Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Archive 4

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 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 →

Contents

Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges

Discussion is kicking off again over proposals to grant rollback privileges seperately to adminship, with lower requirements than typical on RfA. I'm sure this is something many CVU members would be interested in. the wub "?!" 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I greatly endorse the implementation of this policy. -MegamanZero|Talk 20:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Kind of related. It seems the god-mode light script, which many in CVU seem to use, screws up HTML tags in articles when it's used to rollback. I do not know if this is a known bug. But I guess for now I'll try to do manual reverts until this policy is accepted and IF I am accepted by it. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 14:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I haven't used godmode-light since I got my mop, but I know this was a problem with an earlier version. Was this an issue with someone using an older copy or does it look like it's popped up again? Looking at Sam Hocevar's site, it looks like the script was updated on 9 January 2006. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, that's the problem, I'm using an old version of the script. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 17:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • godmode-light always crashes when I try to use it (Failure to parse XML); having roll-back privs without the other sysop/admin privs would be very helpful, IMO. Avi 17:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I still think that reversion is a right that should only be granted to admins, anyone can become a member of the CVU with a simple user template and it would be an invaluable tool for vandals. I have no problems with manual reversion, until the day when I get nominated for adminship... haz (user talk) 18:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I now use godmode-light which is just as good as admin reversion. haz (user talk) 20:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, to the end user it's comparable, but really what that script does is automates opening up the old page in history, putting in the edit summary, and pressing "Edit this page". The admin revert button actually does a completely separate action from the server's side, and it creates less server strain. It's a helpful tool, but it's not "just as good". (Please note that this message has absolutely NO JEALOUSY involved due to this user's inability to ever get that script to work before he became an admin. ABSOLUTELY NONE. You'd be crazy for thinking that... *shifty eyes*) Mo0[talk] 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I still cannot get that blasted script to run. Oh well, just means all I add in the edit summary is "rvv" for now. 8-) Avi 22:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Charter

CVU does have members, as evidenced by the Counter Vandalism Unit Member category and subpages. So why do we state there are no members of the group? --nihon 23:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

