Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Archive 2

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 Archive 3 →

Contents

How about setting up a CVU SWAT

How about setting up a CVU SWAT to handle the really nasty vandals.Martial Law 08:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

This CVU SWAT can also handle minor site malfunctions as well.Martial Law 09:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, I'm not really sure what kind of distinction you are proposing here (what makes a "really nasty" vandal, and how do you propose we handle them any differently?), but it might be worth repeating that the CVU is not a military body. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 09:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia that is not a military body. But what is wrong with setting up colourful organisations? -- Zondor 10:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The CVU functions as a policing agency against vandals, the CVU SWAT is intended to take care of the really nasty,troublesome vandals and to handle minor site malfunctions, as stated, leaving the Wikipedia Techs to handle the really nasty malfunctions, like the HTML Tidy malfunction.Martial Law 23:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the CVU swat team is a good idea. We need people to monitor particularly troublesome vandals. And Wikipedia already has all sorts of pseudo-governmental structures, why not some paramilitaries? Babajobu 14:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Because the purpose of military organizations is to use lethal force to end disagreements with no regard as to the rightness or wrongness of the parties involved. I think a militaristic tone is incompatible with WP:AGF and "don't bite the newbies". Even if we know it's a joke, they may take it as hostile. Better analogies are the volunteer fire brigade, which is poised to swing into action to prevent damage; and the men in white coats, who contain crazy people to keep them from inadvertently damaging themselves or others and work with them until they behave sensibly. --William Pietri 16:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
A military structure requires someone raining orders on others and "forcing" them to do things as subordinates are required to obey the commander. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia runs on the basis of voluntary contributions from users.
Majority of the vandals are just testing, and the ones that won't stop what they are doing is blocked for a certain period of time. The philosopy is however to talk softly and carry a big stick.
A 24 hr block will contain the apathy of a vandal for 24 hours, after that they may/may not continue. If you ask them to stop they are more than likely to never vandalise for eternity and can turn out to be RC patrolers.
"Don't bite the newbies" is an imperative part of the Counter Vandalism culture we are trying to establish here. --Cool Cat Talk 18:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, sounds like the Swat team conceit is not popular. Perhaps volunteer fire brigade is a better metaphor. Babajobu 18:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Exactly what is being proposed here? How would you see the "nasty vandals" being delt with in a different manner from what is done currently? Oh, if we are going to be a fire brigade, I want to be Dibble. --GraemeL (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I think a Wikipedia Watch would be more interesting, myself. Kirill Lokshin 18:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I think what MartialLaw's getting at is a coding error/hacking patrol. That (after I gave it some thought the last half-day or so), however, I think is beyond the scope of CVU, which deals with vandalism, not database errors or security issues on an external basis. I personally wouldn't have any idea how to deal with coding or hacking. :-) A SWAT team is, also, I think, unnecessary as far as vandalism is concerned; we are the SWAT team of Wikipedia, already, I think, as we revert vandalism when we see them, and that's all we can do; short of programming automatic reversion bots (which would be a difficult, if not impossible, undertaking) I think this is all we can do. --Nlu 18:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia currently doesn't allow us to watchlist the contributions of vandal prone editors or IP addresses. I figured members of the firebrigade could at least check in on the recent contributions of frequent vandalizers to see whether they've made any mischief that has gotten past rc patrol. Babajobu 20:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Not true, thats been covered by my bot for IPs. Any IP blacklisted (ie any IP blokced for vandalism) is monitored closely. Username vandals are however not watched (as those are generaly indef blocked it isnt quite necesary). We have to be vigilant but that doesn't mean we need to cause havoc. --Cool Cat Talk 20:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm referring to a specialized outfit that can handle both the really bad vandals, like those who use obscene edits all over the place, and to handle minor malfunctions, leaving the Wikipedia Techs to handle the MAJOR malfunctions, like the recent HTML Tidy problem.Martial Law 23:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

- and the CVU can then handle the non threatening vandals, who are'nt in a habit of willful vandalisationMartial Law 23:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, is there a reason why CVU can't handle both? Titoxd(?!?) 00:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

the intent is to lighten the work load of both the CVU and the Wiki techs.Martial Law 00:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

