Template talk:Vandalism information/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 semi-protect 2 Size 2.1 Proposal 1 2.2 Proposal 2 2.3 Proposal 3 2.4 Proposal 4 2.5 Proposal 5 3 sorry for the rollback 4 Uhm 5 Poorly written defcon level discriptions 6 Gone? 7 Restored 8 New Defcon 9 Why doesn't Sockpuppets link to the Internet version? 10 Levels 10.1 Summary of proposal 11 Migration done 12 Probably won't ever be needed (I hope!) 13 Proposal 13.1 Draft Proposal 14 Speedy? 15 SILLY-O-METER ALERT LEVEL 1 - DATABASE LOCK RECOMMENDED 16 Blanked 17 Reason for sudden spike. 18 Ahoy, matey! 19 Defcon Level 20 Things have quieted down. 21 Requested move 21.1 Survey 21.2 Discussion 22 'do not glamorise vandalism' 23 "Weird Al" Yankovic's White & Nerdy music video 24 Level 3 25 New style 26 new way to specify styles 27 Question 28 Another new style 29 Even more styles 30 Wikidefcon 31 Consider moving to 1 32 Minor issue 33 New Design 34 Horizontal 35 So...it's like Defcon 2 right now 36 Consider moving to 1 37 Question 38 Immediate Recomendation 39 DefCon 1? 40 GameFAQs 41 Interesting article... 42 WP:AIV 43 Who can edit WikiDefcon? 44 Another question 45 defcon 46 Is Defcon automated now? 47 google bombing via defcon template?? 48 Dumb User requesting information 49 AIV backlogs 50 DELETED 51 Renaming 52 Adding a new level to the template 53 Help 54 Rewrote Template 55 Vandalism 56 Defcon one 57 Info 58 Interesting? 59 A scruvy trick! 60 Decimal levels

[edit] semi-protect

Could we semi-protect this Template? I think that anonymous editers shouldn't change the level on Wikipedia's gauge of vandalism.

Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 21:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size

One of the frequent complaints about this template is that it is too big. Since I don't know how many people actually read this page, if no one complains, I'll shrink the template by a third. Is that all right? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thats alright with me as long as you also raise it to dc3. Theres Penises Everywhere!!!--mitrebox 05:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

During it's TFD discussin, shrink was brought up a few times. I wouldn't mind this being massively shrunk to only show the current level e.g.:

1:HIGH comments

instead of all the level as it is now:

1:

2:

3:

4:

5:

peniseseses!

GOTTA LOVE MY ASCII DRAWINGS TOO =) xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This shouldn't be too difficult. Simply crop the five dc levels and reupload them. Problem fixed! Zsinj^Talk 15:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 1

Well, does it really have to show all digits at all times? How about something like this:

4	WikiDefcon 4 Low to moderate level of vandalism.
Less than 100 edits/minute to begin with... only ~5 reverts/minute. Still some though. —Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Pros:

1. Smaller, won't attract vandals (at least not that many).
2. Looks like a userbox (actually it's derived from one) - can be hidden among others on a user page.

Cons:

1. Looks like a userbox. ;-)

I could design the other ones as well if you like it. Anyway, now waiting for your comments... *ducks for cover* Misza13 ^(Talk) 10:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Kinda cool... 68.39.174.238 22:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Support. Remove the comment and add a title and i'll be happy. Davidpk212 20:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I made a no-comment version (proposal 5) +Hexagon1 _contrib ^talk 11:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 2

Needs some photoshop work to flip numbers. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Now this talk page can't complain about high traffic... Anyway, my design is ready, lying in my sandbox, just waiting for a green light to be implemented. Misza13 ^(Talk) 20:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 3

Similar in size to Misza13's, the main differenc is it uses a graphic, and the generic description of the DefCon level is omitted (you probably know basically what each level represents, and anyway there's a one-word summary in the graphic). This is good to go and I'll place it on the template page. Herostratus 06:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. The graphic looks a bit rubbish. If the colours were static and matched... Davidpk212 20:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 4

Why does it have to feature an image, or be a userbox, or whatever? So, straight from the Usability Department...

