. All I want is to make sure that there will be integrity on those who will be trusted with those duties. Any comments? Jrod2 04:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There actually isn't such a thing as CVU membership right now. Anyone who wishes to join it is a member, as the organization wishes to be as approachable as possible. I'm not sure what adding those restrictions would accomplish. While they look nice on paper, how can a non-existent membership elect candidates for a new task force? I think it is better to make it, check if it works, and then analyze again. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I was just making a suggestion. But, in answering your question (how can a non-existent membership elect candidates for a new task force?): If you presently are CVU and already with 3 months as a volunteer, then you should qualify to vote to include or exclude the newe members. It's just a thought that I had. The last thing we need is users making a mockery of these activities. Jrod2 05:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

But the thing is, we went away with the whole idea of membership a while ago because it grew to an unmanageable size. While task forces are smaller, they should again be voluntary and open-ended, like WikiProject task forces. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As said before there should be no strict membership or commitments. Everyone on Wikipedia is editing voluntarily and some people will not be available all the time but will still volunteer when they can. For example I won't be available daily for a while now but will do what I can when Im on Wikipedia.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 08:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

While I worry about abuse as well, I don't believe that closed membership is a good idea--at least not to begin with. I don't think your run-of-the-mill vandal is going to be that insidious. I am concerned that exclusivity will discourage fresh and eager participants. It didn't take me three months to hop on the CVU bandwagon. I'm with Titoxd in thinking we should "make it, check if it works, and then analyze again." --Moonriddengirl 12:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. FR should be comprised of a number of volunteers. They should be required to be more active than others in terms of vandal fighting, but this should not become to exclusive. My only concern is the fact that we need a cut off point in terms of the number of volunteers. How do we do so without making it permenant. One idea I had was to have let's say a wikipedian have at least 500 reverts and 3 months on the wiki as the minimum requirement. Since that is going to encompass a lot of people, maybe we should create rotating 1 month activity teams of 15. That way if 100 people meets the bottom requirement and 90 want to joing we can have 6 different teams going on one month shifts before rotating out till there next term. What about that. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 13:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should have requirements, that makes it a bit too bureaucratic. I am also against shifts. We should have enough members so that everybody helps, but not too many that it gets cluttered. I think 90 is too much. We should just get some startup members, and then just be selective of who joins after that. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 14:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I Think I am able to create some basic templates, nothing too flashy. If we are going through with this, maybe we should get a few members first. I'll give more details later.

With regards to membership, I think we could get some members (maybe like 20), and then be selective about who joins. My idea also proposes that anyone can aid the FRT, but there would only be a few actual members. I propose that other TFs be created, for whatever reason (RC patrol, things like that), so that we could organize ourselves further. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 14:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That could be a little extreme, I'd rather try out this idea for a bit and then add on if it would help. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Whats the difference between an actual member and people aiding the FRT. They can both do the same thing if what you suggested is no shifts or bureaucracy.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 15:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Members actually look for vandalism to report it, while non members could report some stuff to members of the FRT, and then they could decide if it is appropriate to put out on reports.

By George, I'm on a roll! New idea: There are only a few members of the FRT who would sort of act like dispatchers, and the rest would be run like the CVU: sort of like a membership, but sort of a loose one. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 15:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand what your trying to say. And anyone can make reports about vandalism to admins on the relevant pages.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 15:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that idea sucks. Ok, sticking to the original idea, a bunch of members, no shifts, lots of templates. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 15:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so let's implement something. I've set up luna's template at Template:CVUUsers, and created an IRC channel at #wikipedia-CVU - do we want to use this one or is #countervandalism sufficient? It would be nice if IRC users could sign in and out of RC patrol using a bot, this allowing users to differentiate between active RC patrollers and users available to assist but who are working elsewhere. --ST47Talk·Desk 16:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought we agreed, that we would have the system not on the IRC. What is this sudden move to base this TF around IRC. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 16:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if all users can't access it, it's a valuable way of getting instant feedback and it has much easier ways to check activity. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• As with any Wikiproject, anyone who wants to be a member is by default a member. It is not a good idea to set criteria, or inclusion votes, or anything else. Esperanza tried that, and look how they turned out. >Radiant< 11:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Uh, I think we had agreed on not doing this? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorporate RC patrol as a task force of CVU?

I noticed that it was suggested to merge CVU in to RCP, how about the other way around, since a lot of reverting vandalism has to do with "patrolling" recent changes, shouldn't RC patrol be part of the CVU and become a taskforce of something under the CVU? --_{Hdt83 Chat} 05:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really, and it has been pointed out why above. One is a group, and the other one is a process. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the RC Patrol and CVU run under two different methodology. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 20:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Their scopes are not the same. The RC patrol deals exclusively with recent changes, including vandalism as well as other areas such as gramatical errors, typos, spelling, uncited statements, innacuracies, formatting errors, etc. The CVU deals exclusively with vandalism, including that in recent changes, but also in identifying vandalism patterns, watching specific articles, finding old vandalism that was missed, and preventing vandalism with warnings, protections, blocks, etc. While there is some overlap they are seperate, and I'm sure a proposed merger in the other direction would meet just as much resistance as this one did, if not more. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Parallel proposal

After consulting with a few people about the technical feasibility to do this, I'm bringing this proposal about the proposed First Responders task force here. In a nutshell, it doesn't do away with the advantages that IRC brings, but it allows on-wiki users to have access to the same real-time listings of who is online and who isn't. It determines online status either via StatusBot, or via logins to an IRC channel to be determined. Thoughts? Comments? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A template made by Luna Santin shows how this would work. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Although I would prefer it if the available box was a light shade of green rather than blue but thats just me. --_{Hdt83 Chat} 06:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The current formatting looks hideous, yes. ;) Feel free to change, I was mostly looking at the technical side. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Titoxd, that's exactly the kind of thing that I was hoping for--something that would allow me to just find help if I run into problems. Great job, Luna Santin. I think. Being technologically clueless, I'm not really qualified to judge. ;D --Moonriddengirl 12:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

CVU (and presumably FRT members too) don't only fight vandalism. We need to ensure that a distinction is made between someone who is online working on Wikipedia, and someone who is online fighting vandalism on Wikipedia as a first responder. While we need to do that without requiring too much user input, using Statusbot will only provide an online/offline status not an FRT-active/FRT-inactive status. Waggers 08:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you do that without user input, since the user determines whether they are vandal fighting or not.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 09:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say without user input, I just reiterated what was said above, that ideally we need to keep it to a minimum. Adding a tab to the top of the screen sounds sensible (and is certainly doable - WP:TWINKLE does it). The alternative is a slightly more intelligent bot that distinguishes reverts and user talk warnings (in other words, counter-vandalism edits) from other edits. Waggers 09:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I like everything about the proposal except in terms of detection of if a user is vandal fighting or not. The idea of a more advanced bot sounds like a great idea and mayber should be pursued. Great idea Waggers. I think finally we are getting somewhere. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 13:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My idea was that such an "unavailable" tag could be accomplished via a JavaScript toggle, such as User:Topaz/statuschanger.js. Perhaps it can be made the other way around, default to busy and then tag oneself "available". But either way, it is doable with JavaScript and the StatusBot framework or a similar framework. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Georgemoney also has a status bot up at User:GeorgeMoneyBot-status. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• No, I don't think it's a good idea at all to call some people "first responders" and make their status clear. Wikipedia doesn't have ranks and hierarchies like that, and the net result of giving some people a title is always to exclude other people from certain activities that they may want to participate in. >Radiant< 11:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Aside from the name (which is being debated), is anything else objectionable about it? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Scanner

New off-wiki tool may be helpful when looking for ip vandals using dynamic addressing: WikiScanner. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this really matter?