CVU membership - dissolved not dissolved

CVU membership is hereby disolved. This does not mean CVU is a thing of the past it is just undergoing a major reform due to circumstances. Some people think they are exempt from wikipedia policies for being CVU members. Such people only use or attempt to use CVU to satisfy their ego and act like complete idiots. I had this in mind since I was accused of sockpuppetary at a revert war on WP:AGF (I love the irony). I have no idea who the RV war was engaged by, probably a vandal trying to get me blocked or something which could very well be marmot. I suspect marmot for almost every vandal/troll attack I recieve as its likely true. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with this. As there is no leadership of CVU (based on the recent elections), I don't think one person should be able to dissolve CVU on a whim just because one or two individuals are acting poorly, or because you're feeling bad because you were accused of being a sock puppet. If someone is abusing the site, they should be blocked or banned, regardless of CVU membership status. This is just a kneejerk reaction and accomplishes nothing. --nihon 00:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nihon. I have absolutely no idea what all this is about, but Cool Cat you don't have the right to destroy CVU like this, even if you did create it. If you have concerns with the behaviour of specific users then by all means take it up with them or take it to RFC. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 00:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I have found some of the actions of some people who identify as CVU members at times embarrasing and unhelpful. I have also at times found some of the pretentious discussion, quasi-military attitudes, and attempts to introduce unneccesary process into this group to also be a bit silly. More than once, I've considered removing myself from the list of members. I've stayed because as an informal group of interested Wikipedians working to combat vandalism, I have found the resources and information to be helpful on occasion, as well as identifying some fellow editors that might feel the same way as I do.
This seems like a good time for interested people to discuss how to keep this group as more of an informal, self-identifying grouping of Wikipedians working against vandalism and sharing resources - and how to move away from some of the more silly and frankly juvenile actions of the past. This group doesn't need a "leader", and it doesn't need to pretend to be anything more than what it is - a grouping of like-minded people working to help make Wikipedia better. --Krich (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I have not disolved CVU (nor have found it), I only am saying we will no longer have a 'formal' list of members etc. As far as true CVUers are concerned nothing changed. There are people who make liabous statements, act like dicks, cause problems, and think they have every right to do so. The halo they are causing is destroying CVU slowly by polarising a community against CVU. Such people are likely vandals or clueless newbies. Either way CVU needs to be pruified from such problems. We either get rid of membership or need arbitrary rules for membership which I am not keen on as I would likely not meet the criteria. --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that you made this decision alone, without discussion here on the talk page first. I do respect the fact that you created this group, but things do revolve around consensus on Wikipedia, not personal fiat.
I'm afraid I also disagree with your last sentence. All "membership" means is that someone has self-identified with the goals of this project. That's just fine. No additional membership rules or instruction-creep-like processes need to be introduced. People act like dicks sometimes. They get called on it. No big whoop. The only other category I belong to is the Recent Change Patroller thing - lots of people in that cat act like dicks on occassion as well, but that doesn't mean we need to delete the category. Just call the dicks on their dickery, and move on. Feeling that some special process or qualification is needed for this group is part of why some folks think CVU is a means to self-aggrandize themselves. People who do that are seen for what they are, and special membership qualifications won't help - nor will removing what can be a helpful Wikipedian category, in my opinion. --Krich (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Director idea backfired, I wanted CVU to handle its own affairs and directors take care of trolls and other idiots but parts of the community declared CVU a military organisation with that. CVU is bounded to be destroyed without community support. We are supposed to be a body that solely exists "for great encycylopedia". You cannot foreibly do "good", thats the boundry of "road to hell is paved with good obsessions" territory. --Cool CatTalk|@ 01:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to come up with some simple statements of what CVU is and does, and then go with what Krich said above and let people self-identify with the group or not. Even if CVU was created by one person, one person can no longer make unilateral decisions which affect the entire group. The category does not need to be deleted, and membership does not need to be "removed". CVU is useful, regardless of the relatively small number of people who seem to have it out for us. There should be no requirements for CVU other than a desire to help make WP a better place by reverting vandalism as quickly as possible. As long as we make it clear that CVU members are no better or different than any other WP editor, I don't see any reason to "dissolve" CVU.

