Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Archive 1

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.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Whats it about?

Hello, what exactly is the CVU, barring the obvious, about. What do you guys do? To put it better, how do you combat vandalism. Please tell me more, either here or on my talk page if you prefer. Thanks Banes 18:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The Counter Vandalism Unit utilizes (primarily) the #en.wikipedia.vandalism IRC channel to identify and revert vandalism as it occurs. We invite all RC patrollers who use IRC to join us in the channel. -- Essjay · Talk 03:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah. Must a User utilize that channel to join? Will remove my name until the "membership requirements" are made clear. Sorry to everyone for the precipitate action. Thanks.—encephalon 09:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
As you can see from the elections everyone in this group get along well. There have be no oppose votes at all (at this point) --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 10:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Any and everyone is welcome to be a member, I for one am not an admin. Requirements for membership is simple, you need internet access and an irc client.. ;) --Cool Cat Talk 00:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that we should require people to use IRC, people can still counter vandalism without using the IRC channel by just going to Special:Recentchanges so using the IRC channel while helpful isn't necessary for reverting vandalism just like adminship isn't either. As proven by the fact that the CVU was started by cool cat who isn't an admin. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 01:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Actualy you are right. All vandal fighters are welcomed to be a member. The IRC bot is there as a mean to achive it. --Cool Cat Talk 14:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification. I'll add my name back, then. encephalon 15:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I too am glad you have clarified this - I counter vandalism all the time on RC but find IRC annoying! -- Francs2000 16:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I feel this should be a page where all RC patrolers meet. Links to other RC progs are also welcome. I am going to seperate the IRC bot links a bit. ;) --Cool Cat Talk 22:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops, looks like I missed it all:-) I could have sworn I had this page watchlisted. Still, thanks for the explanation. One thing though, I am an upandcoming young vandal fighter who uses Cryptoderk. Now, is that a problem, am I wanted on the CVU? Banes 16:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not! I think CDVF is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I know plenty of other CVU members use it too. -- Essjay · Talk 20:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I recomend a combination of several of them. The IRC bot detects more obvious cases of vandalism. The not so obvious cases require CDVF or other progs. Some people just refresh the RC page. I do not like sliced bread. --Cool Cat Talk 22:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I tend to use the IRC channel when WP is slow, or when I want to some casual vandal fighting. If I'm up for an intense session, I use CDVF. In either case, Im usually on channel, as there are usually admins hanging out there that will institute blocks when they are needed. --GraemeL (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposals to move out of user space

Should this be moved to the Wikipedia space? JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 02:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I am fine with that, though. I am concerned of people complaining about /this not belonging in wikipedia namespace/being redudent/type excuse here to irritate/etc/... --Cool Cat Talk 03:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


Actualy on a second though thıs page should be in commons. I am getting more and more users asking for other wikis to be covered. Also we now have 20 members and it apears its not going to slow down. Dont get me wrong I am not complaining but its starting to become hard to manage given I havent quite advertise this. No ANB entry no VP entry either. --Cool Cat Talk 14:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I am moving the page to wikipedia namespace as this is being popular we are aproaching 30 members just in en alone and most other language users (on irc) are unaware of the page :) --Cool Cat Talk 19:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

IP proxy lists

These vandal bots are obviously using IP proxy lists. So, why don't we just block all IP's on such lists? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-15 20:48

NTL proxies are used by "good" users as well. One problem could be the colatoral damage. I do not however know how many good users use NTL proxies. --Cool Cat Talk 08:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Well I do for a start, NTL uses transparent proxies, though it is possible to set a specific proxy, there are quite a lot of NTL proxies. I thought NTL passed through the real IP in one of the headers, if they are on cable this seems to remain pretty static, don't know about dial-up/ADSL. I would have thought the best thing to do was capture that and report to NTL abuse. --pgk(talk) 18:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Is it permissable, after having done a 'whois' on any IP in question, to contact the Service Providers and report the abuse? Below is a common return from the whois database (names and locations omitted (*)).......

% Information related to '***.***.***.* - ***.***.***.***'

inetnum: ***.***.***.* - ***.***.***.***
netname: ******
descr: ******
descr: ******
country: **
admin-c: THT8-RIPE
tech-c: THT8-RIPE
rev-srv: ******
rev-srv: ******
status: ASSIGNED PA
remarks: ****************************
remarks: * In case of abuse please *
remarks: * contact: abuse@***.** *
remarks: ****************************
mnt-by: HPT-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered

role: T-HT Contact
address: T-HT, ******
address: ******
address: ******
address: ******
phone: +*** * **** ***
fax-no: +*** * **** ***
remarks: trouble: ****************************
remarks: trouble: * In case of abuse please *
remarks: trouble: * contact: abuse@***.** *
remarks: trouble: ****************************

Perhaps the Counter Vandalism Unit could be charged with emailing the ISPs abuse 'box, or indeed phone or fax them, giving details of the offending IP number(s) and the times and dates of the vandalism. The ISP should be able to check their records/logs and determine what phone number was assigned those numbers on those particular dates and at those times and could then notify them about the Wikipedians complaint. Most cases of vandalism are perpetuated by kids/teenagers who must inevitably answer to Mom & Dad. Prevention is better than cure so if somehing like this were to become common practice it would really cut down on vandalism. --MrMiagi 18:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit - User:MARMOT