We can't lighten the load of the developers, the only thing we can do is get more of them, but they're awarded security privileges in a lengthy process which is set by the developers themselves, so there's nothing we lay Wikipedians can do about it. The CVU isn't overloaded by nasty vandals, when something really important happens, it is listed on WP:AN and dealt with it by 670 admins. So, there's nothing the SWAT unit could really do. Titoxd(?!?) 00:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
If wikimedia breaks its the job of devs to fix it. We need more RC patrolers when too many cases of vandalism happens. We cant do more to vandals than blocking them. I however do agree we need more people with checkuser privilages, but that has nothing to do with CVU. --Cool Cat Talk 14:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Bot too noisy on IRC

With the need to split the lines of the bot output in the IRC channel the channel is becoming increasingly noisy, this damages that chat element of the channel and makes it a less "fun" place to be for fighting vandalism. To address this a few things have been suggested

  1. Remove admin and whitelist messages (or enable them to be switch on and off as required)
  2. Remove the revert link as if seems redundant when you have the diff link.
  3. Use abbreviated links, like [[page+newver+oldver]] these would need to be converted by a special wikilinks script, most suitably for mIRC and Chatzilla since they don't need to expand the displayed version. (I have produced updated scripts for both mIRC and Chatzilla), the disadvantage would be you must use the scripts when using the channel else the links are no good.

Does anyone have any comments on why any or all of the above would be a good/bad idea? or any additional ideas how we can "calm" the channel?

Pgk 21:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Fully support, although we might say 'the channel is for vandal-fighting not chat', the sense of community is an incentive to be there, it breaks the monotony of revert/blocking -and without it, there will be less people and for shorter times.--Doc ask? 21:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree, we have to make it reasonable to carry on a conversation. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Being able to chat in the channel is useful. --GraemeL (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  1. I can make that happen
  2. Revert link is usefull for non admins, I don't forexample load the diff lets say if a blacklisted IP is removing like 30kb on Wikipedia ...
  3. I am fine with that but that destroyes the functionality for people not using the clients you mention. We need to get brion or some other dev to make us a [[ ]] able link, like this being a diff pagename+oldid+newid (should also work on wikipedia).
I can make those happen but will take time... I can code a "battle mode" and a "calm mode" so that bot spams less on hightened times. Some of the changes you ask me to do are there beacuse of requests so if I do what you want exactly some other people will be pissed, so what I want to do this in a way making everyone happy :) --Cool Cat Talk 22:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What we should do is clean out periodically the list of blacklisted IPs (at least take out the AOL IPs every once in a while), so their edits don't clutter the output more than they should. Titoxd(?!?) 23:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    It would be much easier to never blacklist AOL ips since its pointless as AOLers get a new ip per edit or something like that. It would be however usefull to display that the blanking is coming from an AOL ip. I'll need to know what AOL IP ranges are tho. Can you get me this info? Paste here --Cool Cat Talk 13:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

To do:

  1. Get devs to code wikifyable diffs (without url) + get devs to code wikifyable "revert" links (without url).
    This way it works on all clients
    I havent made a bugzilla request, I dont have the time, can someone do so for me and post the links here?
  2. Code a feuture to "quiet" the bot a bit on demand.

--Cool Cat Talk 22:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, wikiclickable links aren't so good for all of us. I IRC using either BitchX or Kvirc. Neither supports wikilinks, and there are no scripts to do so out for either. I like having the real URL's, as those are very easy to use. I would like, however, if the bot would be able to blacklist usernames, as well as IP's ;] --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 09:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Cool Cat, it might also be helpful to have an option to be able to turn off the 'block log', not the username warnign but the flag when a block happens. Just there we were hit bu another vandalbot, and the channel became useless as it was flooded by Curps's bot blocking 50 usernames. --Doc ask? 23:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm.... I can do that. Or I could ignore blocks from curps, since he knows what he is doing and his blocks are indefinate anyways. Or I could code an option to temporaily hide blocks etc etc. Block log is useful to evade multiple blocks on a single user as multiple admins are generaly watching. Is this incorrect thinking? --Cool Cat Talk 13:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Concrete proposal