Isn't the Counter Vandalism Unit just an organization for the sake of it? I mean really...First Responders? Just watch Recent Changes or what have you and then revert. No caring about number of reverts, no shifts of who works when, no membership. This stuff is senseless and only seeks to glorify the vandalism removal process, which we shouldn't. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

CVU is more than just watching RC and reverting vandalism. To more effectively remove vandalism, we're trying to coordinate our efforts and work together, notifying each other of persistent vandalism and so forth. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 14:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Organization is a very good thing. You're free to watch RC, no one's going to force you to sign up, but increased coordination can support the encyclopedia. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem is, a lot of vandalism slips through the net. Having a more coordinated response to vandalism will hopefully minimise that, and will help to flag to editors when extra help is needed on RCP. At present, everything is left to chance, and we need to work smarter than that. That's what the CVU is all about, and I can't see what's "senseless" about it. Waggers 14:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We already have the defcon, and no, most blatant vandalism is caught. Yes, things like trolling and BLP violations do tend to slip through, but that's beyond the capabilities of most RCP patrollers anyway. This proposal is just instruction-creep. Moreschi ^Talk 14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there's a lot of vandalism that doesn't get caught by RCP. And, again, there is a difference between CVU and RCP. Plus, we're talking about a group of people against vandalism who want to be a little more coordinated. I don't see any 'instruction-creep' about it. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with demon. Alot of this is just arbitrary fluff. Very few of the ideas presented have any real value, and it seems like alot of members of the CVU are more concerned with looking and sounding good than actually being good. I think wikipedians take this too seriously. It's only a big deal if YOU make it a big deal. Just RCP sometimes, and things will be fine. HOnestly, who wants to come home from a shift at work in the real world, to have a shift at home on wikipedia. It's rediculous. --MKnight9989 14:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to "CVU is more than just watching RC and reverting vandalism.", no it isn't, really. Recent changes patrolling hasn't changed in years and hasn't failed as far as I can tell. Putting people on shifts, creating "first responders" and other nonsense creates and unwanted bureauracy. Limiting editing times and making shifts aren't going to encourage vandal fighting, it's going to drive people away from CVU and revert on thier own time, like they should be. — Moe ε 14:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think it's ridiculous -- again, we're not asking everyone to sign up. If you don't want the shift on Wikipedia, that's fine, but there is sufficient interest in such a cooperative organization to defeat vandalism. For one thing, I would definitely like to know who else is actively fighting vandalism at the time, if only so I could say something like, "Hey, I have to go now, but there's been a spate of IP vandalism on X. Do you mind keeping an eye on it? Thanks." --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This is an idea I've been thinking of to myself for a while, it was implemented to a point in vandalproof 2, but now we can actually set up a collaboration of online users and administrators. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of creating a task force and a template to improve coordination but everything should be voluntary. There should be no compulsory membership or shifts. This is unnecessary. It just needs some organisation so that vandalism can be cleared up better. It does not need a military style structure.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 14:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's proposing compulsory shifts, but rather a table of who is available at a certain time, which would allow people to more evenly distribute effort. --ST47Talk·Desk 14:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the kind of thing I was thinking about, too, Ratiocinate. You can always count on somebody else to find the page blankers, but some vandals are more insidious. The way I do RC Patrol, a notification system of the sort being bandied about isn't necessarily going to do anything for me, but being able to locate an editor who is also on vandal patrol and willing to interact would be very useful. --Moonriddengirl 16:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly believe that the ability to communicate during a high level of vandalism, and act as a unit would be beneficial. I agree though, shifts need to go. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 16:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of templates, no commitments and good coordination through a special information channel (script). However, at some point, membership should be implemented with other members voting to either include or exclude the new comer. If this new CVU organization is successful, it's inevitable that it will be over-staffed (Too many FRs) and a suitable editor selection could never hurt. I guess we will discuss it when we cross that bridge. Jrod2 16:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RC patrol is perennially understaffed. I wouldn't worry about that one. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Moe, you may want to have a look at my third law of Wikipedia: Telling others how to stop wasting their time is a good way to waste yours. No one will force you to RC patrol for a certain amount of time. There are no penalties for not enrolling in the task force. The suggestion to make mandatory shifts boiled down to simple brainstorming. However, the fact that there are users who want to do it and organize better make it sound like a good idea to my ears. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between posting about an article that is frequently vandalised and setting up task forces just to put the 'U' in CVU. --MKnight9989 12:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tito, if no one bothered to criticize the judgement of others and better guide them in something, Wikipedia wouldn't move foward. I just wanted to make that absolutely clear, because what I read didn't seem to dismiss the idea, so I wasn't sure there was consensus to move ahead with shifts and times of editing idea. If it were that would be a little much, which is what I was commenting on. The template thing to generate active users is a good idea for the most part, and I didn't say anything about that. If users voluntarily do the shifts thing, thats thier choice. I was stepping in to make sure that everyone wasn't placed on a schedule for editing is all. — Moe ε 13:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of potential interest to RC Patrollers

There's an ongoing policy discussion of guidelines for lists which may interest some of you, specifically in the question of whether redlinked additions should be permitted. I have my own opinion, but am not canvassing for supporters. :) I think the conversation could use more input from CVU even if you disagree with me. Healthy debate = good. --Moonriddengirl 16:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

let's move the discussions

Since we're pretty much set that we want the FRT, i've created a subpage for it. Let's discuss proposals for the TF there, instead of cluttering the CVU Talk page.

Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/First Response Team. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 17:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone considered whether The Community feels the need for first responders

I'm all for enthusiasm, but has anyone asked whether the greater editing community (or, heaven forfend, the admins who will still need to push the buttons) whether this is desired? It might be useful to get some input from outside parties before you present your nice new shiny proposal. There is already a few people with misgivings about the amount of WP:CREEP potential here, and I am very wary of potentially creating cliques where an aspect of maintaining the encyclopedia starts driving practice. I think people here need to chill for just a little while, and consider the wider implications. For the record, I think the CVU does an excellent job - as I am one of those who is currently active at AIV - and would support any effort that helps it providing it doesn't violate the principles of WP. LessHeard vanU 20:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I did suggest this on Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/First Response Team.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 20:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, when you think about it, the proposed task force is just like any other WikiProject. It needs a critical mass of interested users to get started. Apparently, there are many users interested in something similar to this, and it has been proposed several times in the past... so why not? It isn't mandatory... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

First Responders is kind of a misnomer. We are, in essence, a group of editors who want to have a more centralized manner of communicating and fighting vandalism. Also, I hope we're not being too clique-y -- anyone can join, but nobody is obligated to do so. Furthermore, we don't intend to increase the amount of WP:CREEP, seeing as how this is completely optional. Cheers! --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 20:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it was brought up here I'll just respond here. As far as WP:CREEP is concerned, I don't see a huge threat to instruction creep considering that this would be done on an entirely at-will basis. Editors who would prefer not to be a part of it will not be affected by it. They would still be able to edit and deal with vandalism on their own terms, within the overarching Wikipedia policies and guidelines. All this will do is provide a tool for those who wish to make use of it. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm quite sure I could be wrong, but as it stands now I don't see much grounds for objection. :) Currently, it's a way for CVU members who want to participate to be able to contact each other, right? (At least, that's what it seems to be.) The name might be off-putting to some, I suppose, given that some folk have expressed concerns already over the name CVU. The idea as it seems to be evolving seems to me to be innocuous otherwise. --Moonriddengirl 20:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects and there is general consensus, it shouldn't cause any problems but it should be kept simple.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 20:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Taking it to The Village Pump (policy), as discussed elsewhere, will likely get you a range of opinions. Remember, having the police enforce the rules is a good thing, but having the police make the rules is generally considered bad. Also, proponents very rarely see the downside of anything since they are more concerned with the benefits - it sometimes takes a dispassionate opinion to point out potential problems. LessHeard vanU 21:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on that, particularly since the village pump proposal was, I believe, mine. :D (At least I made one; maybe somebody else did as well.) I would like to get more feedback on the name question at the bottom of the page, though, since I think it's likely to be the most confusing part of the proposal. --Moonriddengirl 21:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it was, but I am posting here as it is likely to be seen by more eyes. ;~) Um... the naming doesn't really concern me, it is something to be resolved once the need for such a group establishes consensus. LessHeard vanU 21:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Threading gets confusing. I thought you were specifically addressing me. :) (But as an aside, I feel like it's better to settle the question--if there is a question--of the name before taking it to village pump. The last village pump conversation I got involved in quickly became huge and sprawling, and I feel like as concise a proposal as possible will facilitate smooth discussion.) --Moonriddengirl 21:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed if we bring it on to village pump the discussion will become huge. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to create a post at Village Pump (proposals) linking here. We could have a discussion section on this page and then a survey section. From there we could really start establishing this Task Force. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Great Idea! J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 22:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(reply to Moonriddengirl) I mean the name thing doesn't bother me, but if it is believed that a suitable name would not divert discussion over the core issues over at the Village Pump (or elsewhere) then by all means have it decided upon before posting there. LessHeard vanU 20:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Or just try AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Thou shalt fight vandalism - fight, I say! (Bureauracy watch). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not convinced that this needs to go to the wider community. I'm all for open discussion - but this discussion is open. We're just a Wikiproject, putting together some ideas. Does every Wikiproject need to put every idea they discuss on the village pump? No. I don't see why the CVU should be subjected to special treatment in this way. What we're proposing is no change at all for non-CVU members, and nothing that would have a major effect on Wikipedia as a whole, so why the big fuss? Waggers 08:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen two posts saying this won't effect other people. If this is true, then you're doing it only for yourself, in which case it's just masturbation (figure of speech). All people need to do is RC patrol and report serious cases to AIV. This is not a real police force. You cannot arrest vandals. You cannot make them stop doing what they do. You cannot coordinate fire teams to cover different exits. I think this idea started out as some people wanting to play cops and robbers online, and it got a little out of hand. Go play SWAT 4 or something. --MKnight9989 12:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the system as proposed has value. I recently ran into a vandal who broke Twinkle--attempting to reverse the damage he did crashed Firefox twice and my system a third time before I was able to figure out a work-around. If I had been able to reach a more technologically savvy vandal patroller, it probably would have been dealt with more swiftly and without a hard restart. There have also been many occasions when I've been on RC patrol and needed to leave but hated to stop monitoring the activities of a particularly insidious vandal--the kind of guy who inserts a few character racial slur into an article. Having someone to whom I can say, "I have to put my kid to bed; can you watch this guy over at Tiger Woods?" would be handy. For these reasons and others, I think a system allowing CVU to locate other CVU has merit. --Moonriddengirl 13:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