Image:CVU2.PNG
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cool_Cat&limit=500&action=history
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cool_Cat&limit=250&action=history

MARMOT is begining to be a serious problem. I am recieving multiple vandal bot atacks on my userpage and blocks are being inefective. I feel much more serious mesures should be placed into practice to contain this vandals apathy. --Cool Cat Talk 20:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we just block IPs on published proxy lists? That should help at least some in overall vandalism. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-15 20:50
He finds new ones I think. I just recived a new wave of attack btw. --Cool Cat Talk 22:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
That's the third attack today. Titoxd(?!?) 22:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Send a message to the WikiEN-l email list if you haven't already. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-15 22:59
We do, if you find any open proxies that aren't blocked please report them to me (in addition to or instead of blocking them yourself) as I can use them to seed the search for more open proxies. --fvw* 04:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
And I think 6th this week and 8th the past 15 days. Each bomb run leaves a mess. Only admin block can stop MARMOT and since I am not one I am powerless to directly stop him. Admins aren't always avalible. --Cool Cat Talk 23:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, we could protect your page, but then the vandal will probably target something we don't know about under a user name we don't know about, which is worse. Maybe it would be best for you to just ignore it. If an admin sees it, he'll revert it, but don't revert it yourself or take any steps to get it reverted, don't even tell people about it. Admins and RC Patrol will notice. Maybe the vandal will eventually give/grow up. The point is for you, the target, to spend as little effort counteracting it. You might even do what I do, add a little tally on your user page, under a positive heading, like "Awards and recogntion". Take the vandalism as a compliment. Partly reverse psychology, partly to show you're in control of the vandal's life every minute he spends vandalizing your page. Also, set your wikimood bar at 100%. You love being vandalized, dammit! :) — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-16 01:30
Aye, I could get my page protected,but like you said this will only make him use a second target (such as my talk page). --Cool Cat Talk 07:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure these are open proxies, though I'd love it if we were able to find out (*cough* *cough*). In the grand scheme of things this isn't that much of a problem though. There's some persistence but the edits are easy enough to revert and the sockpuppets easy enough to block. Why is this on Jimbo's talk though? I'm sure if he could wave a magic wand and make it stop he would, but I doubt there's much he can do here. --fvw* 04:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
He could password protect the site, and change the main page to read "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that Jimbo can edit." — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-16 04:34
I think its NTL proxies which are not open to everyone but to NTL users I believe. MARMOT is using the second largest ISP in the UK and occasionaly random open proxies he discovers I believe. I dnsed several of his ips and posted that info on the Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MARMOT. --Cool Cat Talk 07:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This idea is nice

I might not participate in your unit but I do my little bit in curbing vandalism. I'm also planning to start a "Counter Copyvio Unit" as I'm involved in keeping copyrighted materials away from Wikipedia. Any thoughts or suggestions on this? I may or maynot be a member myself (I hate memberships) but I think someone like me who finds that blatant copyvios are emanating from one anon user or in an article for a time period would make use of the unit to do the job. Many might find the violations but might not have time immediately to curb/report it and in the meanwhile other editors might edit it making it a waste of energy for the genuine contributors. Thus the idea. Tx Idleguy 11:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Actualy the irc bot does detect copy vios. You may use it to do so. We could create a sub body for copy vios. I do not object to expanding the grasp of this :) --Cool Cat Talk 17:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Another good resource for those wanting to fight copyvio is Copyscape lets you search the web for pages with the same content of a given page

Countering vandalism for specific pages

I check for vandalism on pages on my watchlist, which is small but growing all the time. Can I join the CVU, or is this for users who combat vandalism in a broader sense? Durga2112 11:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Certainly that's what I do for the most part. I think the page indicates that everyone who wants to combat vandalism is welcome. --Nlu 12:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

User creating multiple socks for hoaxing, multivoting?

Hi, this is my first time here, but looks like you guys might know good ways to deal with something like this. Someone in Hampshire, England seems to be creating multiple socks in connection with a series of what I (and others) feel are obvious hoax articles. See Gravitational Oscillating Plane Theory and check out the contribts of

This person appears to be using socks to vote multiple times in at least one AfD.---CH (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

These users cannot run sockpuppet checks, but David Gerard can. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 02:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I am the former 134.250.72.176. Recently while I was User:134.250.72.176, I was removing {{AOL}} templates for reasons of redundancy and clarity, and in the hopes of creating a list of known AOL IPs using Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:AOL. In doing so, it was often the case that the page was blanked, in most cases for two reasons: because the template was the only thing on the page or because beside the template, only patent nonsense, or other unnecessary, out of place, old, or irrelevant comments were on the pages. Please note that any worthwhile and related information and discussion was most likely moved to the talk page (where it belongs). It should also be noted that I quite frequently place templates on anonymous IPs to better educate Wikipedians on the who and where of IPs, and therefore left all templates on the talk pages there, or added them when they were misplaced.