WikiDefcon 1 2 3 4 5

WikiDefcon 4 Low to moderate level of vandalism. Comment: Less than 100 edits/minute to begin with... only ~5 reverts/minute. Still some though. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC) ([edit])

Not ready to go entirely, but will be ready by the end of today, wiki time. Inspired by the pH meter on this page. Includes comments on how to set the WikiDefcon. -- Davidpk212 17:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Now ready to roll! Use {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Davidpk212/}}} to insert on a page. Davidpk212 17:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment

• Nice design, maybe change the font colours to increase readability? --Grand Edgemaster _Talk 20:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Good idea, but when the other WikiDefcons are active, you can read them fine. The 5 is lit up now because that's where we are; when it's 4, the green will be darker and the blue lighter. We don't need to read it if it ain't relevant! Davidpk212 20:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I link this probably the best of all (Not by much, but still, gotta love simple stuff)... 68.39.174.238 00:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'm working on a smaller version to fit at the side of a page easily as we edit... Davidpk212 09:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal 5

This is identical to Misza13's, except it removes the comment. You can use it through this syntax: {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Hexagon1/}} +Hexagon1 _contrib ^talk 11:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

4 WikiDefcon 4 Low to moderate level of vandalism.

Support. Being so unbiased and all... +Hexagon1 _contrib ^talk 11:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sorry for the rollback

Apologies to Misza13 for the rollback. I was in automatic revert mode for everything with a Squidward edit summary and unfortunately Misza13's was right in the middle of a block of them on RC. Sorry again, BanyanTree 17:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's ok. People seem too alergic to "SQUIDWARD" in the edit summary though - relax, people. While horrific at first sight, this vandal seems pretty easy to deal with and clean up after... BTW, Banyan, it was not so automatic since I (not deliberately) made a typo in both the summary and the edit: [1] --Misza13 ^{T C} 17:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uhm

Anyone know why the template isn't showing up right now? T K E 18:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poorly written defcon level discriptions

Some of the defcon level discriptions are poorly written. I tried to figure out how to change them, but was unable to. How can I do this? - Conrad Devonshire 04:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It is the section under the part at the top where the custom message is entered. However, I would not edit them without first seeking out community consensus on this page. --Zsinj^Talk 07:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried editing them from there, but even after I changed the messages, they were the same as before on the Defcon meter. The changes that I wanted to make were just slight grammatical corrections and rewording. - Conrad Devonshire 00:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I was able to take care of it. - Conrad Devonshire 07:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gone?

Or is it just me? - Glen ^T _C 01:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be....—GH 02:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored

This page has been speedily restored. This action was noted on WP:DRV. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This template is very unstable. It keeps going and restoring. What will we do to stop this trend? Funnybunny 03:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This tempalte was only deleted once then restored. It is very heavily used though, and the cache servers may not have cuaght up with the restoral. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• This happened again when Coolcat G7'd the userspace content. It has been restored to my userspace. --Zsinj^Talk 15:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Someone is impersonating me and vandaliving pages or people are falsely accusing me on purpose!-Sabertiger^Talk-20:37 21 April 2006-Notify me if you see them!!!

• Sorry, I made a mistake! I'm not thinking right, I just got up!!!!!-Sabertiger-12:02 22 April 2006

[edit] New Defcon

Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 01:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)-I found it on the Commons. I like it and want to make it useable on userpages. How do you add the comment and all that yadda-yadda?-Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 01:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No offence, but that looks awful. (BTW, I made it a bit smaller so it doesn't screw up the page as much) And making it userpage worthy is no easy task, I don't know how you plan to add the comment to a picture. +Hexagon1 (talk) 08:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Didn't make it.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 16:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why doesn't Sockpuppets link to the Internet version?