MKnight9989, if you have anything useful to contribute other than making infantile analogies and patronizing everyone with videogame references, perhaps you can find something better to do yourself than sit here and massage your ego.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To MKnight9989: we are not the vandalism police. We have no interest in 'jailing' vandals (indeed, we cannot); we are not asking for privileges to block or ban them, and we are not being exclusive, bringing WP:CREEP, or negatively affecting valuable contributors. All we're trying to do is to improve cooperation by writing a tool to coordinate CVU, which is due mainly to the (blatantly false) claim that we're 'inactive'. To that end, our proposal is to have a template that is coordinated via IRC and wiki to notify other members who else is online, so we can help each other in a fashion similar to what Moonriddengirl has described above. The claims that Moreschi have made over at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Thou shalt fight vandalism - fight, I say! (Bureauracy watch) are in response to a proposal which has since been revised. Please, please take a look at what we're actually trying to do before telling us all to "go play SWAT 4". Thanks. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 13:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User MKnight9989 has the right to form an opinion, but perhaps he should consult with his Dad (User:Jmlk17) as well? Maybe he'll have the patience to read all of this and explain to him, what is being discussed here and why. Jrod2 14:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One: I made no video game references. I said maybe some people should play SWAT 4 because it seems to me that the CVU has become a clubhouse for fans of cops and robbers. And I said masturbation because as everyone know you probably won't get anyone pregnant by partaking in it. Hasn't anyone here ever read Tom Clancy (specifically Red Storm Rising)? He uses that expression alot. It's not infantile, as most infants would not be able to masturbate, and either way, I was trying to prove a point. And what I said is true. If this won't affect anyone, then you won't accomplish anything, hence the use of the word masturbation. And Ratiocinate when you said "All we're trying to do is to improve cooperation by writing a tool to coordinate CVU, which is due mainly to the (blatantly false) claim that we're 'inactive'.", it made it seem like this discussion only exists to prove the CVU still has worth, and there are MANY more ways to actually do that than what you're doing. Instead of reacting to the vandals who shut down firefox, take the initiative and make them react to you. Make a counterporgram that does something similar to them. Don't cut the leaves off the weed, pull it out of the ground. It's not the idea itself that I have a problem with, it's the reasoning behind it. Hey Oki, remember when you said "Editors who would prefer not to be a part of it will not be affected by it."? That proves my point even more. What is the point of this if it won't effect other people? You guys keep contradicting yourselves in an effort to see this through no matter what. Change the plan according to the situation, not the situation according to the plan. --MKnight9989 14:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

MKnight9989, you're not understanding what we're trying to do. We won't be affecting other users -- that is, those who don't wish to participate. However, those that do wish to participate will have a new tool to help them fight vandalism by increasing cooperation. Yes, this came about partially because people thought we were inactive, which we're not. CVU is not -- and should not be -- a lone-wolf operation. To that end, we're trying to encourage and enhance cooperation even further by introducing a new tool. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 14:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I'm confused by your suggestion: "Instead of reacting to the vandals who shut down firefox, take the initiative and make them react to you." First of all, I don't think it would be Wikipedia policy to make a program that would break a vandal's computer. The reason we give them multiple warnings is because we don't automatically assume that they're lost causes. Secondly, I would have no clue how to make a program to break a vandal's computer. If that were the right response, a CVU online template would be perfect for me to find somebody who did know how. And, yes, that would only impact people who choose to be involved and still be very helpful. And my part in this conversation didn't come about because people thought CVU was inactive; it was because before this discussion I was unaware there was any direct way to interact with the community. --Moonriddengirl 14:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me add one more thing. MKnight9989, when you say, Instead of reacting to the vandals who shut down firefox, take the initiative and make them react to you. Make a counterporgram that does something similar to them -- this is exactly what we don't want to do. We're trying to make a tool that helps us protect articles from being vandalized; we are not trying to shut down vandals, because that would be stepping outside of our bounds. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 14:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting a new paragraph, I just can't see this being very useful. I mean, suppose I'm dealing with joe, who is a vandal. He keeps vandalising the page cow. I tell jimmy, who is alos in the CVU, about joe. Jimmy continues to warn Joe, then reports him to AIV. Joe is banned forever and ever, and hence the problem is solved until Joe creates a sock puppet. So please, explain to me how your idea would be anymore effective, because I think I might have missed something fundamentally important. --MKnight9989 14:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What you seem to be missing is that what we're discussing is a way for you to know Jimmy is online. That's all. --Moonriddengirl 14:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Back to add that perhaps you should look over Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/First Response Team. That's the proposal as it stands. It's still being ironed out. --Moonriddengirl 14:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflictresponding to MKight, 2 comments above) I am reluctant to involve people without the initiative on their part, so I won't use names, but I have a number of editors I know of who are highly active on pages on my watchlist. When one or more or them are on, since they are generally more effective at patrolling vandalism than myself, I will be more conservative in investigating in reverting, focusing my attention on pages that aren't being covered by active users at the moment. When I don't see any users on, I would be significantly more scrutinizing on my watchlist with edits to those pages, especially by anon-IPs and new accounts.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My last edit was made before radiocinate and moonridden's last edits, so let respond to them. I'm not saying you destroy their computer, what I'm saying is the CVU is all bark and no bite. You can have the best communications and supply of any army in the world, but if your men don't have guns, then what's the point? We need to focus more on giving the CVU more bite that more communications. Comm is important, but second to actually getting the job done. --MKnight9989 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC) That too, wwas after your most recent edits. I keep getting edit conflicts.

Now that I understand the actual idea, I'm not as opposed to it, but it still seems like the CVU is lacking in prioritization skills. --MKnight9989 14:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do have some kind of guns. I don't believe the process is broken. Sometimes it takes a while for an admin to block a vandal, but usually it seems longer than it actually is, since vandals can work pretty quickly. I'd be a little worried about giving CVU more bite because I've run into some folks on vandal patrol who don't seem to get the basic concept. Recently, I found an individual warning off folks doing good faith edits on his pages. No, I think more power is not the answer. :) Just a more efficient way of working with the tools we have. --Moonriddengirl 14:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Still, there's really no point in contacting jimmy when you can just report joe yourself. --MKnight9989 14:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that my kid's got to go to bed (or I do) and Joe has had his "final warning" and is vandalizing pages at a rate of once per every five minutes. Or, as I said, when somebody's crashing my computer and it takes me three tries to figure out that if twinkle can't handle it, I can still go in the old fashioned way and do it. There are times when input is helpful. --Moonriddengirl 14:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, posting here is like playing russian roullette right now, edit conflicts galore. Joe may have a ban that is about to lapse, joe may not have had the proper vandalism warnings for an effective intervention by a moderator yet. More than one person may be making those edits. Recent events and news coverage have a tendency to incite vandalism. I can recall at least one case where several users vandalized an article because it was mentioned on a forum. Knowing who's online will be good for finding who's talk page would net you a quick response if you feel you need to consult with someone else on an issue, i.e. "Is this blatant vandalism or do you think its just a good faith edit / misunderstanding?" "Do you think Xyz may be a sockpuppet for ABC?". --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me first reply to Moonriddengirl and MKnight9989 a few comments back, as I also keep getting edit conflicts:

It would be a good idea to find out what we're trying to do before criticizing it. Moonriddengirl is correct. But why do we care if Jimmy is online, you ask? Because, like I said, CVU is not a lone-wolf operation. The example that Moonriddengirl has raised on several occasions: Having someone to whom I can say, "I have to put my kid to bed; can you watch this guy over at Tiger Woods?" would be handy. Another issue we run into are edits that may appear to be vandalism, but are in reality good faith edits, or vice versa. It would be very helpful to get a second set of eyes to look at a particular edit, which can be done nearly instantaneously with our proposed tool. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 14:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now, let me address MKnight9989's new concerns.