Following my actions, I later found that my edits were reverted. I was also asked by Hall Monitor to stop vandalising pages. (For discussion prior to and concurrent with this issue in chronological order, see User talk:134.250.72.176, Hall Monitor who, and Fvw.)

I discussed the matter with Hall Monitor, and deciding that the matter was over, I decided to reconvene my work. I reverted the pages, but this time I added an explanation to the summary. (See my contributions as User:134.250.72.176 here.)

Still later, I found that my work was still being reverted, despite the explanation (though I doubt it was read). For the most part, the discussion should provide any details you might need regarding this. In my opinion, I find that the reverts were the result of lack of effort in finding reasons for the change, and falling into the habit of casually reverting — not heeding the guideline in the {{sharedip}} and {{AOL}} templates:

Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking.

Despite this single occurence, I think that some work needs to be done in addressing how Wikipedia handles anonymous IPs, though I have yet to find a way to do so.

If it is decided that this might be worthy of an RfC page, I think that it would best fit here.

Thank you for your understanding and willingness to offer your help and perspective in this matter. Should you find my actions inappropriate in anyway, please remember to be nice.

134.250.72.174 01:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC), the former 134.250.72.176 talk

207.200.116.68 01:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC), from AOL

It is easy to evade such misunderstandings (I have not checked and trust you (I think)), just get an account. --Cool Cat Talk 23:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
There shouldn't be a need to evade it when there is no reason for misunderstanding. The former 134.250.72.176 talk 00:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Problems with IRC channel?

I'm attempting to connect to the IRC channel with CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter, but after a split second, the server disconnects me. Anyone else having this problem, or is something screwy on my end? — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 06:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

brownie.wikimedia.org has retired I think. Adjust it to use irc.wikimedia.org --Cool Cat Talk 20:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I tried that too (connecting over port 6667), and get the same problem. It worked fine for me once (the first time I ran the program) and hasn't since. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 01:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Its working fine over here. Actualy both servers still work. Just use the IRC bot for now :P --Cool Cat Talk 09:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The server name is/was browne.wikimedia.org. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 02:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


I was attempting to connect to the IRC channel that was mentioned at the beginning of the CVU page, but I'm not able to connect through with Chatzilla on Firefox. Is there an update on the IRC channel that I can connect to or is this link out of date and we're not using a gathering place? --LifeStar 21:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Try conncting manually to FreeNode and then "/join #wikipedia-en-vandalism". 68.39.174.238 21:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Nope, that didn't work. I'm getting an error in connectiong. Is this down?--LifeStar 21:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Date editor

This has been going on for awhile now, and I'm getting kinda frustrated with it. There's something -- and I say something because I'm pretty sure it's a bot of some sort -- running out of 131.107.0.80 (a Microsoft proxy) that frequently edits the date entries. It just made a run at 1915 and for every good addition it makes, it takes out a few it shouldn't. Of course it never leaves an edit summary, but I'm inclined to blame faulty design rather than malice. Does anyone know what's going on with this thing? There's some discussion in the IP's talk section, but it's not very illuminating. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Posted by User:Messenger (single use) on Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit

Hello, I am the user behind SuperTroll,
I would like to inform the administrators of Wikipedia that I now intend to cease vandalizing articles.
I first became interested in trolling and vandalism when I saw how "famous" other vandals and trolls had become. I set myself a challenge to make my name appear on the "Wikipedia anti-vandalism pages", but I not only accomplished that, but my name has even appeared on Wikipedia:WikiDefcon. Now that I have made that major achievement, I have no reasons to continue vandalizing. I intend to open a legitimate account and make only legitimate edits. I do understand that certain users may have a problem with that, as I have vandalized all their hard work and wasted their time, but I would now like to make a formal apology to them and make a sincere promise (although I don't know how much a troll's promise is worth) to never vandalise again.
Yours with the deepest respect,
SuperTroll (a.k.a. "The Troll of Manchester", "The High Speed Troll", many people in this list and certain other accounts you missed, such as Quadel and Fred Baudor).
message left on 21:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
PS Sorry for blanking this page, It's just a sure way to get your attention. :-)

I moved this here in case anyone wants to read it. Thatdog 21:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
As it turns out, it was a total lie (not that that was too surprising), as SuperTroll went back to his old tricks just a few hours later. --Nlu 06:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
KAWAII! We get taunted by vandals now. --Cool Cat Talk 15:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Logos

Based on a discussion on User talk:Angela, I've removed the two CVU logos from all pages where they could be interpreted as providing Foundation support for local wiki issues. Snowspinner 06:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Adding Test template to anonymous IP address user talk pages

If a vandal uses an anonymous IP address to vandalise is it still advised that we should use the Test templates (where appropriate of course)? Thanks Juliusross 11:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Annons should be treated no different from regular users. --Cool Cat Talk 15:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
The procedure for handling vandalism remains the same. You use {{test}} in the first instance, the appropriate form of {{test2}} in the second, and so forth. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 02:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Teh leader