It should link to Sock puppet (Internet) but it links to Sockpuppet instead. --Ssj4android 04:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fix that.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 13:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Levels

I hate how only level 5 can be used, rarely does anyone even let it stay at 4. Saying "5" all the time is very useless, its like giving a logrythmic scale for something that only needs a linear one, so you always get rounded of to the same number almost no matter what. There must be a better way to categorize the intensity, so that 5-3 can be used. That would still leave 1 and 2 as ridiculously serious.Voice-of-All^Talk 17:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

• 1 - Overwhelming degree of vandalism or extremely dangerous incitement. Wikipedia's stability currently in peril. Drastic measures (e.g. database lockdown) recommended.
• 2 - Immediate and currently occurring threat to Wikipedia's normal operation or Wikipedia itself (e.g. vandalbot or other rapid vandal attack)
• 3 - Multi-page vandalism of similar nature by a number of sockpuppets (i.e. WoW vandalism)
• 4 - Day time; normal level of vandalism from shared IPs and experimenting users.
• 5 - Night-time; few isolated cases of vandalism from different timezone IPs.
• 0 - Wikipedia currently out of operation or editing on Wikipedia temporarily disabled

Not much change, but is that what you have in mind? Also, do we need WDefcon 0? As how will you update it to that if you can't edit Wikipedia? >_> Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 17:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, stretching the lower defcon (i.e. higher numbers) does seem like a good idea. As of 0, the explanation above is a bit misleading. It's supposed to be used when there are problems with the recent changes - most notably a netsplit which renders all the IRC-based measures of monitoring useless. Misza13 ^{T C} 17:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If 5-3 where more reasoble (likely to occur) I would use this too go on RC patrol if it is in 3-1, like I did one time. But it is just impossible for most of the levels to get used unless it is the Wiki-Doomsday.Voice-of-All^Talk 04:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I would lump 1 and 2 together as 1 (doomsday), 2 becomes heavy, 3 becomes medium, 4 becomes light and 5 is peace. So, daytime now is either 3 or 4, at nights, it can be crazy as well, and when there is really only ordinary editing to do, well that is 5. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here you see that Wikipedia must not have anglo-american focus, I beelive it applies for Euro-american too. The world is round, and when it is night at home it is day abroad, so I think Kim's proposal is very good.

Does anyone expect to have a defcon 1? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess not, but you need it in case. I agree with the original poster that the numbers are skewed wrong, and Kim's proposal to merge 1 and 2 (never used anyway) into DefCon 1 and spread the former 5,4,3 among 5,4,3,2. Herostratus 05:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, if there is a consensus to change it I will change the description in the little window on my graphic if people want (It is currently 1=QUIET, 2=NORMAL, 3=ELEVATED, 4=THREAT, 5=SCRAMBLE, 0=(blank). It could maybe be changed to 1=QUIET 2=LIGHT 3=ACTIVE 4=ELEVATED 5=SCRAMBLE, or whatever.) Herostratus

I agree. Do it. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 22:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that motion!--digital_me^(t/c) 03:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but they should actually be reversed (i.e. lower numbers usualy mean higher danger in DEFCONs alike). I have created Template:Wdefcon/descriptions with MoP's text as the core. Feel free to adjust it. Now all the existing user templates should be adjusted to use them (i.e. {{Wdefcon/descriptions|level=X}}). Finally, since we have proper ParserFunctions, they could actually be reduced to single templates (not six as it is now) with a #switch:, but that's more of an effort. Misza13 ^{T C} 15:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't that hard. Take a look at the demo on User:Misza13/Wdefcon. Misza13 ^{T C} 15:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks very nice. I like it.--digital_me^(t/c) 17:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, right, had it backward. Should be 5=QUIET 4=LIGHT 3=ACTIVE 2=ELEVATED 1=SCRAMBLE. I'll change the graphic in the next couple of days or so. Herostratus 17:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, changed the graphics. Herostratus 04:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of proposal

So, basically, all existing incarnations (6 at the moment) can now be migrated with the following scheme:

User:Misza13/Wdefcon 0...5 => User:Misza13/Wdefcon

Check out my new defcon for an example usage of the {{#switch:...}} code. Basically, put them under one "/Wdefcon" subpage and redesign to use two parameters: {{{level}}} and {{{info}}}. {{{level}}} wil control the style. {{{info}}} is the user-supplied description. The "site-wide" descriptions are available at Template:Wdefcon/descriptions - to show the current one, you just write {{Wdefcon/descriptions|{{{level}}}}}. If anyone needs help with migrating their defcon to the new system, just ask below. Misza13 ^{T C} 10:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A start into merging your templates would be putting something like this into your Wdefcon:

{{#switch:{{{level}}}
|1 = {{subst:User:Misza13/Wdefcon 1|info={{{info}}}}}
|2 = {{subst:User:Misza13/Wdefcon 2|info={{{info}}}}}
|3 = {{subst:User:Misza13/Wdefcon 3|info={{{info}}}}}
|4 = {{subst:User:Misza13/Wdefcon 4|info={{{info}}}}}
|5 = {{subst:User:Misza13/Wdefcon 5|info={{{info}}}}}
| {{subst:User:Misza13/Wdefcon 0|info={{{info}}}}}
}}

Obviously, change "Misza13" to your username. Then you can proceed to tweaking it (for example, removing duplicate HTML code) and replacing general descriptions with {{Wdefcon/descriptions|{{{level}}}}}. When done, we'll smothly switch to this scheme on the main template:

{{{{{prefix|User:Zsinj/}}}Wdefcon
|level=2
|info=We're getting [[pwn]]ed! --~~~~
}}

and {{db-owner}} our unused subpages. Misza13 ^{T C} 11:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks really nice! When will you implement this into your userbox wdefcon?--digital_me^(t/c) 19:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My defcon is ready. But there are a total 6 (including mine):

• User:Zsinj/Wdefcon Done --Misza13 ^{T C} 09:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• User:Misza13/Wdefcon --ready!
• User:Herostratus/Wdefcon Done --Misza13 ^{T C} 10:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• User:Davidpk212/Wdefcon --so far only a redirect to User:Davidpk212/Wdefcon 5 Done --Misza13 ^{T C} 09:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• User:Hexagon1/Wdefcon ok --Misza13 ^{T C} 10:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• User talk:ILovePlankton/Wdefcon Migrated. Actually it was not of less height as it claimed - just full width. Misza13 ^{T C} 10:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If I find some time, I might do the migration myself... Misza13 ^{T C} 09:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Misxal3. I don't actually understand all this, but I'm sure its an improvement. I don't have do anything, right? Herostratus 04:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Migration done

Big news! I have applied the new scheme. All developers can now safely delete the current (i.e. the six 0...5 numbered) pages (or tag with {{db-owner}}, if you're not an admin) - just make sure I didn't mess it up, i.e. that they are no longer transcluded. All user styles are now managed with one subpage (i.e. every one of the six of us has one subpage) located at /Wdefcon (except for ILovePlankton, who has it in his talk space). Misza13 ^{T C} 10:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that the old templates are still shown as included via Whatlinkshere. I guess the servers need time to update... Misza13 ^{T C} 10:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I strongly object to day/night time classifications according to USA time. This isn't an American wiki, this is an English one. There's millions of us who aren't in the USA, and the number of countries speaking Commonwealth/UK English far outnumbers 1 (the USA). I'm switching my Wdefcon to the old descriptions. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Template:Wdefcon/descriptions is still open for discussion - I have only put a draft suggested by MoP there. I also don't like the day/night descriptions (I'm from Poland), but I understand they came from the fact that, as I believe, the majority of vandalism comes from the US. I'm still thinking of better wording on the descriptions. Misza13 ^{T C} 11:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing - we have decided above that the levels should be rescaled (old 1-3 becomes new 1-2 and old 4-5 stretches to 3-5), so the old descriptions you use now are a bit inadequate. Misza13 ^{T C} 12:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll use a modified version of the desriptions removing time references. It's available here if anyone wants to use it. But I still object to the time references. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 15:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Just remove the day-time and night time, because at the moment, it is a 5, but it is day time. If there are no objection, I will do that for the moment, until the remaioning discussion is solved. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How about something like this? Obviously, the descriptions need fleshing out.