I also think that anyone who wants to keep CVU membership around needs to go here and vote Keep so that the few editors that have it out for the group don't get us knocked out. --nihon 06:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering that of those editors who have commented on this issue, so far only one has argued for removing the CVU membership category, I'm going to temporarily remove the "dissolved" statement that was added earlier. If the discussion and consensus moves toward getting rid of the category (or I guess if it is deleted at the CfD discussion), the statement can be re-added. --Krich (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the CVU is a WikiProject in all but name. No doubt we'd be considerably less controversial with a name like WikiProject:Vandalism Monitoring and Prevention. WP:VMP is even available! In any case, because we are so much like a WikiProject, I am firmly opposed to any sort of policy that attempts to establish requirements for membership. The only things we should ask of potential members is that they be willing to roll up their sleeves and shovel the shit while at the same time not slinging it at anyone else. We should have self-declared members, too, since it helps establish a community. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider, and one who finds the manner in which much of the way in which the CVU has conducted itself in the past quite annoying and off-putting, can I say that an informal group would be far better. Use Wikipedia:RC Patrol. Create a category Category:User RC Patrol. Hell, create a userbox if you want to. You don't need to be a "member" or a "community" to fight vandalism. As Nike would say, "just do it". You don't need lists of members, charters or anything else. You just need people who say that they are committed to fighting vandalism. This has the added benefit of not being misleading to newcomers to Wikipedia who think you have to be a "member" of CVU to fight vandalism, even though it explicitly says you don't have to. If you work in such a manner, you will find that the community becomes much more amenable. The way to get on better with the greater community is not to say "up yours" and ignore them. It is to listen and find a way to work together for the greater good of the encyclopaedia. [[Sam Korn]] 15:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, since the CVU is not even an "official" organization sponsored by the Foundation, we're already an informal group. There is no one person who is in charge of the group, there are no real requirements to join the group other than the basic "roll up your sleeves and get to work without causing problems" mentioned several times by different people already. Yes, there appear to have been some editors who think being a member of CVU somehow makes them better or more special, but we generally try to deal with those individuals as best we can. I personally haven;t seen any of the CVU editors telling anyone "up yours" and ignoring someone just because they are a member of CVU. All the people I've been working with have trying to "work together for the greater good of the encyclopedia," just as you said. --nihon 16:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally agree more or less with Cool Cat. I've always perceived and treated CVU as a loose collection of Wikipedia editors who have a strong feeling about preventing and removing vandalism, although I have no problem with the concept of membership in terms of people who declare themselves in meeting those ends, I do have a problem when it start being perceived as anything more than that loose collection of editors. I believe use of a category in itself is a move away from that perception, so I voted to remove the category and stand by that. I also believe that the number of people identifying themselves as CVU members has also caused a problem, without a formal structure procedure for removal etc. etc. we do end up with a problem as Cool Cat describes, many people identifying themselves under the CVU banner but probably causing more trouble than they contribute to the general goals of the other CVU "members". To that end I can only see two ways forward, a formalisation of CVU (which I don't see as workable nor desirable) or as Cool Cat suggests a removal of the current "membership" concept and making it quite clear that everyone is acting on their individual initative and fully accountable for their own actions.