Since CVU is up and kicking (and I demonstrated that I am not cut out for the job) I am stepping down from my "Director" post. We need a new leader to lead us against vandalism. --Cool Cat Talk 13:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

SuperTroll and the .dk clone of SuperTroll

See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SuperTroll for everything I found out as of last night - David Gerard 17:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

A gradual move to an improved and simpler design

I decided to incredibly simplify and redo the CVU page. I changed the background to white because it was difficult to read on some of my older monitors. I also removed the non-English and other wiki references, as I believe that was a little overload to start. We need to focus on the English Wikipedia to begin with if we are going to be successful. Feel free to discuss and change as you wish. If you don't like my changes for whatever reason - feel free to revert them or edit them to be a happy-medium between our ideas. Thanks --Randy 17:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I've made some further changes in the same vein. One interesting point is that, if we're going to limit ourselves to en.wiki for the time being, the category system could stand to be greatly simplified. As it is, the list of members is probably nested two levels too deep in the categories. Kirill Lokshin 18:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree - That is definitely the next change that needs to be made. It should probably be done by someone familiar with how the category system was set up. --Randy 18:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

Hello everyone. I just wanted to introduce myself briefly. Some of you may have already seen some of my contributions to Wikipedia, but most of you probably have not. I've only been here a little more than 4 months. I'm very often on RC patrol, doing a combination of Welcoming Committee, reverting vandalism, and using the {{test}} templates to send messages to vandals and newbies. I'm glad to have found this project, and will continue to work hard on it for as long as I'm involved with the Wikipedia project. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 08:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I have joined or more to the point would like to join...

Hi all, I would like to join the CVU... DO i need to add any marks on my user page or do i just have to add myself to the members list on the CVU page?? (btw i have add a mark on my user page already but i was not sure) - Simsy 19:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC) |(Feel Free to leave me a message)

No one is required to add marks in their userpage, we encourage it but I do not remember of a policy making it manditory. The only reason there is a list is so we can easily identify RC patrolers. --Cool Cat Talk 16:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this like a police unit ?

Is this like a police unit for Wikipedia ?Martial Law 23:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC) :)

No, more like a volunteer fire department. The CVU is a voluntary association of Wikipedians who believe it's important to work to keep the encyclopedia free of vandalism; to that extent, we've collected some tools here to help in this work. It's not any more "official" than any other Wikiproject, if that's what you're wondering. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 23:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
That said, I am troubled by some of the militarism in its rhetoric and posture. Snowspinner 23:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that things are becoming over militaristic. I have been toying with proposing a name change more in line with other Wikipedia user groups. Something along the lines of "Association of Vandal Fighters". There's no need to have too formal a structure, when all we want is a place for vandal fighters to exchange information and ideas. Anybody else have thoughts on this? --GraemeL (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I have no particular thoughts on a name change, but I'd agree that we might want to take another look at the project description page, and consider rewriting elements of it to avoid coming off as too overzealous. Vandalism is clearly a problem, but it's also important to keep our collective cool, not bite newcomers, and avoid any sort bunker mentality. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 00:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, the name started out because it rhymed with a "Counter Terrorism Unit" or CTU mess with the word Terrorism and you get Vandalism. A millitary structure was not intended by all means. The name in my view should imply that we are against vandalism. --Cool Cat Talk 16:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with GraemeL as far as CVU becoming too overly-militaristic. I also agree that structure should be more loose and should be more of an information exchange area. And when you think about that, is there really a need for a director and assistant directors? Maybe this whole idea was taken a little too far and we should back down a little bit -- afterall, too much structure can be just as bad as none at all. --Randy 00:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
CVU is NOT a millitary. I do not know who came up with the idea and I do not care about gossip. CVU is simply a RC patroller hangout where we discuss matters of vandalism and devise a strategy to more systematicaly and efectively remove vandalism from wikipedia.
The name is fancy and at least I like it. We can vote for a change if it is really necesary but right now I do not see a complaint from members.
If you have concerns please tell us the spesific points you do not like, general referances does not identify the problems. Thanks. --Cool Cat Talk 16:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I've never seen CVU as overly militaristic. I'm not surprised some people see it that way, though, since anyytime a group organizes to fight against something (in this case, vandalism on WP), someone is going to accuse them of being militaristic, regardless of any evidence (or lack thereof). --nihon 17:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Logos derived from a militarist government agency and a DEFCON system both strike me as problematic. Snowspinner 17:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that some people would have a problem with the CVU regardless of the origin or insipiration for its logos and name. Based on what I've seen so far, as well as some history I've dug through, nothing done by the CVU even approaches "militaristic." Rather, it seems to be a bunch of people who want to help keep WP cleaned up and fix any problems as they crop up. Rather than coming down on a really small (all things considered) group that's doing it's best to keep up with those people who seem intent on destroying and vandalizing the information found here, a more effective approach might be to just leave us alone to do the job. If you notice something that could have been handled more effectively, post and say so. Otherwise, there's no reason to fix something that isn't broken. --nihon 22:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Cool Cat that CVU is not designed to be overly militaristic. In practice, it is just like any WikiProject, only that we decided to use a "catchier" name. However, I don't know of any CVU member who thinks he/she is part of some sort of army. As long as that is true, there don't have to be any worries. In fact, I'd oppose any name change to CVU. Titoxd(?!?) 21:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Jeez, Wikipedia is getting nastier and nastier every day. The CVU is not a millitary, it is not a police unit, and it isn't up to anything. The name is take-off on the Counter Terrorist Unit and frankly, is harmless. We don't have Willy on Wheels in Wiki-Guantanamo Bay being tortured for information, and we don't have hitmen looking for MARMOT. If you don't like it, don't use it, but please, leave those of us who would like to join together to discuss and combat vandalism alone. Fnord, TINC. -- Essjay · Talk 21:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
As per Essjay and in addition:
Counter terrorist unit is a FICTIONALgoverment agency. Inother words it does not even exist. The name doesnt quite matter. What mattersis what it really is.
DEFCON stands for defese condition. It is a meter that simply displays the volume of vandalism basedon analgorithm yet to be coded. We do not have wiki-nukes on wiki-silos either.
--Cool Cat Talk 09:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Elections?