  • Get rid of "possibles", it's on channel topic and it's mentioned everyonce in a while on channel. All warnings are "possible" , so mention it every time it's redundant.
  • Remove "Page:". The double brackets make it evident what the wikipage is.
  • Change "Change: +127" to "(+127)". It's less verbose and still understandable.
(Computer2) Possible IP blanking Page: Jacques-Yves Cousteau By: User:69.170.117.110 Change: -8263 bytes Revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacques-Yves_Cousteau&action=edit&oldid=28417012
(Computer2) Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacques-Yves_Cousteau&diff=0&oldid=28417012 Excuse: N/A
versus
(Computer2) IP blanking Jacques-Yves Cousteau By: User:69.170.117.110 (-8263) Revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacques-Yves_Cousteau&action=edit&oldid=28417012
(Computer2) Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacques-Yves_Cousteau&diff=0&oldid=28417012 Excuse: N/A
  • Right now there's inconsistency the way watched pages are handled:
(<Computer2) ***Possible IP gibberish*** Page: 50 Cent By: User:68.39.174.238 Change: +2122 bytes Revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=50_Cent&action=edit&oldid=28455481
versus
(Computer2) Admin edited watched page Page: Soviet Union By: User:Piotrus Change: +28 bytes Summary: History - link Comecon, destalinization

Any of them will do, but let's be consistent (I prefer asterisks)

  • Don't get rid of "admin edits" since that let us see some vandalism has been cleaned up and therefore we don't have to check (otherwise we'd be all checkign the same entries at the same time)

I know those are very minor changes (about 5 chars) but when you repeat them thousands of times (in several channels) you save up a significant amount of space/bandwith. Those were just examples, several other minor gainings could be done -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 00:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The *** represents watched pages suffering from a second type of prospective attack (if a watched page is blanked the *** manifests for example).
Originaly there were two errors (that a page is blanked and a watched page is edited) which were quite annoying (at least to me).
Given that what should I do about whatched pages?
I'll make other modifications you request this weekend, unless there are objections... They make sense and are very reasonable. I need some clarification on the watched page thing. --Cool Cat Talk 13:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
It's just that I nw associate asterisk (which stand out visiaully) with watched pages (pages needing special attention).
Sometimes you use *** to denote a watched page (as in the IP gibberish) and sometimes you use words as in the 2nd example or as in
(Computer2) Warning! Watched page is edited by user Page: John Roberts By: User:Cleared as filed Change: +5 bytes Revert: 
(Computer2) Warning! Watched page is edited by IP Page: Joseph Stalin By: User:66.76.67.66 Change: -14 bytes Revert:
what I meant is to uniformize those warnings and use always asterisks (or words), but this is of course only styllistical matter. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

When a watched page is edited and its nothing suspicipus the bot posts it in words, *** generaly means warranted problem. Removal of 50K from George W. Bush has a 99.999% chance to be vandalism.

When a watched page is edited and it triggers nothing its likely to be no biggie. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Many peoples IRC clients dont have a pluging for wiki links or cant run a plugin for wiki links. However if you would like it to be like that I recommened having 2 rooms. Or even easier for some, have the bot use multiple names. you can ignore one if you want so that you dont get the other stuff. --Adam1213 Talk + 10:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Chatzilla script

I've updated the chatzilla wikilinks script which might help some people, if replaces the diff and revert links with --Diff Page-- and --Version Edit Page-- as links to the original urls, which helps declutter things. It will also affect if these links are used in other IRC conversations.

Script is at User:Pgk/script

--pgk(talk) 13:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

CVU Qualifications ?

What are the CVU qualifications ? Others may also inquire.Martial Law 23:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If you mean qualifications for joining, the answer is an interest in spending some of your time removing vandalism on Wikipedia and a willingness to add your signature to the member list. It is neither an exclusive nor an exhaustive group. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 01:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The restrictions are that you need to have a username (for practical purposes), and you must not vandalise. Aside from that no restriction/qualification I know about.
Also you need a computer and internet. :P --Cool Cat Talk 13:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

CVU SWAT

This is what CVU SWAT would handle:

  • Troublesome vandals, such as those that are habitual vandals.
  • Minor site malfunctions, such as the occasional glitch.