I can also see that Cool Cat != CVU, but to many he is perceived as just that and he has also made an enormous contribution to CVU. As such he does get criticised by others for the actions of those he has no control or influence over (probably some he's never heard of before). I certainly wouldn't want Cool Cat to feel he has to basically walk away from this to distance himself from that unfair criticism, so I certainly believe we need to consider Cool Cat's opinion carefully and face that major reform may well be in order. --pgk(talk) 17:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Editors who are misbehaving should be dealt, regardless of a CVU logo or category on their userpages. There are things that are more useful for people loosely identifying with this project^H^H^H^H^H^H^H cause, such as the IRC channel, notice lists on here, etc. Many editors simply want to contribute, preferably in a vandal free environment, but do not want to actually have to deal with mopping it up. Our collective helps to make things better for everyone. I'm all for removing any List of participants or labeling the category as such, but feel there is nothing wrong with someone who chooses to identify themselves with this endeavor. Could this whole conversation be as simple as changing the userbox logos from "This user is a member of the Counter Vandalism Unit" to something like "This user participates in Counter Vandalism"? I'm still in favor of the markers and categories. xaosflux Talk/CVU 18:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Having though at bit further I suppose what I was saying above is that CVU is not a formal organisation, so having a formal membership seems out of place. Maybe CVU should be retitled and made more clear it's just a meeting point for those interested in anti-vandalism work and as per Xaosflux let people put userboxes saying "this user is an active vandal fighter" on their pages if they want. We also should remember that there are lots of anti-vandal editors who do not associate themselves with CVU, so a more neutral userpage decoration maybe more appropriate anyway. --pgk(talk) 18:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't look at an user's userboxes or WikiProject membership when dealing with vandals or trolls. I don't care if you call yourself a member of the CVU, if you did something blockable, a block is coming your way. This is an overblown issue. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree Titoxd, if someone does something worthy of a ban they should get it, regarless of being a cvu member, an anon, or even a sysop. There have been a VERY few instances where I didn't revert some large blanking, partially due to a cvu marker on the blanker's page (of course not all blanking is vandalism, and I try not to revert anything without good reason, but) it helped speed me on to the next article for editing or review.) xaosflux Talk/CVU 19:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that's exactly the point though. The indivduals are acting on their own account, yet we are finding that some people are lumping it together as CVU activity. It's not a formal organisation so why retain a formal membership? --pgk(talk) 20:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Afraid I can't buy that argument. The same can be said for the subjects of most WikiProjects, and yet most have member lists, and many include their own categories. It makes it easier to call for help or conference on topics. I'm saying this from the perspective of someone who doesn't do the IRC thing and therefore can't rely on that as a method of communicating with other members. The fact of the matter is there are many project space articles all over the place that talk about dealing with vandalism, but they are painfully decentralized. That is why I think a user entity like the CVU not only needs to exist, but it's important to associate faces (or signatures at least!) with it. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 20:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
That's what Wikipedia:RC Patrol did until CVU came in. My main gripe against CVU is its very title; the "Unit" is misleading, giving the impression of a set of Wikipedians who are detailed to fight vandalism. It suggests that Wikipedians are given specific rôles to play, and, by extrapolation, that they cannot perform others. While I fully understand that this isn't the intention, it is nonetheless an effect that exists. Out of curiosity, why do you need faces/signatures to associate with? This isn't a social club, after all. [[Sam Korn]] 20:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Nope, it's not a social club, but we're not working in a vacuum, either. It is a community, and having a list helps me more easily associate people with patterns and methods. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that the discussion has been pretty one-sided so far - in a good way. I haven't really seen anyone recently who wants this group to be some sort of quasi-official group, in any shape or fashion. Suggestions by a few to move in that direction have been dismissed in the past. So far, I see a fairly universal consensus for keeping the group as an informal project page where resources and tips for fighting vandals can be shared. I know that when I first came to Wikipedia, having all that anti-vandal information in one place was handy for a new person who wanted to contribute in this way. If anything, the movement here is toward making CVU even more informal, more like the Welcoming Committee or other casual associations.
I think Xaosflux's idea of slightly modifying the category to read "This user particpates in Counter Vandalism", or some similar reference is just fine. I personally don't give a damn about being a "member" of anything - I honestly don't see why some folks so object to the word member (it seems it's because a couple of people have acted dickish), but what we call the association doesn't really matter much. But there is no reason at all that I can see for picking CVU to decide suddenly that self-association with a helpful Wikipedian group is bad.
Perhaps Abe's idea of changing the name to something that sounds a bit less militaristic and quasi-official would be a good idea too. His WP:VMP moniker sounded good to me.
Sam, I think an informal association like this is all about individuals just "doing it". When I added my name to the member list not long after I started participating at Wikipedia, it was because this was a project page where I found a lot of centralized information that helped me to learn how to fight vandalism. No one "deputized" me, and until this situation sprung up yesterday, I don't think I've ever even referred to CVU before. I, (and everyone else I've seen), work on my own, bumping into others at times, but mainly just using this place as a casual information resource. If someone is acting like a dick, they should be called on it. CVU doesn't mean a damn thing, it's just a place, and a gathering place of sorts for people who are wierd enough to enjoy or at least be willing to spend time doing the mindnumbing work of removing the large amounts of casual vandalism that happens here. That's all I'm defending.
I see this project as being all about writing the encyclopedia. Removing vandalism, talking to users who vandalize and attempting to bring them around to being productive editors (or if necessary, identifying those users who are persistant vandals who do not contribute) is a vital part of making Wikipedia work. Having a place to learn how to do that properly, and seeing that many other Wikipedians see the activity as a worthwhile endevour, is a Good Thing for the project. This isn't about making a clubhouse, it's about working to make the encyclopedia better and stronger.
Let's move forward with toning things down a bit and making things more informal and informative. Removing the category won't help that goal, in my opinion. We are spending a lot of time discussing an issue that most of us already agree on, and that is rather unimportant compared to what we could be spending the time on instead - improving this group as a resource, removing vandalism, and making an encyclopedia. --Krich (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
How I see or want to see CVU:
  1. CVU is a list of users loosly binded in a completely informal manner dedicated in combating vandalism. The list of users category is like a sub page of RC patrolers category. Perhaps it should be as such or deleted.
  2. None of the CVU "members" are "protected" from any more than a complete "outsider"
  3. CVU has a structure thats nothing remotely close "millitary". No one is in charge as the supposive "commander in chief" (aka me (not my claim but some people see me as such)) cannot even get his "men" (CVU members) to delete a category.
  4. CVU "membership" should be treated no diferently than wikipedia "membership". None of the actions of the CVU "members" are my or anyone elses responsibility. If a person joins CVU and comit problematic behavior he should be treated with equal "sympathy" as an outsider.
  5. What CVU is and what it is not should not be discussed, its a waiste of time. CVU is nothing special. The Wikipedia namespace page is intended to guide newbies into being RC patrolers.
Any disagreements? --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Comments:

  1. I think it is the same as any other user category, though perhaps a little more organized than most.
  2. No disagreement here.
  3. Only a tiny number of editors on the site have accused CVU of being militaristic, and those comments were already dealt with. As for getting members of CVU to agree they want the category deleted, that's absurd. Since only you and a small handful of others see any reason why it should be deleted, and a large number of the actual members of CVU don't want it deleted, why do you think they would go along with your unilateral action? You didn't even have the courtesy to attempt a discussion first before causing this whole mess.
  4. See 1, above. I think, based on the responses of various other CVU members, that the majority of CVU members don't think they should receive any sort of special treatment just because they happen to spend more time fighting vandalism than someone else on the site. In fact, several of them have indicated that they don't think there should be any special treatment.
  5. CVU should be treated the same as any other user category or group. Therefore, one person (even if that person is the "founder" of the group) should go making unilateral decisions without first discussing those actions with the rest of the membership. --nihon 22:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
True but:
  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. Well I am held resposible for the actions of others, I am tired of being told CVU was a bad idea by a number of people. I never claimed to be in charge but people think I am, this incident proves otherwise. I had to prove thhat in a WP:Point manner tho and hence should be blocked for 24 hours or something.
  4. The people who demand special treatment (which they have even suggested on this talk page) is a serious problem. Aside from removing the membership category, I do not see a way to do that. Also see: User talk:Cool Cat/Archive/2006/01#WP:AGF.
  5. Yes
--Cool CatTalk|@ 12:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, to whomever wants special treatment by picking up one of the CVU's userboxes: HELL NO. If anyone is actually using the CVU as an excuse to vandalize/troll/bully/be a general idiot, they not only be blocked, they will be kicked out of the CVU, added to the IRC channels' autoremove list, and added to a public black list here on Wikipedia. If that's what it takes, then that's what we'll do. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree: anyone who is demanding special treatment or implying that CVU members deserve special treatment needs to be smacked down. CVU members are no better than any other WP editor, and do not warrant special treatment. --nihon 02:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Thats what I wanted to hear. However how can we force a person not to use the CVU userbox? There are few people that are blocked regularly for trolling whom declare themseleves as CVU members. They do RC patrol to some end but in the end they are still are dicks that should be circumcised like there is no tomorow. --Cool CatTalk|@ 09:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
CC, we shouldn't be concerned with forcing anyone to do anything. In my opinion, we need to be much less concerned about defending the "reputation" of this group. If someone acts in an inappropriate way, it should be dealt with in the normal ways. Whether they choose to self-identify with this group, even having a userbox to that effect, really shouldn't be any of our concern - or the concern of anyone else when dealing with those inappropriate acts. --Krich (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