• 1 - Apocalypse
• 2 - Blitz
• 3 - Wartime
• 4 - Semi-Peacetime
• 5 - Peacetime --Xyrael ^T 16:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

that's what we had before, and that is part of the problem. It was set on 5 most the time, because none-mild vandals is considered normal, hence peacetime. The new system looks like it will be more indicative. Only time will tell. Danl 00:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest using my system here. It's identical to the new system, except I removed the time reference for 4, and retained the old 5 description, as the new one was very US-time-centric. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm well OK. The thing is, most people using the DefCon template don't need a lengthy description of each level, I don't think. They probably pretty much know what the levels mean, at least after using the template awhile. That's the theory behind the graphics I made -- Just the level number, a one-word description of the level, and the extra info that the person setting the level has added. I changed the one-word description per above discussion (I could change it to other words per any consensus or send the Photoshop source to anyone who wants it).

• 5 = QUIET. I envision this to be used not that often, only when there is virtually no vandalism occuring.
• 4 = LIGHT. I expect the levels will most often fluctuate between 4 and 3. 4 is for pretty normal but a bit on the low side, and...
• 3 = ACTIVE is for pretty normal but a bit on the high side.
• 2 = ELEVATED will occur now and then, when there is an unusual amount of vandalism, a squidward-type attack(s) or just bunches of vandals coming out of the woodwork. It pretty much says to me that you should switch to vandal-fighting from whatever you are doing, if you're up for it.
• 1 = SCRAMBLE may be used rarely or never. I envisioned this as meaning "something really bad is happening, drop what you are doing right now and go find out what's going on and help fight it".

The thing is, at least for people using these graphics, the person setting the level kinda sorta has to more or less go along with the above description, or the graphic won't jibe with the detailed description. This is just a side-effect of the fact that my graphics include (one word of) text, not trying to force anything and I will certainly change the words in the graphic to meet any other consensus. Or people can just not use the graphic or whatever, just that if you're setting the level and are sticking to the old method anyone who is using the graphic will be getting contradictory info, sort of. Herostratus 05:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This probably makes more sense, actually, because then we might get to 2 more often. --Xyrael ^T 06:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well for people who are familiar with the system, we don't need any description at all, the level will do. But the descriptions are there to assist users who may be unaware of the system. If I just saw Quiet somewhere, it doesn't tell me anything about the vandalism level. What criteria is used to judge quiet? The latin wikipedia quiet may be one vandal article a year, the english wikipedia quiet may be anything from 1 vandal article an hour to several thousand per hour, or even more if someone isn't very familiar with the statistics, I've heard opinions that normal vandalism on en:Wiki is thousands of vandal articles a second! "Quiet" is not helpful at all. +Hexagon1 ^(t) |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 14:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, good points, so that's why it's optional, the default and other versions have the complete descriptions. I guess, for me, the DefCon tells me if I need to jump in... I sort of see it as something like 1=no need for anyone except hard-core vandal fighters, 2 and 3= regular vandals fighters would be welcome, 4 and 5= anyone capable of vandal fighting should jump in. The level is subjective, I guess, and based on the English Wikipedia as far as I know. I'm nowhere near experienced enough to answer that, but maybe someone else can. Herostratus 06:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Plus, you have again reversed the 5-1 scale. ;-) Misza13 ^{T C} 06:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Dang. Well at the least the graphics have it right. Herostratus 18:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Probably won't ever be needed (I hope!)

DefCon X: Building housing the servers is under concentrated mortar or artillery fire from very determined vandals. Herostratus 18:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another . Does that one explain itself? GangstaEB EA 19:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

OK, it's time to fish or cut bait, in my opinion. I think we should make a proposal. Something along these lines... edit or comment as you wish... when we (the people involved in this proposal, plus anyone else) have something that seems agreeable, maybe we could put a message on the talk pages of people who have used the template in the last few weeks or so, asking them to comment on the proposal to adopt or reject, and if adopted, make people aware of the new standard.