The CVU can refer troublesome vandal cases to CVU SWAT, leaving them free to find more vandals. Martial Law 00:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The intention is to lighten the load for both the CVU and the Wiki techs.Martial Law 00:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The CVU SWAT logo is to be like the CVU logo, only that there is a M-16 and a two ended open ended wrench in the logo placed in a "X" pattern.Martial Law 00:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The title would be similar to the current logo, only that it'll say CVU on the upper left, SWAT on the upper right.Martial Law 00:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

CVU's scope is to chase those troublesome vandals, and we can't do a thing about site glitches, because only developers have the ability to fix MediaWiki's code. Also, I'm not sure how such a project might be seen by those who already accuse us of being militaristic. Titoxd(?!?) 00:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm 100% against this idea. No need to bring in a special ops team, especially since they couldn't do anything we don't already do. --nihon 00:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The intent is to lighten the work load, so that no one feels unduely stressed.Martial Law 00:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC) No, you're not being militarisic at all. The CVU already functions as a policing body on Wikipedia. The SWAT idea is so that troublesome vandals could be dealt with, minor glitches dealt with, so that the work load of the CVU and the Wiki techs is lightened.Martial Law 00:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how this would be any different from CVU as it exists now, a different logo and a duplicate, for some unexplained reason hierarchically superior, organization aside. As Titoxd has explained already, the developers are the wiki techs, not us. The CVU is a voluntary association of vandal patrollers, not an organization for solving all of Wikipedia's problems. If anyone in the CVU is feel stressed or "overworked" from combatting vandals, I highly recommend them taking a break from it and contributing in some other area. Countering vandalism is not the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia, by any means. There are plenty of people who patrol recent changes on Wikipedia for vandalism, whether they're in this group or not, and "troublesome" vandals are dealt with just the same as any other kind: reverted, warned, and blocked as necessary. If you have a problem that can't be solved in this manner, try WP:AIV, WP:VIP, or the administrator's noticeboard. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 02:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
"The CVU already functions as a policing body on Wikipedia", I don't agree with that, CVU carry out RC Patrol the same as many others it doesn't do it in any special way or have any special authority. Major problems outside of normal vandalism tend to get attention from the wider community anyway like bots getting used to tidy/stop and admin rollback is fast. If anyone feels stressed I agree with MC Masterchef they should take a break, and/or should shout for some help with whatever they are doing (part of CVU is to provide a meeting place so you can easily get contact with other vandal fighters.) --pgk(talk) 07:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I understand how annoying the returning vandals can be, my userpage has been target of the Love Virus not once but over 5 times (who the hell is counting), recently MARMOT (Author of the Love Virus) was given a second chance and was unblocked. I believe the worst vandals can be rehabilated to be good users or at least an effort should be made to that end.
CVU is not a body "above the law", members don't get special privilages aside from special toys. Arbcom and Jimbo wales are the only two bodies of wikipedia that have 'special' privilages, however not even Arbcomers are exempt from wikipedias polcies (and they have to be ten times more carefull so as not to give trolls any material) and I haven't seen User:Jimbo Wales vandalsing pages.
CVU is "nothing new", RC patrolers existed prior, CVU only increased the level of communication between members and provided some toys etc.
Biting newbies with M-16's is not going to make wikipedia a better place. --Cool Cat Talk 14:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
What you are suggesting may fall under WP:H. Last thing we want is to give vandals/trolls material to complain about "abusive admins".
Problematic IPs are watched. I am considering ways on how to process blacklisted usernames. Given the list grows like there is no tomorrow, I need to find an effective way to process it. I am trying to model a way atm but frankly I am quite lost. :(
--Cool Cat Talk 14:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the creation of a SWAT sub-group for this group is not needed. The CVU already does a pretty darn good job at repairing damaged work from what I can see. It may take time, but we all eventually get to the pages that have been vandalized. Besides, I think our efforts should be devoted to creating better tools and prevention tactics than talking about creating a seperate team. We're one team already and we need to ultilize our resources into better prevention methods and tools to combat the flood of vandals. (I prefer we block out IPs from school addresses that have been troublsome, but that's another story.)--LifeStar 16:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree to all but block on shared school ips. We do not want to impose long term blocks on any good user. --Cool Cat Talk 17:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
But are school users "good users"? I am beginning to take the view that the vast majority of these school edits are so unproductive that the schools that fail to control/account for their students' behavior are not, as corporate bodies, not "good users." As such, perhaps they should be blocked by considering them corporately, and then if specific individuals at the schools need editing access, they can be unblocked. --Nlu 17:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Before this gets too much further, what exactly are we defining as a 'school'? After all, I've been editing from my university's IP for two years now. Also, my best friend back home got started on wikipedia as something to do during study periods to keep him busy. --InShaneee 18:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Most of these idiotic edits are coming from high schools. As for your friend, I do admit that there may be collateral damage, but schools have a responsibility to make sure that their students are not committing vandalism, in my opinion. If he ever gets blocked, perhaps he should talk to the teachers at his school to bring the issue to their attention. --Nlu 18:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem is, schools are TRYING to take some responsibility, and not doing a good job at it. The aforementioned friend can no longer edit from school, or view Wikipedia at all, as it's blocked by the school's firewall as a 'messageboard'. Anyway, IMHO, I think we should treat IPs as we would any other user, with perhaps a little more leniency, and I don't think a permablock should EVER be applied (since no vadal will be using that IP for more the a few years) (Also, I support the SWAT proposal if and only if we get kevlar uniforms :) ). --InShaneee 22:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
No one can contain the apathy of a middle schooler. It will always leak. AOL Ips are a much more serious problem, as it is easy enough to block a school while AOL IPs are... ummm... annoying? --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not vote on this ? I've seen one user who wants to create CVU SWAT to monitor troublesome vandals. CVU SWAT is NOT about biting newbies, like myself.Martial Law 06:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