One thing I would say, maybe if some people are thinking that CVU is a military organisation, the first thing we should do is consider renaming ourselves. The very fact that we have a name which sounds like a military unit, could make people think we are treating ourselves as such. Think of the list... "Counter Terrorism Unit"..."Counter Espionage Unit"..."Counter Vandalism Unit" - They almost feel like the same kind of contextual use. I will still consider myself a member of the CVU for as long as I see fit. But we do need to consider killing the military image, really... Thor Malmjursson 14:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Talk to Thor

I wouldn't worry about it. I think we should just let how we work speak for itself. There have been a few changes, especially on the front page, that should help alleviate any such concerns. --nihon 20:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The CfD was recently closed with the decision made to KEEP the category. --nihon 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

There are over 8 userboxes I think. There really should be only two (or one with an image parameter since we can use if else statements in templates now).

There also is a need to reworded the userbox templates. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit/members

As the old memberlist was long replaced by the category, and it's use is controversial right now (and up for MFD), I added a brief version of the old information back to the main CVU page, attempting to use nuetral terminolgy for it's use, and not encouraging membership but still stating a way to associate with this cause, as there is no current consensus to remove the assoication. Hopefully this isn't too bold for anyone. xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I did some rearranging of a couple things on the main page to make it more clear. --nihon 03:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How to join?

I don't know how. Do I just place the Counter Vandalism Unit thing on my profile? Someone tell me.--Jnelson09 00:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly that. --Zsinj 04:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


The Status of Protest on Wikipedia

Wikipedia it seems does not delineate between freedom of expression and the right to protest and vandalism. Wikipedia is supposed to be a viable source of information. In my mind it must also be an "appropriate" source of information. But if we can't conduct peaceful, nonviolent protests on the texts of actual articles which people find disturbing (i.e. queef) what kind of message are we sending across to people who wish to protest but find themselves being blocked as a result of what editors consider "vandalism". I agree with the sentiments expressed by some that a template that has been termed as "nonsense" (Wiki-Protest) should be allowed in order for editors, WPs, and contributors to protest what they consider as harsh, racist, or inappropriate wikipedia articles in a manner outside of the normal spectrum for wikipedia. What do you all think about this? A friend of mine was blocked recently for participating in this kind of protest. -- Dominick_Turner

Wiktionary

I have been getting cries from wiktionary about the large amount of vandalism. Banana04131 04:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My bot is watching for that at #wiktionary-en-vandalism on freenode. No one is using the bot so its just posting results.... :/ --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
If they're having vandalism problems over there I wouldn't mind manning their vandalism IRC channel whenever I'm online. --Zsinj 02:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have Tawkbot2 monitoring for any changes, I am monitoring the channel as well. Tawker 00:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Defcon proposal for CVU

Have been looking at recent changes tonight and also been in channel on #wikipedia-en-vandalism - have seen an awfu lot of users getting blocked tonight for vndalism. In view of this, I would like to propse Defence Condition upgrade to WDefcon4 for the next 12 or so hours... seems to be a lot of crud going down tonight. Thor Malmjursson 06:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Talk to me

Feel free to do so, defon is editable :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 21:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Was bold. . . and changed it. Have noticed a lot particulary on articles on main page. Banana04131 02:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny

I got a real hoot out of the project page here.. Defcon ratings :O? Pages dedicated to trolls with all thier vital statistics? And a literal image of them? For instance Willy on Wheels is literally on wheels. Haha. Keep up the good work! :O) --Depakote 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Category?

Should the main page be in a category? --nihon 09:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Which one do you suggest? -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
How about those ones? (I added three to the main page). --nihon 02:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Reports to WP:AIV

I've noticed that a lot of recent reports were made by people who sent a {{test3}}, {{test4}}, or {{bv}}, then immediately reported the vandal to WP:AIV. Looking around, I noticed that WP:CVU#Combatting contains instructions for reporting vandals to WP:AIV. I wonder if we should clarify these instructions to say that you should first check to see if the vandal actually vandalises articles after receiving the {{test3}}, {{test4}}, or {{bv}}? WP:AIV is meant to be a rapid blocking tool for non-admin RC patrollers to report on vandals who need to be blocked immediately. WP:VIP is used to inform other people to "check" on whether someone vandalises after having been warned. --Deathphoenix 17:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


godmode-light

Is anyone else who is using godmode-light to speed reverts having a problem in the last couple of days? A change was made where the links at the top of the Special:Contributions page now has a link to the user's block log too. Since then, godmode pukes on me when I'm attempting a revert, seeing the "Talk" link as the last editor, not the actual vandal editor. Is anyone else seeing this? Anyone know a fix? --Krich (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

at de.wikipedia the Godmode makes broken links at user contributions.de:User:Klever
I coded the change to Special:Contributions, and am planning more. I suggest contacting Sam Hocevar for details on the script, however; though advise him that the page will be changing for a little while. Rob Church (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
My only issue with the version of godmode light is when doing contributions based reverts on registered users that have User Pages, it is ok on the rest. xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Dealing with WoW socks