One of the main arguments against CVU is that it has too much "power", that we're a bunch of "vandalism police" (which, I believe, you yourself raised). However, like I said earlier, CVU is not about punishing vandals. It would be unwise to let CVU be judge, jury, and executioner when dealing with vandals; our job, as the first sentence of WP:CVU, states: The Counter-Vandalism Unit (CVU) aims to help in cleaning up vandalism on Wikipedia by producing tools to assist in removing vandalism, providing advice on dealing with vandals, and sharing information with other Wikipedians dealing with the same issues. We clean up vandalism; we don't punish vandals. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 14:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I understood what you were trying to do. That is why I criticized it. I misunderstood and for that I apologize. now that I understand, I am not as opposed but I still think there are better ways to go about doing it. I proposed something similar (see 'calling up the reserves). --MKnight9989 14:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I admit, when I see someone commit twelve acts of vandalism in a row I read 3, give them the sternest vandalism warning, and if they vandalise again I report their ass. I'm sick of vandals fucking shit up. (pardon the language) --MKnight9989 14:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sure we all accept your apologies MKnight9989 and point well taken. Now, can we all move on with the discussion? Jrod2 15:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Question, what really else needs to be done to get this thing rolling. A WP:TOOL needs to be created to allow for a button thingy that would let you sign on to the TF volunteer network. Anybody no how to create this kind of tool? --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 17:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• (\r) Before that, we need to figure out who wants to volunteer. Ideally, how about we start a list here? (We can always move it around, depending on the name we end up picking.) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

First signer! J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 17:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The Problem Is...

...that people are too cuddly to vandals. Saying "I've been watching and warning this guy for an hour, can you take over?" is the wrong approach. If someone's been warned, that's enough incentive for a block in my book. Requiring n number of warnings, then a report, then possibly a block? Far too much work for someone who's not here to help. They vandalize, you warn them to stop, they don't, you block. Plain and simple, always has been. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not our place to change vandalism policy. Also, there is a major bug with MediaWiki with regard to anonymous users, which is where the majority of vandalism comes from. This bug is described here in greater detail. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 16:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the bug, doesn't change was RCP is supposed to be, WP:RBI ^demon^{[omg plz]} 17:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the question is do we want to set up a whole new discussion attempting to change policy? --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 17:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:RBI is an essay, neither policy nor guideline, whereas WP:VAND is policy. Of course, you can say that WP:RBI should be made into policy, but that's not the debate at hand. Plus, this discussion is not entirely relevant to the proposed tool, which contradicts neither WP:VAND nor WP:RBI. You can say that it does not promote the spirit of WP:RBI, but it is not forbidden by WP:RBI, either. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 19:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not looking for a fight here, but in my opinion, no one, not even a vandal should be blocked after just one warning. Blocking someone after a {{uw-vandalism1}}, {{uw-vandalism2}}, or even {{uw-vandalism3}} is a bit much. This, of course carries over to the uw-spam, test, etc. etc. templates. Cheers, Arky^¡Hablar! 21:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Arky, you should block after 3rd warning if this editor's contribution is dedicated solely to a particular article or has only a few edits (all RVs), has no user name, or, a continuous amount of war edits from anon IPs appear to be from a similar location, and are acting in conjunction with the user. Another reason why you should block is if the user only contributes external links without adding content to the articles. Jrod2 21:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, understood. However, I was (unclearly, I might add) talking about blocking after a third level or less warning that is the first warning the user received. Happy editing, Arky^¡Hablar! 22:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of it is simply that in the time it takes you ask to someone to watch a vandal for you, you could have just reported them to AIV, and it would have ended. --MKnight9989 12:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

But you can't report them until they've had a final warning, and Wikipedia's policy is to AGF, using escalating warnings. Some vandals are quite slow. Once I identify somebody who seems to be up to something, I tend to watch them for a while. As an example, I encountered one yesterday who vandalized at 17:44; 18:06; 18:29; 18:45 and 18:53 (at which point he was reported & blocked). With that guy, there'd have been a whole lot more time to ask somebody to watch him than to wait to report him as appropriate. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's never happened to me. I'm not saying your lying or anything, but you have to admit that's probably pretty rare. --MKnight9989 12:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Report

Good day Counter-vandalizers , i'd like to report someone who have recieved all the levels of vadalism warnings , and still removing contents Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 22:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:AIV. We can't really do anything about it. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 22:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks boss. Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Note on archiving

Just a general note, and IMO only, I don't thing we really need to be archiving recent discussion of avoidable. Very respectfully, Navou ^banter 22:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, talk pages can certainly handle being long while significant discussions are occurring. I now have no idea what was discussed, and going into archives for recent events is counter-intuitive and unnecessary. I am un-archiving my recent subject. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to express my apologies for archiving. I thought I had removed a section that was relatively quiet, but it is clear that others wish to view and discuss that material. I will wait until the entire discussion finishes before re-archiving. Cheers! --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 01:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not just finishes, but expires - I'd wait at least a couple of weeks after the last comment in any section before archiving it. Waggers 08:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would definitely call recent freshly updated events worthy of remaining on the active talk page. Wait until they are somewhat dormant before burying them in the archives to gather the cobwebs of time forgotten. Valley2city 05:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal Fighter 3.3 Preconfigured

• Note this has been unarchived to provide a resource for patrollers; and was done in part to provide a counter-argument to the notion the CVU serves no useful function.

I have uploaded pre-configured Vandal Fighter here. Admin list loaded, important columns and options set; great for new and veteran vandal fighters alike. You can let it run in the background while you do something else and then scroll quickly through the backlog to spot the blatant vandalism missed by our first line defenders. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow! That is really great! I use a proxy and was never able to get those lists before. Thanks a lot! --Mschel 20:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't that complicated.

If you don't think this is the best way to fight vandalism... then don't fight vandalism this way. All the "Revert, block, ignore" folk are fine by me. If you want to do it that way, then do it that way. If someone wants to do it this way, then they can do it this way. We are all fighting the same vandals, so why is so much breath being wasted on irrelevant squabbling? Let's do something productive and get back to reverting, blocking, and ignoring. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation for Comment

I'd like to invite the members of CVU to have a look at an essay I developed a few weeks back, with the valuable input from several administrators and respected editors. Initially, the project was aimed at general "template" issues and the etiquette related to their use, but as I wrote, it really turned into more of an essay that would be aimed towards new editors who wished to get into vandalism fighting, or recent changes patrol. It is a very thorough essay that covers the types of vandalism, the response, the proper use of templates, when not to template, and other areas. It is not public. It is in my user space, and it has been reviewed by a number of administrators, but I'd like the opinions of the members here, whether they feel it is useful to put it up as a resource for new folks, or if it is really not needed.

I do realize that there are some who just think everyone should "revert, template warn, block" and that's all there is to it; while that may be fine for those editors, there are also those who may prefer to go about it in a more personal way. So this is aimed towards those who would like more background, or more options.

Please be gentle, this is a second draft, and again, is an essay, so it should not be taken as a guideline or policy, it is neither. It is simply a collection of opinions, experiences, and examples.

Vandalism Fighter's Etiquette Guide

(That's probably not the name it would end up being, but a temporary name in the absence of anything more catchy). ^Ariel♥Gold 07:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. The more experience that can be infused into it, and the more prescription that can be taken out of it, the better. Gracenotes^T § 13:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Informative, but it seems overly long. Good work. >Radiant< 10:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, length is one area I think it needs help with, so maybe if Gracenotes (or anyone else) can identify areas that could be taken out, that would help! Thanks for looking at it! ^Ariel♥Gold 10:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Great point about the use of a more visual content depicting positive images on warning messages. Jrod2 10:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(UI) Yes, that's something I really believe in, the medium of pure text is just all too easy to "read wrong" (pun intended), and adding even a tiny smile on a talk page, or when commenting, can completely change the way something comes across. (Okay so my degree in Psych did come in handy, lol) ^Ariel♥Gold 10:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

CVU warning template

Hey People,

A while ago, I had to deal with a sock puppeteer and his meat puppet who were vandalizing the Audio mastering page. They simply wouldn't let up and created a lot of disruption. They used multiple socks and anon IPs as well. It came to a point that the need to protect the page was the sensible thing to do, but this would have meant a stop to the page development. While at some point after the initial attacks, there were some heated debates by me, the sock puppets, and a couple of other users who were in essence, keeping a watch to the page and not letting it be vandalized, there were a few new comers who got "hit" in the crossfire. For this reason, I think a template that basically says: "Do not edit this page at this moment as we are fighting vandalism", may actually help fight crime while inviting new comers to come back a little later when things are under control.