I see we have elections going on for Director and Assistants. What are these positions going to involve? I'm recently a member on "the list" of CVU, but have never backed down from reverting vandalism when I see it. I read the above discusson with valid concerns for an overmilitaristic format for the group. However, it might be very helpful for WP to have a few designated members as specialists in Vandalism (Director/Assistants if you will) for users to approach when out of control vandaliasm is encountered. As a new user, I am just not as familiar with the ins and outs of reporting and reverting vandalism and expert advice could be helpful. Anyway, just some thoughts.—Gaff ταλκ 01:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The Director and Assistant Director notations came about before the CVU was extended outside the IRC channels. In their original context, they referenced Cool_Cat having full access on all the CVU channels and me having similar access. I gave Cool Cat the notation "Director" and he gave me the notation "Assistant Director." What powers they should have now that the CVU has expanded is a question for the CVU to decide. -- Essjay · Talk 01:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The directors and the assistant directors should be no more important than regular members. The name director may be inaproporate as everyone has their own ways they are confortable to use and this isnt a millitary community, I am open for suggestions regarding a name change. I am not bugged by it either. What is important is that the "leaders" are there to resolve conflicts like jimbo being "god" but never throwing lightning bolts unless it is imperative.
While I was a director and while essjay is an assistant director, neither of us excercised any power that anybody else lacked. I do not see what kind of an extra power the directors should have anyways aside from maybe dealing with users who are not here to fight vandalism. Such a thing has not happened yet as well. This arises the question "Do we really need leaders".
What will cvu become will be based on concensius. So far majority of the ideas came about someone suggesting it as it is easier to draft a constitution and later ammend it by basicaly rewriting it completely. --Cool Cat Talk 16:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

warn

I have made warn well User:Adam1213/warn I have some ideas on making it work even better with linking from the bot --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 05:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Hey, that looks like a pretty cool tool! Does it work at this point? And does it sign your name, or can anyone use it?—Gaff ταλκ 21:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Looking good. I like that it opens a new section and adds text instead of inserting a bare template. However, when I warn I usually subst in one of the test#-n templates, so that it's clear to the author as well as later patrollers what article I'm talking about. It'd be nice if we could specify the article from your warning page, too. Anyway, just a thought. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I might add that eventually... its just not all that easy... --Adam1213 Talk+ 07:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

can I join?

Title says it all.

Prodego talk 18:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Just add yourself to the membership list. -- Essjay · Talk 21:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Frequency?

I'm trying to establish the frequency of vandal attacks on Wikipedia articles. Is there any method of tracking frequency of vandalism over time, and if so where is it? --Davril2020 21:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

"Vandalic" template

See whether you guys like the {{User van-0}} template and whether it is appropriate. :-) --Nlu 06:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Darth Boz

What was with the Darth Boz vandalisms anyway? It was just rather stupid

Director?

What would the director/assistant directors do?

Prodego talk 21:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Administer beatings until morale improves! --GraemeL (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully nothing much. Director/assistant directors are regular CVU members. May be the assistant is bad definition, we may want to have 3 regualr directors elected by community support. There are no firmly established roles. Its more than open for debate. --Cool Cat Talk 00:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

They will make sure to let the vandal understand that vandalism creates spiritual turbulence, resulting in misfortune. -- Svest 02:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up™

Firefox extension

Does anyone know how to make a Firefox extension? My basic idea is that when you turn it on, the extension will check whether any newly opened windows contain words (the usual obscenities) listed in a text file, and if not, the tab will be closed. Then, I can just keep opening up edits made in CDVF and have it check for the usual things. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-30 03:38

Advice on dealing with user

I'd like the advice of my fellow vandal fighters on an anonymous user I've been tracking. His/her edits fall under this category in the vandalism guidelines:

Mistakes
Sometimes, users will insert content into an article that is not necessarily accurate, in the
belief that it is. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the
encyclopedia and improve it. If you believe that there is inaccurate information in an
article, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it.