CVU is just a group of users who like to do cleanup. Any user can monitor toroublesome vandals if he likes, and he can call himself only "the swat" no need to vote. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 07:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I understand you are trying hard to make wikipedia a more vandal free enviorment, but this seems to be excessive. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if an introduction of a capitalist element like a for-profit organisation to be set up to help better keep vandalism at bay. ie. mercenaries. -- Zondor 09:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to tell, is this supposed to be sarcasm or not? — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 11:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
If it is for real, I still will be equaly amused. ;) --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Depending on how well Wikipedia:Tools/1-Click Answers will generate income for the Wikimedia Foundation, it could spend it on improving the quality of the articles like hiring vandal fighters or good editors. A well organised and highly reputable mercenaries could ask for donations. What other ways can you be rewarded to provide incentive to fight vandals or make good article edits? Edit counts? Number of vandal blocks? Barnstars? Operating for profit is very effective at production of goods and services and you don't necessarily need to resort to ads on the pages. Why would you sign in everytime under an account rather than contribute anonymously? -- Zondor 02:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
You a citizen of the Ferengi Alliance? --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Autoit wiki gets so much vandalism but it is small...

The main page is not protected, so even it gets vandalised. Autoit wiki All edits from users that are not logged in seam to be vandalism --Adam1213 Talk + 09:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but we can't watch over every wiki out there. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Was wiki attacked again? Nov. 18, 2005

I tried to access wiki for the pass 1.5 hrs and only now can log in. What happened? Was there some sort of DOS attack on the servers again?--LifeStar 16:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it was just typically slow, the developers didn't see any indication of a Denial of Service attack. Titoxd(?!?) 17:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Geez... new servers and OCR lines they need...--LifeStar 19:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

What is it with these "attack" rumors ? Martial Law 06:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Really, what is it with these "attack" rumors ? Is there any basis for these rumors that I'm unaware of ? HTML Tidy's malfunction caused this site to go down, and made a royal mess of Wikipedia, and there are some minor malfunctions, a few major malfunctions going on. I've had one in which I could not access Wikipedia @ all. All I got that time was,"Contact REFUSED" to "en.wikipedia.org" and several "Operation has timed out." signals.Martial Law 07:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Er - server outages. we get them. our hardware is paid for by donations, and run (mostly) by volunteers. it's a fact o' life. no attacks (rumoured or not) needed. (late at night. shift key tired. sorry.) ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 11:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

High profile pages that get heavy vandalism

Please check out this proposal[1]. Also see the George Bush talk page. Thank you.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 07:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Dealing with school/large range of IPs that have vandalized?