So, obviously this needs your feedback and approval first. Now, everything can be modified and improved upon member suggestions/requests. This is just an initial template for your review. Thank you. Jrod2 21:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm concerned about the community wide reception of this. Generally, I'm afraid this is likely to be an extremely controversial idea simply on principle. While I understand what you're trying to do (and definitely sympathize!), I doubt it will fly. I have no doubt that people will point out that if an article is under attack, we have the power to RPP. That said, more specifically, "first of the day" is nebulous given that Wikipedia has international contributors and "day" could be almost anything. (I tried to post this below the template, and my comment got swallowed in black. Is it working properly?)--Moonriddengirl 21:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a little overboard, but I do sympathize with the idea. Specifically mentioning "CVU" is probably unnecessary. I would consider scaling it back more to basically just say, "This page is being heavily vandalized, so be aware your changes may get lost, particularly if they are not well-sourced." I dunno... --Jaysweet 21:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

oops, Moonriddengirl I thought i erased that part "first of the day". I certainly realize that is naive. How about I try what Jaysweet suggests? And, yes i hope the template is working properly. Jrod2 21:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole idea might run into problems. There's already a hearty school advocating starving vandals of attention (that whole deny recognition thing), and tagging pages in this way might be perceived as encouraging rather than discouraging vandalism. I'm not sure any kind of label will meet community approval, but, then, I tend to be cautious rather than bold in general. I might not be the best one to weigh in on this. I will say that if you are going to try to introduce a template, you might want to keep it simple and very low-key. (Like Ariel said, the black is very visible.) Jaysweet's suggestions are nicely abbreviated, but I'd consider taking it back even further: "This page is being heavily vandalized. Edits may be lost." Something like that. Anyway, good luck with it. :) People get very passionate over these kinds of things. I'm currently engaged in a conversation about the guidelines for lists that has gotten a tad bit heated here and there. --Moonriddengirl 21:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I do like the cooperation & contributions line, though I'd probably just make it "contributions" and not "future contributions." They might well choose to edit the page anyway. :) --Moonriddengirl 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Caution: This page is currently seeing heavier than normal activity. Edits may get reverted or removed if they are not properly sourced. If you are new to Wikipedia, please make sure your edits are referenced to a verifiable source and you provide an edit summary. If you are adding external links, please read and understand "Links to be avoided". Thank you for your cooperation and contributions! If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

|} While I understand the concern, and I do believe that the intention is good, the fact is, the above notice box is really disruptive, both with the way it is colored (Black is not a good background color for any notice), and in the way it is worded. It makes it sound much more "police-y" than I think is called for. I would agree with Moonriddengirl that while it would be nice to have something like this, the fact is that if there is a real issue, a temp protection could simply be granted and solve the problem. Also, the banner is not formatted properly, you have left the script open, so as Moonriddengirl mentioned, replies get swallowed up. I fixed this by adding |} before my comment, so I think you need to go add that to the template, to fix it, or anything written after it would be obliterated. ^Ariel♥Gold 21:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I did that, however, I am not sure I fixed yet. Jrod2 21:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, well, according to you, the colors were too much police-like, so it's changed to a bright basic color. The view image icon has to remain black because is an image and conveys that we are watching. As for RPP, like i said before, that would hinder any article development. My goal is to create a "marker" that doubles as a warning, so that other CVU members can see it as a page in trouble (sort of) but gently let new comers know that editing at this particular time, may not be the best thing to do. Jrod2 21:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good pointers to all of you. It does read better. All we have to do s if we need it or if anybody would use it for those "special" situations. Please comment. Thanks. Jrod2 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

New section for editing ease

Well, the colors are a bit better, but I personally don't equate that black "blob" (that's how it looks to me, sorry, lol) to "being watched". I think something more effective would be something that conveys a sense of humor, as well as the indication of "Ooops, stuff has happened here!", or "don't do that!". The image of the Wikipedia page in all that black, is really so small it isn't immediately identifiable, and the black part, well, it doesn't really look to me like something being "watched". Also, the 'external links' link should be in wikilink-markup. Please don't take this as a negative at all. However, compare the immediate, visual, psychological clues of something like this:

Caution: This page is currently seeing heavier than normal activity. Edits may get reverted or removed if they are not properly sourced. If you are new to Wikipedia, please make sure your edits are referenced to a verifiable source, and you provide an edit summary. If you are adding external links, please read and understand "Links to be avoided". Thank you for your cooperation and contributions! We appreciate your edits! If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

However, all that being said, I still think that such a banner is not going to really get approved, for the main reason of WP:DFTT, because in a way, it could encourage vandalism, and also because the resources for vandalism already exist, in WP:AIV, WP:RPP, and WP:ANI. I do admire your WP:BOLDness and initiative, however! ^Ariel♥Gold 23:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ariel, great example. I have revised the template as per your example, however, it's important to point out that tools like WP:RPP, maybe a bit too extreme and it will disrupt the article page development to a halt. The only thing left to discuss is, whether the template will encourage vandals to do further damage or not. What is your comment? Jrod2 00:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Caution: This page is currently seeing heavier than normal activity. Edits may get reverted or removed if they are not properly sourced. If you are new to Wikipedia, please make sure your edits are referenced to a verifiable source and you provide an edit summary. If you are adding external links, please read and understand "Links to be avoided". Thank you for your cooperation and contributions! If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

Lol I think that smiley face has a big black blurry nose! . The image originally is in .svg format, which doesn't blur no matter how large it gets, but it looks like something happened to it with yours, as it is very blurry (to me anyway). I think the binoculars are distracting, as they aren't immediately identifiable. Keep in mind with things like this, you are basically talking about literally a split second upon which to convey an idea using an image, before the person either rejects it, or accepts it for the intended meaning. I don't think that your revised image does that. (And again, I really feel like you'll see this as me being Miss Negative, and honestly I'm not trying to be, but as someone who has done graphics professionally, I just have to voice my thoughts in those areas). As for whether it will feed trolls... eh, I personally think it would. You have to consider some of the motivation behind vandalism. We're not talking about some editing tests, if a page is repeatedly, destructively vandalized, enough to warrant a notice like this, it is usually because someone has thought it out, designed a plan to disrupt, and therefore, shows premeditation. Are they likely to be stopped because of a banner saying "don't do that"? No, I doubt it. Will it provoke them even more? I'd probably say yes. But ultimately, my opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans. lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 00:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't say that Ariel. Your points are well taken. I guess, no matter how you dress it , this template will not discourage vandals. But, what about innocent newcomers? If they see it, maybe they'll come back to edit later on and not get discouraged to contribute. Let's say the page is undergoing vandalism at 10:am 10:10 and 10:20. and you are reverting and reverting, then at 10:30 a newbie comes in and places an external link. It's not referenced so you delete at 10:32. At 10:35 newbie posts again, because he thinks that something happened with his entry. You revert and warn at 10:36. The newbie might have added a whole bunch of unverifiable text content as well. He might have been waiting all week to do this contribution. All he knows is that, it didn't stay not even 10 minutes online! He never read rules, and now he knows that there is more to it when you contribute to WP. So my point is, if an article that's being very much scrutinized by many editors is not warning newcomers that the rules are fully in place, wouldn't this template only help encourage them to come back to contribute to WP? So, it's not so much to discourage vandals (We know nothing will stop them) but to encourage newcomers to edit correctly. I can certainly change the image, if you don't like binoculars on the funny face, we could use the surprise face, right? Thanks for your attention. Jrod2 00:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, okay let me address these things as I personally see them, and how I take action. First, for a page to have a "heavy vandalism" warning, I think it would be more like 20+ intentional, deliberate actions within a 10-15 minute period, by multiple IPs or editors. If it were just 4-5 instances, there is no need for this kind of notice. Second, everyone doing RC patrol should always review the editor's contributions, and talk page prior to reverting, and prior issuing any warnings or notices. If the person is obviously new, has no warnings on their talk page, (or is a shared IP with no recent warnings - must assume GF and assume it is a "new" user), then there is no reason to warn them, a welcome with helpful links will suffice, or the use of the first "warning" level, which welcomes them to Wikipedia, providing helpful links as well, and explains why their edit was reverted. This goes along with my tendency to not like the standard warnings, and I prefer to use my own, or type a quick note instead with obvious new editors. The onus is on the RC patrollers to correctly identify vandals vs. innocent contributors that made mistakes. But again, the bottom line to me is, if a page is being heavily vandalized, and I'm talking 30+ reversions in the matter of an hour or less, then protection is needed. Yes, that disrupts genuine IP editors, but some protections are only a few hours, enough time for the vandals to get tired of "playing" and go away. 24 hours is fair, and it is explained when a new user tries to edit. Also, again, AIV is there for that very reason, if someone is doing intentional disruptive editing more than 4 times, report them. Within a few minutes, trust me, they'll be blocked. Honestly I truly do respect your ideas, and I think your heart is in the right place, but I also don't think you're going to get the approval to do something like this. Again, that's just my own, tiny, irrelevant opinion, but I have done probably 2,500 or more reversions due to vandalism, and I've only once asked for page protection. AIV has solved nearly all the issues I've run into so far, and I have faith in that system, and in page protection. As for the image, you can use whatever image you want, I'd just suggest that you keep in mind the psychological cues of first impression, and use something very clear, and simple to convey your message. ^Ariel♥Gold 01:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly have to say that, while I admire the effort to fill a niche in wikipedias vandal fighting world, I do wonder what use this kind of template will have. For explaining to new users whos edits might accidentally be wiped during vandal fighting, as good user/admin will note that he or she has done this and leave the user a casual note, that is if the edit was indeed helpful. If it wasn't and was removed due to no sources or so on (as this new template mentions) there are plenty of messages and templates for that already. Furthermore, in terms of notifying that the page is protected due to vandalism, cursory notes by the admin on the talk page have always been sufficient. I am just concerned that this is a case of over-templating when a simple home made sentence or two by an admin can explain the situation just as easily, and be more tailored to the situation. That's just my two cents, if I have misunderstood anything please point it out to me :) SGGH ^speak! 01:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it all seems reasonable. I just thought about the thousands of new editors who will get deleted on their very first edit at WP because they didn't know about those basic rules mentioned in the template. Thanks for your input, Guys. Jrod2 01:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a neat idea don't get me wrong. I'm just not sure about "thousands" I do genuinely believe that most editors let new users know nicely if they do something wrong, and also with the new "undo" feature, its easier to pick and choose what edits to revert. Furthermore, the welcome template is used often, and wikipedias rules are out there in reasonably plain sight. I don't discount your efforts though please don't get me wrong! :) SGGH ^speak! 01:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