When this user added many accounts of non-factual information, I informed them that the information was incorrect. However, they continue to try to add this information. On the second attempt, I left a message for them to please explain their edits on my user talk page, or on the article talk page. You can see my exact messages at User_talk:66.215.3.69. Please let me know if I went about this correctly or incorrectly, and what I can do to improve my efforts in the future. Thanks for your time and comments. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If he/she is not listening and keeps readding the same information, I'd report him/her under 3RR (assuming that it's done enough times during one day). --Nlu 04:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Negative- it's happened 2-3 times in the past 48 hours, but would certainly apply if you included the 3 other pages that they are putting similar (incorrect) information on. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


Members list

I suggest that the members list is done alphabeticaly or by joining date. --☺Adam1213☺ Talk+|WWW 08:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Advice on getting started in anti-vandalism activities

Good morning, folks.

I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia, insomuch as while I've used it for an information source for a long time, I've never attempted to do anything more demanding than correcting the occasional typo. More recently I've started to contribute more in the way of counter-vandalism activities, though, and find myself with a number of question that I'm hoping someone here can answer. In fact, until today, my counter-vandal efforts were limited to using the Recent changes link - until discovering the wonderous magic of CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter. While that helps immensely in identifying potentially vandalous activities, it doesn't seem to offer much in the way of help in reverting the article. Namely, the process of adding the comment text "Reverting vandalism by [Special:Contributions/x] to last version by [Special:Contibutions/y]". I find myself using a painfully slow process of opening multiple browser tabs and cutting/pasting back and forth. Is there something incredibly obvious that I'm missing out on? Is there some bot that will assist in this process (being also new to Wikipedia bots, I'm just starting to discover their existence now)?

Thanks so much, Shawn 13:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Shawn, the tool that you refer to is an admin-only tool. I wish I have it, too. :-) :-( I've given up on trying to do it manually until/unless I become an admin; rather, I just type "rvv", which appears to be a fairly standard thing to do as well. Just make sure when you revert that you've actually caught all of the vandalism. --Nlu 14:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, "rvv" (or "Reverted vandalism", for those who dislike abbreviations) is just fine. The tool isn't completely admin-only however — there's a (somewhat slower) version available via Sam Hocevar's "godmode-light" script (found here). Obviously, if you do use that, take care to only use it for vandalism and such. Kirill Lokshin 14:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I played around with the godmode script for a couple days, but it has problems. It's mostly nonfunctional in Safari and from FireFox Mac, it did Very Bad Things to articles. It converted <, >, & and a few other characters into their code equivs (e.g., &lt;) when they shouldn't have. I also found I was sloppier in my reverts. I'd just hit the rollback on the most recent when on a couple occasions more than one IP had been vandalizing. So I mostly stick with rvv unless I think it needs more explanation. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

RC IRC channel docs & other dev resources?

Hi! I'm quite taken with CryptoDerk's tool, and it has inspired notions of some other changelog-related tools. Could somebody point me to the docs on the IRC-based recent changes feed? Also, is there some sort of central spot for people who develop tools that use Wikipedia? As I develop I want to run my ideas by people who know more of the guts, so that I don't cause any trouble. --William Pietri 18:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Election results

Please read Wikipedia talk:Counter Vandalism Unit/Elections#Confirmation of results and voice any objections to closing out the elections. --GraemeL (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Lupin's latest tool

Lupin is currently working on a tool that should help catch vandalism not caught by either CDVF or the IRC bot. It's far from complete, but you can use what has been created so far by adding the following to your User:YOURNAME/monobook.js file:

document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="' 
             + 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lupin/recentdiffs.js' 
             + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

Save your monobook.js, then hit CTRL and F5 at the same time to refresh your monobook.js file. Now, go to the 500-entry list of RC, and, in the left toolbox, click "Show filtered diffs". This will check the diffs from every entry on the list for common vandalism terms (like "poo"). As it finds diffs that contain such terms, it will list them on that page. Above each diff, it tells you what term triggered the diff. There are a lot of false positives, but I've already found a few missed vandalisms this way. You'll have to refresh the page manually once it has gone through the list, so, since this is a 500-entry list, you should only refresh every few minutes. You may also want to turn on "Hide registered users" when it gets really busy. In the future, this will probably use the IRC RC stream, and be much better at what it does. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-5 21:27

Since this list gets quite long, you should probably just search for "Match:" on the page to go to the next instance. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-5 21:39