Is it possible for an admin or a site manager of the wiki pages to find out contact info for the IT admins of the school systems that we have determined that many of the vandals who commit their work from? I think it would be a good idea to at least let let the school know that its own students are committing an unwanted service to a web site, with its own computers. Though this may not reduce the # of attacks, at least the admins and IT guys will become aware that their own students are causing many problems with web sites using school paid computers. --LifeStar 17:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Now this is what I'm talking about! User_talk:142.22.186.12, this is an example of what I hope we can consider doing. This particular case was brought to the school administrator's attention by one considerate student. Maybe we need to start posting messages on these particular talk pages informing the responsible students to contact their school IT or administrators about the vandal attacks that have been originating from their school computers. --LifeStar 19:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this talk page is an exemplory example of what can be done with Wikipedia vandalism from a public school/library/etc. IP address. However, I'm not sure whether most of those places have IP addresses you can pinpoint to the classroom/computer/user. If they do, that would be awesome and could stem some public vandalism. If not, then there would be no dent, but at least the IT/administrators would be aware of it. However, we must make sure that good faith edits are allowed to continue from these locations- I'm sure they constitute a large portion of our good contributions. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 21:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Interesting idea. For schools that have IT directors listed with e-mail addresses available from whois, perhaps e-mail can be considered. There can really be nothing we can do to make sure that they don't disable access for their students, however, once they become aware of the vandalism; it's really within their exclusive domains by that point. --Nlu 22:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

CVU user box idea

Although I've spent some time now and then reverting vandalism, I'm troubled calling myself advanced in any way at the art of counter vandalism. At the same time, I've been updating my user page and really liked how it was possible to create an entry based on skill level for most of the language programming disciplines. To that end, I've mocked up an idea for an equivalent gradient for CVU activity.

CVU-0 This person does not understand counter vandalism or sees no need for it.
CVU-1 This user is a beginning counter vandilism unit member.
CVU-2 This user is an intermediate counter vandilism unit member.
CVU-3 This user is an advanced counter vandilism unit member.
CVU-4 This user is an expert counter vandilism unit member.

Just to spice it up a bit, I could see changing the names "beginning", "intermediate", "advanced", and "expert" over to something more related to the organization of CVU. Is anyone else interested in this? If so, it will only take a few minutes to build the templates and sub-categories. --StuffOfInterest 18:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea but we would have people bullying others for having "a higher understanding of CVU". --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


I also dislike the current template and use my own:

CVU
1

This user is a novice vandal fighter.
Be pure! Be vigilant! Behave!


Be aware of the use of irony in calling myself a novice :-P

Btw, use <includeonly>[[Category:Counter Vandalism Unit Member/wikipedia/en]]</includeonly> if you make the templates. --GraemeL (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh now that would work IMHO. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
As long as the current one is not done away with, I'm fine with this idea. I do think it's weird to have "levels," though, since anyone with half a brain can pick up how to do what we do within just a couple days at the most. ---nihon 20:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
As long as we keep the current one I am fine for them to be even called offical ones (with approval of other CVU members) it might be good to have the wikipedia cvu logo in one. --Adam1213 Talk + 10:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Being that nobody has come out strongly opposed to the idea of the above boxes, the next thing to consider would be names for the templates. In the computer langauges area they follow the syntax of "User (language)-(level)". Being that CVU is multi-lingual there will need to be some name structure in there to denote language. Perhaps "User cvu-en-(level)". Another alternative would be "User cvu-(level)-en", but that one just doesn't speak to me. --StuffOfInterest 12:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

we should have an article with a list of reasons not to vandalise and / or spam wikipedia.