There's been a spate of WoW and ...is Communism accounts created within the last few hours, namely User:NSLE on dozens of tires!, User:Deltabeignet on infinty wheels!, User:Durin on wheels!, User:Shanel on many wheels, User:§ is Communism, User:ABCD is Communism, User:ABCD on Wheels. An admin might want to block these.... --BadSeed 07:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Defcon

In light of recent issues, I think it might be good to get rid of the Defcon level indicator. It's only slightly useful, and likely serves as a way to encourage vandals so they can see how high they can get it to go. I think if someone is interested enough to identify with the cause, they will already be watching the appropriate pages and will know when things are going down. --nihon 02:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested pages to watch for new "associates"

For those wishing to associate themselves with CVU, should we have a short list of "Good pages to watch" in the intro section on the main page? --nihon 02:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I second that motion. --Buchanan-Hermit 05:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I want to clarify: This would be pages like Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit, and other useful pages. Not frequently vandalized pages. They'll find those easily enough. (^_^) --nihon 07:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiDefcon and WP:CVU

WikiDefcon and CVU currently show different vandalism levels, even though they link to the same template. Any explanation?

Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 21:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Try purging. — FireFox • T • 21:24, 28 January 2006

US Government Staffers re-writing political articles on wiki

So this was brought to my attention from reading www.diggs.com & the Buzz outline, but apparently US Rep. staffers have been doing major rewrites of political articles regarding the people they're working for, or their opposition. The story was first reported by the Lowell Sun Online (http://www.lowellsun.com/ci_3444567) about one of the reps. from MA. Did some research & found that these staffers are still doing their POV articles as though there was no night! Apparently anything that is in the 143.231.0.0 - 143.231.255.255 IP range belongs to the US govenment offices. Keep this in mind if we see more of this kind of blatant POV editing on government officials and subjects. Later guys. --LifeStar 18:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Zinteresting. Hmm... We should watch those IP ranges. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Trademark/copyright vio

I believe the use of the Wikipedia and Wikimedia logos in the CVU logos is a trademark and copyright violation. --The Cunctator 07:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and it was determined that using them was acceptable. You can browse through the Talk archives at the top of this page to find the one or more times it's been discussed. --nihon 19:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Images have a clear link showing board permission. Please read the description pages first. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Sorry for taking this seriously. Please see: User:The Cunctator. User opposes any merit or organisation that propotes RC patroling and/or removal of vandalism. Also opposes semi-protection and god knows what else. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
User is a former arbitrator, and one of our most long-standing and respected contributors. Stop making personal attacks. Phil Sandifer 04:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not making personal attacks. He is/was with the userbox on his userpage. I am a long-standing and respected contributor as well, I do not declare stuff he is affilitaed like: "This user is a non-member of the Retarded Fascism Unit" which hurts me more since I know he is a former arbitrator who knows better. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't making personal attacks either, but I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I do not oppose RC patroling and/or removal of vandalism. I do oppose semi-protection, declaring "war" against "vandals", and the drowning of kittens. The Cunctator 01:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat is absolutely right on this one; the userbox is a personal attack, and Cool Cat's statements are on-target (if perhaps a bit embellished) given the clearly stated oppositions on the user's userpage. Essjay Talk • Contact 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not actually on target, no. But I'm sorry I hurt his feelings. --The Cunctator 01:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Few thoughts

Weighing in on this one, although I'm sure some misguided person will attempt to correct me. It might be prudent for the creator of the image to re-check with the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation to ascertain whether these logos are acceptable, in the light of the new policies on logo and trademark usage, which can be found on Meta. Also remember that the permission received was, at the time, a stopgap measure until a proper decision could be taken; there was no definite "yes" or "no" either way.