While I agree on pretty much everything said here, I must say that, an anon IP editor who is never been to WP and naturally has no user account, can't see a WELCOME template and therefore, makes an edit going on the assumption that the word "Edit" on the article's page means "help yourself". It's only later and IF he decides to stay (By opening an account) that he might get a chance to read the WELCOME template. IP address visitors who edit an article for the first time, never see WELCOME templates. Many times their contributions are great. Sometimes is just to correct information, but they don't want to be users. My guess is that this happens thousands of times a day. Anyone care to comment about this? Jrod2 12:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So why would this warning template be important?

I think that it would be important to pages that are undergoing an hourly watch by users and CVU members to let new comers (Mainly anon IP addresses, of course) know that their edits maybe deleted if they are not well referenced. It could also be good warning for an IP address contributor who never edited a heavily watched page before and might have been making, up to that point, lots of mistakes when editing other pages that were not scrutinized. Do you know as to whether most IP address visitors understand that by clicking on their IP signature, they could see their IP user page and therefore, possibly see a WELCOME template? I am curious. Jrod2 12:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I understanding this correctly when I say that this template supplements the IP user's talk page in letting him or her know how to edit properly? Is there anything else it is intended to do? --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 15:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Do anon IP address new visitors know that there is even a talk page made to them automatically? Can you navigate as an IP address and not even notice for a while that you have an anon IP address talk page? In my own personal experience, it took me a whole day and a half to figure it out and that's because I was interested to become a contributor, not a one time user. Jrod2 15:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Another possible use (with the help of the bot programmer, of course) would be as a marker. Wouldn't it be nice that, just as I can see my status online, that I could see on that same page a list of pages that have been tagged or "marked" for vandalism by CVU members and other editors? Just a thought. Jrod2 15:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

When people leave messages on an anon IP's talk page, a yellow bar should show up and say, "You have new messages! (last change)". However, bug 9213 prevents some IP users from receiving the message. I see how this template can be helpful, but it doesn't seem consistent, especially since all of the instructions on it apply to all articles, not just the ones that CVU is watching. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 15:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ratiocinate, I did a test. I logged out and went to an article. I clicked on "Edit" and got the edit window with the following:

You are not currently logged in. While you are free to edit without logging in, your IP address
 (which can be used to determine the associated network/corporation name) will be recorded publicly,
 along with the time and date, in this page's edit history. It is sometimes possible
 for others to identify you with this information. Creating an account will conceal your IP address
 and provide you with many other benefits. Messages sent to your IP can be viewed on
 your talkpage.

Please do not save test edits. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox.

So, I could have made an incorrect edit and if this article was not being watched all day, I could have continued to edit and edit away for hours and after that, never come back. Or, If I did come back and , say, I am using a dynamic IP address, or a laptop with a wireless connection that changes IP depending on my location, it would have taken me a long while to learn that there is more to know before editing articles. A template like this could, in effect, save to CVU members and other editors, time reverting and to anon IP new comers, the disappointment of having all their contributions erased from Wikipedia. As far as the instructions, I think that we could trim or expand it to apply to something that CVU members are watching as you said. Am I still not making sense? Please let me know. 16:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Another point, although there is some controversy on it, don't you think that if vandals see the little boy, that they will know that we (CVU) are heavily watching and any vandal editing, or war editing and what not, is futile? That's something worth to test in my view. We should implement the template as a test and see what results it brings. That's my opinion. Jrod2 16:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely see what you're saying. Communicating with IP users is more difficult than it ought to be. My only concern (minor, at that) is that it seems that the banner applies to every article: all articles on Wikipedia should be sourced, and unsourced material may be removed. Should we place this notice on every article that has unsourced statements from a new editor? Nevertheless, I'm not against testing it out -- though it may be good to get some more input on it first. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 16:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ratiocinate, thanks for being open minded. I am not sure I am answering your question "Should we place this notice on every article that has unsourced statements from a new editor?" correctly, but I guess the answer would be: No, new editors (Anon IPs) would be already gone from Wikipedia or off to (maybe) another article by then. This template does not replace leaving messages to new users. This template could be used to put on pages where problems have been reported to us and maybe to other editors, so when the anon IP new editor finds that article page (The one we are watching), he will know that there are basic but very important rules he still needs to know. The outcome is, I guess, that he will read the importance of verifiability, go out (Perhaps on the web itself) looking for references and comeback at a later date to make his contribution. So, CVU members and other users who are watching for vandals on a certain page, didn't have to make yet another revert from a naive new user entry and the new user will be encouraged to continue to contribute. Again, the only way to know, is to test the template.Jrod2 17:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess my basic question is this: why are we putting this banner on pages we're watching specifically? That is, how are the pages we're watching any different from the other articles on Wikipedia? If I understand you correctly, the goal of the template is to tell new users about certain policies that we have, so that they can make constructive edits. I agree that such a banner could be useful; I'm just not certain why it's specifically tied to CVU. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 18:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's suppose I am an anon IP new visitor. I found an WP article on Google and I want to edit it. That article happens to be undergoing disruptive vandalism which you have been made also aware, so you've already placed the template there. Now, I come to the article, see the template and go: "hmmm, maybe I should read up this instructions before I edit this article". So what happens then? I read the instructions about references and go to the WWW to get those references, and let's say I came back the next day. So, I make my edit to the article and because is well referenced, it didn't get deleted and that gave encouragement to continue to contribute to WP. Meantime the fact that you never had to revert me, gave you and others, more focus on the vandal edits.Jrod2 18:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it can be useful. I'm just uncertain as to why this banner is specifically for pages being watched by the CVU. Imagine the same scenario, except that Google isn't under heavy vandalism: it would still be good for that user to read the instructions before making edits, because otherwise his/her edits may be in violation of policy and then we'd have to revert. Basically, my point is that this banner seems to be more general than CVU. It's a good idea, and may be very helpful and useful, but I'm just not sure that it should be part of CVU. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 18:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize Ratiocinate, it's me who's not explaining it well. I meant, if I am, for example, a sugar cane grower and I am doing a search at Google.com for "Sugar Cane", and wikipedia has an article on Sugar cane, and it comes up probably on the first page, so i click on that result link on the Google.com results page and now I see the WP article. Next, I find myself at WP Sugar cane article, If I found something is not correct, for example, "white sugar is not very processed, but the purest from the cane". Knowing that brown sugar is less processed than white, I would probably change it if I see the "Edit" link on that article. So, the point was that, as a new Anon IP address visitor who's not yet familiar with rules, I don't know that changing that expression is not enough because it lacks of references. So You, who is watching the page, now has to take action and revert it. Therefore You had to take a step that could have been avoided if this anon user had only seen the "funny watching boy" template urging him to read first the instructions to edit, that wouldn't have happened. Most importantly, this user could have gone out on the web looking for an adequate reference to his edit and come back to execute the edit perfectly within the WP guidelines. I think the result will be that he will feel Wikipedia is fun and organized and therefore encouraged to contribute more and not feel ever disappointed that his first edit was deleted by a diligent CVU or any other member. Is it getting a bit more clear now? Jrod2 21:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Specific point: both of the first two wikilinks point to Wikipedia:Citing sources. Did you mean for one of them to point to Wikipedia:Verifiability? Why does edit summary link to Help:Minor edit instead of Help:Edit summary? As it is, I don't think the template is quite as alarming as it started, though it's still more obtrusive than I would probably go. (Minimalist, me, in everything but writing style.) :) I can't personally foresee a situation where I would use the template. In the situation you described, I'd probably put the page on RPP and straighten it all out once the dust cleared. In any event, I would probably suggest you seek wider community feedback before utilizing such a thing. I'm not sure where. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)? There's nothing inherently objectionable about the text that I can see, but as Ariel points out, WP:DFTT#Not_feeding_the_trolls makes me feel that such a thing will face opposition regardless, particularly given that at least the maintainers of that essay advocate "slow revert". --Moonriddengirl 21:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Moonriddengirl, I didn't see your comment. In order for the "sugar cane grower is an anon Ip address new contributor" analogy to work in the example, Ratiocinate and other CVU members must to have been alerted of dozens of vandal edits involving maybe 2 or vandal editors, and thus, the reason why he (Ratiocinate in this example) placed the template at the "sugar cane" article, which prompted the Anon IP address new user to be aware of the editing rules. Now, I can change the wiki links pointing exactly as needed. Do you have any other questions? 21:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrod (talk • contribs)