  • Actually this has proven quite useful. I just checked the last 500 anon edits, and found a couple dozen obvious, but missed, vandalisms. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-6 03:12
  • It should be noted that while the tool is running through the list of 500, it effectively stops any other connections your trying through Wikipedia. I find that the best thing to do is either load it and walk away for 5 minutes (or do something else), then come back and skim through them. If you find any to revert, you should middle-click (or CTRL+click) to revert in a new tab, and ALSO open up the user's contribs list in another tab for checking later. Once you get through the list, then you can go back and check the contribs for further vandalism, and start over again. It may also be a good idea to Show logged-in users, since vandals can sneak in that way (I just found one that way). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-6 04:08
  • My preferred page to run this tool on is [1] - 50 matches, article namespace only, logged-in and anons. My computer is a little feeble the task of searching through 500 diffs for bad words takes it too long. By the way, this tool also works on history and contribs pages, where I sometimes find the "Show all diffs" link useful for seeing who is responsible for a particular chunk of text. Show all diffs is faster than show filtered diffs, since the data downloaded is the same but it doesn't filter the results. Lupin|talk|popups 14:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Please don't delete this, it's a well-meaning question and not intended as vandalism: Is this discussion page open for discussion of the Unit by non-members, or is it just for Unit members to talk about operational matters? (I only ask because a question I asked further up was immediately reverted; I wanted to ask a serious question about the "militaristic" aspect of this Unit, not wishing to offend, and genuinely didn't realise unwanted comments on a discussion page would constitute vandalism. Apologies if this is out of place.) Will any criticism left here be treated as vandalism? I'd appreciate it if this comment could be answered rather than simply erased.

As other people have pointed out, your original comment was probably not seen as a "serious question" or very constructive. I personally don't think it is vandalism...the user that reverted it IMHO was too hasty. I can understand though from what you wrote:

I posted this over at Talk/Vandalism in Progress. Apologies if it's a bit harsh, but I'd still like to ask the same question I asked there: "Just out of interest, how many members of the "Unit" have actually served in the police or armed forces, and how many are living out some kind of weird SpecOps fantasy? I'm sure the idea of a group of Wikipedia enthusiasts banding together to stamp out vandalism is well-intentioned, but to a complete outsider and former soldier like me the idea of calling yourselves a "Unit" and making up a mock-army badge looks a bit (a) self-important, and (b) silly. Sorry, just my two cents."

So...you first ask "how many are living out some kind of weird SpecOps fantasy". That is insulting because it makes so many presuppositions about people you apparently know very little about and all in the guise of a "serious question". Your intentions may have been good, but hopefully you should know by now that posting a question on a talk page of a group, pointing out that they are "silly" and "self-important" and asking how many are "living out ...some...weird fantasy" could easily be construed as a highly nonconstructive comment. If you merely wanted to ask how many were in the armed forces, you could have done so in a much nicer way. Not only that, you appear to have some kind of axe to grind when you go around asking the same insulting question in more than one place. And your "sorry" is easily seen to be insincere. It's like saying, you look silly. Sorry. Nobody asked you! If you're going to say insulting things, saying sorry, doesn't really help things. Someone told my friend (out of the blue) the other day at school, "That outfit looks silly on you. Sorry." Your comments weren't really any better. It was unsolicited and not helpful.
So...I'm sure a lot of people here are willing to forgive and forget, but you should know that you have really stuck your foot in your mouth.--Madison 10:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
It was more likely construed as a personal attack by the user who reverted it, since the language you used was a little bit insulting. I don't know if anyone has served in special forces, but the Unit members do not consider the CVU as militaristic in nature. Titoxd(?!?) 01:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification and non-deletion - apologies if the original message came over as insulting, it wasn't really intended as such. As a former serviceman myself, the insignia and name (capitalisation of Unit) in particular certainly struck me as *very* militaristic in tone and I was wondering if, in the event it was intentional, whether - and this is not meant as an insult in any way - whether any of the members had actually been in the forces, or whether it was just a bit of fun to adopt militaristic motifs (and furthermore if any other veterans or police, or indeed anyone currently in the forces - or *firemen*, since that parallel was explicitly drawn at the top of the page - had commented on it). I had visions of that badge being sewn onto Wikipedia programmers' camo jackets or something. In any case, everyone insists it's not meant to be militaristic at all, so it's moot anyway; I was just keen to pipe up and the discussion page seemed the proper place. Again, thanks for the reply.
I don't get why even if it looked to you like it was militaristic, you would think that people "in the forces" would want to use "militaristic motifs". ((P.S. my dad was in the navy and I don't really see him getting together with his buddies to play war games or hang around in camo!) I really think that you aren't really being honest as to what you were feeling when you wrote that stuff. Perhaps you felt offended or something by seeing people not from the military use what you saw as a military insignia. Just my two cents. BTW, I don't see the insignia as militaristic. Otherwise any insignia would look militaristic! There's nothing on it but the name and a Wikimedia image. The name has an overtone, but I would say an image of editors wearing camo jackets is really reading things into it big time. --Madison 10:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I simply construed it for what it is: someone wishing to feel better about himself by publicly dismissing others' intentions as inferior. Bravo, and on an internet website, nonetheless! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-7 02:09
Actually I was doing neither of those things, but feel free to be rude; although I think this was meant to be far more "insulting" than the thing you deleted, I'm not willing to rise to it. I'd like to ask what "and on an internet website, nonetheless" was meant to mean, though?
While I am no expert in the matter, please keep in mind that you are free to dispute any revert/edit made by anyone here. I'm also a newcomer to the group, and my choice to join (with no military background) was made with no assumption that the group was in any way affiliated with any military organisation. In fact, I would view such an organisation (if one exists) as the antithesis of what Wikipedia is. You are have as much athority to take action as any of the people here - we are all self-declared members of the 'CVU'. All discussion on Wikipedia is open to all users. Shawn Image:SFerrier Talk Redirect.png 08:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