Expect in not to long a really good program to be working really well (my automatic reverter and warner) --Adam1213 Talk + 10:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the ones on the project page especially:
This user is a member of the
Counter Vandalism Unit.		 
and use it on my userpage. xaosflux T/C 17:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Resignation

I hereby tender my resignation as a director of the Counter Vandalism Unit effective immediately. -- Essjay · Talk 17:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, why? --Nlu 18:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've left Wikipedia. -- Essjay · Talk 19:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

!!!! --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the Joining section?

Just curious why that section was removed from the main page? Can people no longer join CVU? --nihon 17:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious about that as well, why was that section KIA by CoolCat? --LifeStar 20:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems to tell you all you need to know under the "Counter Vandalism Unit members" section --pgk(talk) 20:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh I merely moved it. It should still apear on the main page :), I just think its more approporate if its in the "joining" section. However if you have objections feel free to revert, I was being bold and I feel it looks better :). --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Essjay

This is bad, the director left before we even knew what the director's job or succession was... Do the assistant directors assume control? If so which? Do we hold emergency elections?

Prodegotalk 17:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

What is your chain of command ?Martial Law 23:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If Democratic, hold elections. If military related, insert the 2nd in command. Same applies to Corporation/Company chains of command, such as the COO suceeds the CEO.Martial Law 23:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

That's the problem—as the group is all volunteer, and not officially sponsored or endorsed by MediaWiki or the Wikipedia Foundation, there really isn't a chain of command. We all just work to minimize the effect of vandalism on the site. Now, whether that's an effective way to work is a topic for another discussion. ^_^ --nihon 01:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, if everybody just keeps doing what they have been voluntarilly doing all along the effects of the directors resignation (if any) will be minimized. Proclaiming "this is bad" when in fact nobody knows anything much about what has happened at all seems, to me, to be counter-productive - akin to making a mountain out of a mole-hill. For all we know what has happened with the director is for the best of the community and is good. The reality is probably that we should be thankful for what Essjay has done and if that is the case then thank you Essjay. --MrMiagi 17:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course, Essjay was a great wikipedian! But, the reason I say bad, is because we don't know what it means. Prodegotalk 14:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you actually need a "director"? Dan100 (Talk) 15:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Creating a template for notifying responsible users

Hey guys, I'm curious if you guys would think it'd be a good idea to create a template that we could put on troublesome IP addresses to inform responsible users that they ought to contact their IT/administrators about the issues we've been having with their fellow work/college/schoolmates? I've posted a message on a few troublesome IP addresses in the hopes that someone will contact their school admins like one student did a few weeks ago. I don't think EVERYONE will do it, but there might be a higher chance that someone will take action if we personally create a message asking them to. What do you guys think? --LifeStar 20:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Any ideas? Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 20:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I was looking on wiki for a little bit, but I couldn't find any articles on how to create my own template. If someone could point me to something about it, I can work out a small template and let you guys weigh in on what you think. --LifeStar 20:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
It's just a regular page. Go to Template:Itnotify (or whatever you think the best name should be), click on the redlink, and make it just like a regular page. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 20:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's my Idea:
==Welcome!==
Welcome! We are aware that your IP address is shared by a number users. There may be warning messages
waiting for you, that may not be directed at you. If they are not, we encourage you to contact your
ISP, or IT Admin. Abusive users, such as those sharing your IP address, may cause this IP to be
banned from editing. If you know the person or persons causing this, please contact them, 
ask them to stop, and remind them of the possible consequences.

Something along those lines.... mayhaps a touch less threatening ;] --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 03:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Id support that however we may have a template of similar nature. --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

defcon

we should have a babel box sized version with the number just like the current babel but only the number and short comments. --Adam1213 Talk + 07:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice idea --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

John Seigenthaler Sr.

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/12/05/wikipedia.rules.ap/index.html

This really is an embarasment. I hereby start/continue discussion on how to deal with incidents like this. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:CVU2.PNG
 This article is closely monitored by the Counter-Vandalism Unit for vandalism. Please use edit summaries to avoid your edits being mistaken as such.