[edit] Draft Proposal

This proposal is to change the meaning of the WikiDefCon levels, by changin the default text and asking editors to use the new levels. Basically the proposal is to fold levels 1 and 2 (which are never used) into a single level one, and spread the other three levels into four levels. This proposal addresses the current situation where only levels 1 and 2 of the five levels are much used (occasionaly level 3), which is a waste of levels.

EXISTING TEXT:

• 1 = Overwhelming degree of vandalism or extremely dangerous incitement. Wikipedia's stability currently in peril. Drastic measures (e.g. database lockdown) recommended.
• 2 = Immediate and currently occurring threat to Wikipedia's normal operation or Wikipedia itself (e.g. vandalbot or other rapid vandal attack)
• 3 = Multi-page vandalism of similar nature by a number of sockpuppets (i.e. WoW vandalism)
• 4 = Normal level of vandalism from shared IPs and experimenting users.
• 5 = Peace-time, few isolated cases of vandalism.
• 0 =Wikipedia currently out of operation or editing on Wikipedia temporarily disabled

PROPOSED NEW TEXT (obviously, edit or suggest changes as desired):

• 1 = Overwhelming degree of vandalism or extremely dangerous incitement, or immediate and currently occurring threat to Wikipedia's normal operation or Wikipedia itself
• 2 = Multi-page vandalism of similar nature by a number of sockpuppets (i.e. WoW vandalism)
• 3 = Somewhat elevated level of vandalism from shared IPs and experimenting users.
• 4 = Low-to-normal level of vandalism from shared IPs and experimenting users.
• 5 = Unusually low levels of vandalism.
• 0 = Wikipedia currently out of operation or editing on Wikipedia temporarily disabled

Herostratus 18:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As metnioned before, level 0 is never attainable, as you wouldn't be able to set it, it IS used when rcp or irc feeds are down or malfunctioning, best to put it in non-beany terms though. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, of course... If Wikipedia is down or uneditable you can't set the DefCon... I missed that. Well, it could be set to 0 it editing was going to be suspended, if you set it beforehand... but that would probably never happen anyway. So for the 0... non-beany... would it be enough to spell it out? Like this: 0 =Internet Relay Chat and (whatever RPC stands for) are down? Herostratus 04:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The system is complex. Users include something like {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Bob/}}. This lauches the Wdefcon template, which calls Bob's Wdefcon template and feeds it the level. If no level has been fed to the template, level 0 fires up due to a {{#switch:}} in Bob's Wdefcon template. If you go to my template, for example, it will show as level 0. Same for everyone else's. But it's safe to assume that templates would fail before #switches do. And I like the scale, strong support. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Support with two add-ins:

1. The level 1 description is too long for the userbox versions (actually, it's about twice as long as the regular ones) and it bloats them unnecessarily (see my template for a showcase).
2. On level 0 - yes, obviously no Wikipedia==no Wdefcon, but when the IRC RC feed is down for some reason then it's way harder to determine the current vandalism level - that's what it's for. That said, I propose 0 - Vandalism level unknown. IRC monitoring down due to netsplit or other reasons/RC inaccessible.

Misza13 ^{T C} 12:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe something like "Vandalism level unknown due to system failure.", or something like that. Telling the vandals we can't monitor them is stuffing WP:BEANS up our noses. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So perhaps just Vandalism level unknown will suffice? Misza13 ^{T C} 09:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. Support! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So be it. I have done a rewrite of the descriptions, merging bits and pieces from both the original and the proposal. Feel free to trim it if it feels to long/still to beany. Misza13 ^{T C} 09:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks all-right. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How about something like "OH MY GOD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIIIIIEEEE!" for level 0. I mean if we're all screwed let's go out with a bang. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 03:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Mmm.... I second that!--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 03:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy?