What I would remind all users is that the Wikimedia Foundation logos are, in fact, trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation, and are not licenced under the GNU Free Documentation Licence. Their existence on the Commons is considered controversial by some regular contributors there. Creation of a derivative work which could be considered to defame or dilute the Foundation or its trademarks, or one which would suggest an inappropriate relationship or contains implication of an endorsement from the Foundation is also going to be somewhat dubious.

The simplest and cleanest means of getting this sorted is to check again, and while there is no firm, Board-mandated answer (i.e. while you only ask, and get a response from, one Board member, which doesn't take into account new policies and precedents), vow to keep checking. The official position on this logo is also entitled to be changed without too much prior notice, so be cautious. Rob Church (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm.. Almost all wikipedia logos are in comons. They are the only unfree images allowed because of their interwiki usage.
As I explained this a thousand times. We work on foundations wikipedia. We dont work for the foundation, we are not payed for our efforts to remove vandalism, instead we are only bothered about the cosmetics of CVU (such as how the logo looks as if it is critical) by random people. Sometimes this "bothering" reaches to the point of harrasment (refering to the kim_ incident I experienced). is used on almost every page. Does that mean practicaly every userpage has a inappropriate relationship with the foundation. People are complaining the silly of everything regarding the CVU to no end and I am growing tired of it. My words are not directed at you RobChurch but to people who know who the hell they are.
If anyone has issues with copyright status of CVU logos, they should go directly ask the board. I don't have a reason to bother the board as I do not believe there are any issues with copyrights. --Cool CatTalk|@ 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I am the creator of the images (they have been touched up since I created them, but I created the originals). They were listed as copyright to the Foundation when they were uploaded (I did it personally). I don't have a problem with the Foundation enforcing thier copyrights, in fact, I suggested creating a Foundation committee to review derivatives, and volunteered to serve on it. The problem is, the new guidlines are somewhat unclear, and there has been no effort to clarify. (I'm beginning to think the Board just doesn't want to touch the issue of derivatives, as everytime it is mentioned (here, in IRC, on the Foundation mailing list, Meta) the response is "We're working on it, we'll get back to you soon." Given that it has been months since the images were created, I really don't know what to do with them. What I do know is that the same thing done with these needs to be done with the others (such as the much-loved "admin-mop" which is also my creation, it was quasi-approved just as the CVU images were, and should suffer the same fate as the CVU images).

I've begun creating non-derivative alternatives to all the derivatives I've created so far, and I've created quite a few; my understanding from discussions with various individuals in the higher ups of the Foundation (I won't name names as I don't want to get yelled at for mistaking the difference between a person and the Foundation) that until a formal policy was adopted and announced, and some system for approving derviatives was approved (which has not, to my knowledge, happend), derivatives could be created and copyrighted to the Foundation, subject to later action. If the Foundation wants to get rid of them, I have no problem with that: What I have a problem with is individuals making arguments for the Foundation by proxy. I fully support individuals raising issues, but it has begun to cross over into "This is what needs to happen"; "what needs to happen" is an issue for the Foundation (either the Board, a committee empowered by the Board, or the Foundation's counsel on instructions from the Board) to decide. Until a representative of the Foundation (and I mean those with the power to legally bind the Foundation, such as the Board) speaking on behalf of the Foundation with the intent to bind the Foundation, and not speaking on their own behalf as a Wikipedian (which is a perpetual issue: When are they speaking for the Foundation, and when are they giving their opinion), gives an order about what should happen to the images, they should remain exactly as they are. If it is really an issue, then it is a big enough issue for the Foundation to take the time to address it. Essjay Talk • Contact 19:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

My comments in a nutshell: I don't care what happens to the images, I've already created an reccommended the use of a new logo that is not a derivative. I don't have any problem with people raising concerns about the images. I do have a problem with anything being done about the images without all the facts being known, specifically, whether the Foundation opposes their existance. I will abide by whatever decision the Foundation makes, but it needs to be the Foundation that makes the decision. Essjay Talk • Contact 19:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Got to agree here, the foundation is the publisher, so if they have an issue with the use of the images in this context the foundation should stop publishing them, they are plenty capable of either asking for the removal or actively removing them. --pgk(talk) 21:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)