{{user CVU1-en}} and {{user CVU2-en}}

I've created these templates so that they are more compatible with the Babel templates. So hopefully, you won't need to use those messy "subst:" codes on your user page anymore. --Ixfd64 20:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I have joined the "task force". Though I don't have the slightest clue how to use IRC I still counter vandalism by going to Special:Newpages and Special:recentchanges. hope that's not a problem with membership. --Philo 11:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

'Flag admin' - suggestion

Just a simple suggestion for any new version of CDVF or bot. Non-admins fighting vandals currently have to use IRC or WP:AIV to secure an admin review of a problem user (impersonator etc|), or ask for a block. I suggest creating a simple flag, which can be included in any edit summary, which would show up on the CVUbot and CDVF, indicating to any admin that an editor wishes admin intervention. E.g. rvv etc .... *admin* (or test4 *a*) - where *admin* or simply *a* is the flag. Of course, it could be misused - but then, if vandals use, it ..... we know who they are. Doc ask? 18:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Do we need to allow anon IPs edit content?

I know this may sound controversial, but I am curious as to the legalality of wikipedia actually limiting article edits/revisions/add-ons to registered users? Though it won't eliminate all vandalisms, at least it would allow us to ban users who have abused their priveleged. I understand the idea of open-source, but there still needs to be a final checker of what is good or not. Even Linus of Linux fame is the final one who approves of changes to the linux kernel code. Anyhows, those are my 2 cents. --LifeStar 21:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals) for the arguments for and against this sort of restriction. --GraemeL (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Majority of vandalism are from anon ips yes, majority of the contribution from IPs however is not vandalism. It takes several seconds to register a newer username, this way is better as anon vandalism is easier to monitor.
"confirmation" idea is bad because if you take a look at the RC feed of any hour on wikipedia you'd be shocked with the number of edits. Wikipedia is too popular for confirmations :). linux kernel code does not change as much as wiki ;). --Cool Cat Talk 11:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
What I would like to see is to limit the number of edits per hour that an anon can make. That way, the amount of vandalism that an anon can make would be easily manageable, while legitimate anons would be encouraged to register. --Nlu 10:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Lupin's NEW new tool

Lupin has just released a tool that everyone on CVU should be using. It feeds off of IRC RC, checking diffs for common vandalism terms, and lists them live. More info at WP:LAVT. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-11 07:38

After using the new tool for a while, I'd like to assert that it rocks the f-ing house. Babajobu 06:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

A tool like that, if it is really any good, could be useful to CVU SWAT, should it be created. Lets see how a troublesome vandal likes this creation.Martial Law 07:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This is AWESOME, now to fight those vandals :-).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 07:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Bike vandal

Does anyone have sufficient knowledge to write up an entry for the bike vandal? I don't, really. --Nlu 05:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you give an example? --Cool Cat Talk 10:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I am actually at a loss to come up with an example now, but occasionally this vandal surfaces to vandalize pages (usually of African American figures) by blanking and replacing with "Nigger stole my bike!". --Nlu 10:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
A recent example here --pgk(talk) 10:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Ill ask NullC when I see him, tho blankings are detected effectiveky at keast by the irc bot :) --Cool Cat Talk 00:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
For an example of a recent sock puppet of the vandal, see User:Nword. I thought of starting both a page for the vandal and a template, but after looking at the data available to me, I don't think I am capable of doing it -- since I have no idea who the first incarnation of this vandal was, nor do I have a list of sock puppets. --Nlu 18:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's yet another reason for the creation of CVU SWAT.Martial Law 01:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:Contact us

These two pages are vandalized on a daily basis, but for some reason often don't get cleaned up immediately, sometimes remaining vandalized for several hours. It would be appreciated if more users could add them to their watchlist. Fredrik | talk 21:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:About was already on the IRC Bot's watchlist, but I added Wikipedia:Contact us, which should allow more people to keep an eye on it. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 01:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Special Alert

A really catastrophic malfunction with the HTML Tidy may have caused numerous Vandalisation reports. This malfunction happened on 11-14-05, causing the site to go down, and caused what looked like vandalisim all over the place. Contact all Admins. and CVU personnel for more information. I will continue to monitor this situation. I found out about this malfunction while investigating a appearant vandalisation attack on my user page.Martial Law 08:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Update?

Any more news about this attack? I noticed whole site was extremely bogged down and non-functioning around 4pm Eastern time here in the US. I had a feeling that the site was being attacked with a DOS attack or something. Any more info would be appreciated, thanks.--LifeStar 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a attack ? That , among other things,is why a CVU SWAT unit is needed.Martial Law 00:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I really doubt that it is. Again, Martial Law, I appreciate your idea, but I think you're really mixing two ideas; one is vandalism and one is site maintenance. I don't think the folks in the CVU are necessarily equipped to handle the latter. (Some are, obviously.) --Nlu 00:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
No, folks, it was not an attack, it was the developers turning off HTML Tidy in MediaWiki because it was causing the servers to crash. Titoxd(?!?) 00:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)