A suggestion. Feel free to improve the template. All articles currently "watched" by the CVU should be labeled with this assuming there are no objections. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

People like John Seigenthaler Sr. and CNN reporters dont know about our existance and are rightfully stressed. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is the "S" in "Summaries" capitalised? Izehar (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Typo? :P, fixed. People feel free to edit the template. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, no kidding on how embarassing this incident is. Remember Cool Cat, we're not an official org. within wiki, though that would be nice, he will never hear about the active # of users who patrol and try to reduce vandalism as much as possible. With that lack of knowledge, critics will continue to have more ammo to shoot at sites like wiki that depend on open-source inflow of data. Anyhows, one sad day for CVU indeed. --LifeStar 19:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any idea at all what this makes you people sound like? You have absolutely NO official status yet you "patrol" Wikipedia and impose your will on other users.
And you're not even doing a decent job of it.
I've just been accused of vandalism by one of your "patrols" (shades of the "Thought Police") for doing something the Wikipedia guidelines SPECIFICALLY STATE is NOT vandalism.
But then, that's the trouble with movements like yours, isn't it? You start out with the best intentions, before long you think you're not only entitled to enforce the rules but to start making up your own!
I'm not surprised your "director" took an instant "powder". Sensible guy.

BTW, Cool Cat, where do you propose we put this template of yours? In the actual article itself, talk page, bottom of the article? --LifeStar 19:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think a template's needed; it will make the article a target for more vandalism. Izehar (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I would not like to see this on article pages. We really don't need to advertise that we are getting vandalism on a particular page, we just need to clean it up quietly (I've even had doubts about the "vprotected" template - although at least that explains why an article is locked) -- sannse (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Why an aritcle is locked can be explained on the talk page for the benefit of the editors not the readers. Izehar (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Such templates are a terribly bad idea. Anything that acknowledges vandalism encourages it. The proper response to vandalism is to revert it, quietly, and to deal with the offenders appropriately within the scope of blocking policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with sannse and Kelly. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The thing is this is in the talk page on articles that are already hammered by vandalism. The problem of being quiet is CNN reporters being unaware of our existance. Being brodcasted on national TV as an "uncredible source" and that "we aren't making an effort to prevent such incidents" is very very bad publicity for wikipedia. There is no reason to hide the fact that George W. Bush is getting hammered on a hourly (or much less) basis. --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems that Kelly and Kat beat me here to say this is a bad idea. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 20:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Not even a notice on the talk page of the blocked article? How will editors know why it is locked? Izehar (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm talking about the new template, not {{vprotect}}. Vprotect works fine as is. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 21:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I also agree, I can't see it would provide any deterrent and may just act as a magnet. --pgk(talk) 20:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Well I propose we put this to the talk page to articles who are already vandal magnets. Vandals will vandalise anyways. WP:FAC is a vandal magnet if you think about it. It would advertise the CVU page (and give vandals the very CVU page to vandalise rather than actual articles). I do not think this template would make George W. Bush a greater target. The media and critics dont know about people like us because of our paranoia about "vandal magnets". Of course I am being blunt (as usual), no offense was intended. --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Cool Cat, I just don't see it as useful. It appears to be directed at casual editors, but they won't see it on the talk page. And if it is on the article instead, then it will be seen by vandals, who will try to get us to add it. The best way to deal with vandals and trolls is always to feed as little as possible. And for readers.. the presence of a big template saying that an article is subject to vandalism will, in my opinion, be more embarrassing than the (usually) brief instances of vandalism -- sannse (talk) 19:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps but I really feel we need to tell poeple that there may be stiff on George W. Bush RC patrollers miss as RC patrol cannot win the war never ment to conclude. --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Just to point it out, User - User:LettuceSalad is vandalizing pages and placing John Seigenthaler Sr. as committing acts throughout history. I don't have the time to deal with the user right now. Avengerx 17:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, first thing, the constant indenting is giving me a headache. Second thing, I've listed this user on the admin's intervention page. They've blocked the user for 24hrs. We'll see what happens after that. --LifeStar 19:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)