Looks like you're doing too many tildes, too. :D I didn't really have any questions per se other than the wikilinks (and whether village pump is the place to go). Now I kind of do. It sounds like what you're addressing is more a problem of needing to teach anon IP editors how to edit properly. That anon sugar cane editor isn't any more or less likely to properly edit an unvandalized article to be any less permanently discouraged from editing because of reverted edits on this article than an unvandalized article. Is there any reason why the usual approach of {{subst:uw-unsor1}} wouldn't be appropriate for them, both for vandalized & unvandalized pages? I know about that awful bug that keeps editors from seeing these notices, but I'm not sure I understand, if the purpose is to educate new users, why this template is specifically for vandalized pages. --Moonriddengirl 21:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

(EDit conflict)

You probably wonder: what about the zillion pages that exist and are hit by these anon Ip address new users everyday? Well, We can't stop them from being deleted due to lack of references or what not. Besides, when pages are not watched as intensively, like those under CVU member watch, they will find out (as a member pointed out) on their talk page (If they even bother to find out they have one) The goal is to minimize reverting these kind of newbie edits while watching pages and in effect help those new users know what to do and not be disappointed of Wikipedia. Jrod2 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl, You asked "Is there any reason why the usual approach of {{subst:uw-unsor1}} wouldn't be appropriate for them, both for vandalized & unvandalized pages? " The answer would be: you would post that template at the Ip address talk page, correct? Well, in the case of the sugar cane grower, he may not come back until much later to see that article on "sugar cane" again. What's worse, if he never saw the "funny watching boy" and he surfs the web with a wireless laptop, his Ip address will continue to change and he'll never see a warning a message or nothing, so he will continue to make the same mistakes one and on. In a way we could say that we are downsizing "nuisance editing". As for being distracting, maybe so (cute no?) but, it would be important that it's visible (while other members fight crime at the sugar cane page or others) so the anon IP new user recognizes the need to read the template's content. Jrod2 22:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In case you miss it, Ariel has further responded to the conversation at the bottom of the page. --Moonriddengirl 22:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The CVU response was impressive!

Guys, I've hardly finished writing to you, and all of you rushed to see what was going on. That was impressive! Thanks very much for the decisive action. Jrod2 20:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl's comments about the wrong wiki-links should go to me, those are my mitakes, lol. I was just using examples, didn't realize that it would get transferred over. Sorry Jrod! And I like the lil boy picture much better, but still agree with Moonriddengirl, I think it is distracting as well. But I hope that you don't think I have a closed mind, because as I said earlier, I think your intentions are good, I just am not sure this would get approved. ^Ariel♥Gold 21:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I surely didn't mean it as criticism, to either of you. :) I just noticed the wikilinks and thought I'd better point it out. It seemed likely they weren't where they meant to be ultimately. --Moonriddengirl 22:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, It's cool. the template can be formatted to say and to link whatever we agree on. But its application I hope it can be understood by all. I know these templates are hard to pass consensus, but many forget how many edits are reverted because of anon Ip address users doing unreferenced edits. If a page that is not watched or maybe occasionally like 3 times a week, and it's edited by an anon new user the wrong way, big deal, someone will revert it eventually and then if the anon ip user wants to know how his contribution is doing at WP, he'll come back and find out that it's deleted and he'll read the message or see a template and know why and what to do. But, in the "Sugar cane" article page, which is (in our example) heavily vandalized and thus, CVU members are keeping watch and yes, the lil boy picture is there, our "sugar cane" grower who wants to contribute to the article has no choice to think, Hmmm, maybe I should read these instructions first". That would be great because, he won't edit hastily and you wont need to revert his edit, who knows maybe this "sugar cane grower" will come back many weeks later when all vandalism has been dealt at the article and the template as well has been removed. He won't even remember how he learned the instructions, the point is, he now makes the edit like an experienced editor. Am I boring everyone at this point? Jrod2 22:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm hmm hmm *twiddles thumbs* Oh, did you say something? Silverseren^C 22:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the wiki links on the template, Jrod. Sorry about that. And no worries Moonriddengirl! I wouldn't have noticed if you had not mentioned it, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 23:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ariel, Thanks very much for doing that. You have a heart of Gold :) Jrod2 13:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The Template in a Nutshell

Here is a summary of this template's application or potential use:

• A Marker for Vandalized Pages (Needs code)
• Helps New Anon IP Address Visitors Know That There Are Rules To Observe
• Lets Vandals Know That Everyone Is Watching The Article, So Vandal Editing Is Futile
  

1) A Marker for Vandalized Pages (Needs code).- It would be nice to go to the CVU/Task Force page and not only see our online status, but on a separate table, see also what pages have been marked for vandalism. So, when a member tags an article (Using {{Anti-vandal-notice}} on top of the article page) it would also show on the CVU/TF page (As shown on the table example below). This would help members go to where help is needed and get involved. This feature requires the help of one of our script writing members, so that the code can be implemented on CVU/TF page.

2) Helps New Anon IP Address Visitors Know That There Are Rules To Observe.- New visitors (Specifically from anon IP address users) will clearly see on the template, instructions to make a correct edit. This will save time, and cut or reduce significantly the amount of "nuisance" edits while the vandalized pages are being watched. (Please, read example as to how this works on previous discussions at the last 2 sections above or read this at my talk page).

3) Lets Vandals Know That Everyone Is Watching The Article, So Vandal Editing Is Futile.- Although many editors feel this could never work, there really isn't any statistics of a template that can proof beyond any doubt, that it is impossible to discourage vandals from doing vandalism. This template doesn't attempt nor address that, it simply expedites the process of CV as the psychological impulse of a "troll", a "sock puppet" or a hostile "anon ip user" will probably be the temptation to blank the little boy's template or ridicule it. Therefore, all activities (Vandals and fighters) will be reduced to within few hours of the initial vandalism and not spread over a period of weeks of repeated vandal attacks. So, I think the use of the template will prompt admin intervention much quicker and therefore, we could all watch more pages.

Caution: This page is currently seeing heavier than normal activity. Edits may get reverted or removed if they are not properly sourced. If you are new to Wikipedia, please make sure your edits are referenced to a verifiable source and you provide an edit summary. If you are adding external links, please read and understand "Links to be avoided". Thank you for your cooperation and contributions! If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

Coments:
I think that we should try to see if any template at all, can indeed help address any of the issues above and make the duty of the Task Force a little better. The distraction of having a little boy watching with binoculars on 1 or 2 pages that are being vandalized, out of thousands of article pages at Wikipedia, outweighs (In my view) this inconvenience. In addition, it will probably be useful tool if the code I suggested above is implemented. Naturally, any editor at WP can use it as well as the template does not spell: "For Use of the CVU/TF Only". But, maybe it will promote enlisting to the TF as well, who knows? Again, we should test it at the very least. Thanks for your attention. Jrod2 12:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment A couple of notes--I think that your point #1 is excellent, but I believe that instead of marking the page, it can also be accomplished through a manual table. For a little while, I was overseeing the slow vandalism of Clark Bar (the page is now protected through November), with one individual adding the same misinformation once a day. It would have been nice to get another editor watching that one--not so much because I couldn't manage the workload, but because when I'm the only reverting I feel uncomfortably close to content dispute rather than vandalism reversion (in this case, the insertion of false information, somewhat subtle). As for #3, many editors would not just feel its useless, but might perceive it as actually harmful, as rewarding vandalism by excessive attention. I do not come down heavily on either side of this issue, but I point it out because from your note I'm not sure if you're taking that into consideration. Such editors, in view of WP:NOFEEDING and Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose, are likely to vigorously object to the use of your template. I think before trying such a template it would be a very good idea for you to take it through Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). I'm not saying this to discourage you, but because I hope that it will help you avoid any controversy you might encounter from using your template without community consensus. It's obvious to me that you are passionately dedicated to improving the project, and I share that goal. :) Good luck with it, whatever you do with it now. --Moonriddengirl 13:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be feeding the trolls. Also, little brothers grow up to be big brothers, so it has a little bit of a forthcoming "Big Brother is watching" connotation. This one's getting a head start!     The Transhumanist    01:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. But even, if you were right, why are people like you so worried about "feeding a troll"? In my view a "troll is what a troll does" and nothing will stop him. I think we are better off knowing sooner than later who they are. We can then focus our efforts to fight vandals in an organized manner and if the case or cases call for it, an admin can intervene. This concern of FTT by users like you, is in my view, outweighed by the utility of the template. Jrod2 01:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not been involved in this discussion, so I'm curious. Why is the caution template so long and in one column. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism

68.91.192.173 has suggested a merge from Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism, which they see as unnecessary. Personally, I'm not that into the idea, since I think the page is useful on its own. Other opinions? delldot talk 18:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, both of these pages are useful, but they are most useful in their own incarnations. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CUV is basically the same as WP:CVU, and it is pretty much inactive (the new announcements bulletin's most recent addition is from Sept. 2006, for example). The page seems redundant to me, or it at least needs attention/cleanup.--68.91.192.173 19:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, CUV is an instructional page, while CVU is an actual Wikiproject. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 19:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I second that opinion, I do! J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. CVU is more a wikiproject while CUV would be its portal or instruction page in this case. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 20:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Same as the editors, I oppose. Jrod2 10:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just as another example of what CVU and CUV are like, check out the differences between Portal:Mathematics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 20:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing the merge templates, hope that's cool with everyone. delldot talk 21:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Smart move, looks like it is essentially WP:SNOW. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Anti Vandal Template for articles (or whatever)

For some odd reason the template is not rendering properly on my computer. I was wondering if it was my browser or some error in the box. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Can you open up a FireFox browser? If it looks the same way then you must have an issue on your end. Otherwise, it looks fine. Jrod2 14:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

New warning template

I have created the template {{Vandalanduser}} (shortcut: Template:Vau) as a means of providing a double block summary, including both a block for vandalism and a separate block reason for username. The other block templates for username or vandalism that I've seen only cover either or.--Avant Guard 22:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the template and also have a question. If say a new user has an account and their first edit is blatantly offensive, swearing, that isn't grounds for a ban is it? We assume good faith ie they are testing and then after 4 warns they can be banned perm correct? Or do they need to be banned for time periods first ie 24hrs, 2 days ? Phgao 16:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A level 1 warning tag it's all you could do, depending on the seriousness of the case, however, you could give him a level 3 or even a final warning. Then after that, you can call cavalry :-) Jrod2 20:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a policy I disagree with, but if it's a new user, you never get a ban, no matter how blatant the vandalism. But you don't need to go the full 4 warns necessarily. I typically do 2 warns + a final warning (so 3 total) before reporting to AIV. If it's really mild, I might go the full 4; if it's really really offensive, I might do 1 and then a final, but probably not. The administrators like to see at least three even in extreme cases. --Jaysweet 21:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added ~~<includeonly>~~</includeonly> to the end of the template's text, which automatically adds the blocking user's signature when the template is substed. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 21:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For users who haven't edited but have blatantly disruptive usernames (e.g. "Death to Jews", "I will destroy Wikipedia") the template Template:UsernameHardBlocked exists, just to let you know.--Avant Guard 02:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to the discussion above - the rule of thumb I use, and I believe most other admins use, is that if an account has been used for nothing but disruptive edits and has four or more such edits, it's a vandal-only account and is worthy of blocking on sight, regardless of whether they've received any warnings. But if they've only made one or two edits and they're minor tests rather than replacing a page with "*** is gay" or whatever, then of course we assume good faith. Waggers 08:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Unit

Though it's not currently embroiled in an MfD discussion of some type, I thought I'd ask this anyway:

With the concerns that people have, in the past, had about the name of this page, how about just changing the word "unit" to something else? (See Military unit#Units, formations, and commands.) Even "team" would be less controversial, I would think. (I don't think that this could be considered a "WikiProject". For one thing, there might be confusion with an encyclopedic topic.) These days the word "task force" has come into vogue usage. How about that? It still has a semi-military connotation, and it's in usage on Wikipedia. The Counter-vantalism task force. - jc37 19:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but on Wikipedia, "Task force" is a reference to a subproject of a WikiProject such as CVU. For example, you might want to look at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit and Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Task Force for a comparison. Cheers, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 23:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I realise this sounds like an obvious question, but isn't this project "on Wikipedia"? And by your statement, you imply that this is a WikiProject? Could you clarify? - jc37 05:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There is also a discussion surrounding the title of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. I see no problem with the name. There have been discussions on this before, and we have decided to keep the name. Most people abbreviate it to "CVU", so we don't even really use the "unit". J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear What I meant was that the Counter-vandalism unit is a WikiProject, and so calling it a task force wouldn't make sense because "task force", on Wikipedia anyway, is a reference to a "sub-project" of a WikiProject, which is not the case here. Hope that clears things up a bit, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 20:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR aside, if this is a WikiProject, then shouldn't the name of the page be Wikipedia:WikiProject Counter-vandalism, or something similar? I could potentially see an issue with confusing this with a mainspace topic such as Graffiti#Government_responses, so perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Counter Wikipedia vandalism, or some such? I don't have a really strong preference (or concern), but I think discussion of bringing the name of this WikiProject in line with the rest of the WikiProjects would probably be a good idea. - jc37 17:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree wholeheartedly. Calling this project "Counter-Vandalism Unit" sounds like a "24" reference, and probably is -- lending the project a very paramilitary feel. Even if that wasn't the intent in the "Unit's" creation, it's certainly being interpreted and acted out as such by many of the CVU's members. A change to something more neutral, such as "Wikiproject: Counter-Vandalism" would maintain the integrity of the project while simultaneously reducing the militaryesque connotations of the project that have been its biggest points of contention in the previous MfDs discussions. Thurston Weatherton 17:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi just Joined!

Hi everyone here, I've just joined CVU by placing the needed templates on my User Page. Is there anything I need to do to confirm me joining CVU? Is there anything I should know about before embarking on my journey to clean up vandalism? Anyway, happy cleaning! JTBX 15:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, welcome. :) My main piece of advice would be to assume good faith where possible and use the most specific, most polite template for most first offenses. Many new editors might not understand what they've done improperly with {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}, but {{subst:uw-npov1}} can make it clear and keep them from accidentally re-offending (or being too scared to edit again. :)) Be warned that cleaning up vandalism does not make you popular with vandals. If your page starts getting vandalized, don't sweat it too much. Trust the process (vandals will be blocked), and request page protection if the vandalism gets out of hand. (Last time I counted, my page had been vandalized about 30 times, and that was a lot of water under the bridge ago. :)) If you use WP:Twinkle, consider waiting to be sure that you're the reverting editor before leaving the warning label. More than once I've placed a warning label only to find that somebody else had reverted the change and Twinkle had not told me. It's kind of bad form when multiple editors leave warnings for the same edit. :D Happy editing, and thanks for taking up the job! --Moonriddengirl 15:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl (not surprisingly ;D) covered nearly everything I would say here as well. Beyond what she's said, though, I'd encourage you to read up on the criteria for speedy deletion, particularly if you decide to install Twinkle, which I see you haven't yet done. There are a variety of anti-vandalism tools out there but, frankly, Twinkle is my favorite. It's a little buggy sometimes, as Moonriddengirl points out, but it's still under development and hopefully the bugs will be worked out. Welcome! Into The Fray ^T/C 15:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(What he means is "Moonriddengirl talks a lot." ;) Well, maybe that's not exactly what he means, but it's true. :D) --Moonriddengirl 15:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, for the record, that was not what I meant. Besides, I'm not gonna throw stones around my glass house.  ;) Into The Fray ^T/C 19:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I would caution against giving new users tools like Twinkle right out of the gate, however. Folks should learn the ropes and get the lay of the land before trying to rush out and police it. :) I'm aware of the irony of writing this as a "new user" myself, but I'm actually an old vet who lost track of his account from several years ago. At any rate, welcome to Wikipedia and the CVU, but please take care to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy and practice before installing vandal-reversion tools. Thurston Weatherton 17:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, especially Moonriddengirl, but I want to know if there is anything I need to do to confirm my membership such as placing my name somewhere, etc. Anyway thanks for all the help! JTBX 18:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything to confirm your membership. Membership is open to all. Just put a CVU tag in your user profile and that's it. You're a member. Hope this helps, and best of luck to you. Thurston Weatherton 18:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

(indent) Also, I like Lupin's Anti-vandal Tool. I haven't gotten it to revert or warn, but it does a great job of filtering through RC with a bad words filter, IP filter, and a spellcheck function. Coupling it with Twinkle creates an anti-vandal force to be reckoned with (I call it "The Wikipeacemaker" :D). J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)