When I was here a bit ago, this template was showing a speedy deletion tag. Now it's gone, & I don't see it in the history. Have I finally gone insane from editing too long?  :-) --Ssbohio 02:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably so, I just had a quick browse of the history and didn't see any speedy tag. Seek medical advice. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a complex template with various transclusions. The speedy delete was an attempt to clean out one of the transcluded templates, which then appeared on the main template page. And per the vandals reading these messages too, I'm not about to go into detail on how this template works. You don't need medical advice, for now. The vandals may cause certain psycological conditions such as annoyance, however. Kevin_b_er 07:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SILLY-O-METER ALERT LEVEL 1 - DATABASE LOCK RECOMMENDED

Why does level 1 once again recommend a database lock? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Because of what just happened? -Spring Rubber 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

They locked the DB because of the sudden server overload, not the vandalism. Locking the db doesn't stop vandalism; it just locks the current version of every single article in place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Although it would probably help in an all-out vandalism fest. -Spring Rubber 04:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the recommendations made on a userpage template are disregarded when it comes to db locks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Turns out the db was locked because the sudden increase in traffic downed an already-weak db server. It's been up and down all night. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanked

Just to give everyone a heads up the template was blanked. I restored it and will be watching it for furture blanking. I have also warned the User blanked it. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 21:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should semi-protect this template? --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 22:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for sudden spike.

Just incase you still don't know whats going on. Steven Colbert made a (sarcastic) request on his show tongiht, The Colbert Report for users to edit wikipedia to show a tripleing in the elephant population over last six months. The word on his show was wikiality, essentially truth is more about shared opinion instead of fact. YouTube Link [[2]] --mitrebox 04:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahoy, matey!

I made these for Severe weather terminology (United States), but y'know, they could be adapted for this template as a less military-style version... although the shapes might be awkward... anyway, somebody above (I forget who, sorry) did some magic with the templates and I'm not sure now how to make new template versions anymore... Herostratus 08:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• OK, figured it out, it's placed above with the others. Herostratus 04:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defcon Level

I think that either the levels of vandalism are slightly elevated, or other patrollers are less active. Do you know how I can tell? I, a slowpoke, have been able to sucessfully perform many reversions today. --Gray Porpoise 21:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Things have quieted down.

Quited? Shouldn't it be quieted? Whispering^(talk/c) 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Much Better. --Sakura Avalon 18:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

User_talk:Yanksox/Wdefcon → Template:Wdefcon – It's not a userbox. People who turned the template into userboxes have such template code to make it into a userbox already in the userspace. Its not a userbox, it should never have been GUS'd. Even the 'main' one is technically in User:Zsinj's userspace. Its a metatemplate, and should've remained in the template space, as its not a userbox. Furthurmore, the move to userspace flew in the face of a somewhat recent TfD in may. Kevin_b_er 15:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Template:" or "* User:" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Template: - yes, this isn't a userbox in itself. —Xyrael / 15:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• It is a box, and it goes on userpages. Template space is for encyclopedic things, more is tolerated in userspace. That's the principle of the WP:GUS and these is no good reason why it should not be followed here. Look, some of us would like to see the damn thing deleted - some others think it's fun - so userfying it is a compromise. No, it isn't my ideal solutions (which would be deletion) no it isn't yours (which would be something else), so let's meet halfway, like on userboxes, and go back to editing. Simple. --Doc 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Leave in userspace. I find it useful and don't want it deleted. So having it in the userspace is the best choice. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 16:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• I don't care. Put it somewhere and stop moving it around. --Chris (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Template: - more centralised, less confusing. More people will be eager to edit it, since Template: is a neutral ground, unlike User: - a certain resistance from editing others' "private" subpages is natural and would reduce the template's openness (read: usefulness). Misza13 19:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• User. Only because it will be likely destroyed otherwise. My understanding is that there is either a decision or a movement to delete all templates that are not used in articles? I'm not sure if that's so but there is certainly a faction that believes in that, I think. And all the more so for this template, which was mentioned in the CVU MfD as a negative thing also. Therefore it could be deleted out of hand, not going thru TfD. And it doesn't really matter whether its in userspace or template space. Of course being in userspace won't really prevent it from being deleted, either. So whatever the majority decision is is OK with me. I agree with CrazuComputer in that sense. Herostratus 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Templatespace. It's survived two TfDs already, it's unlikely to be deleted, and if it does lose a TfD, it would be moved to userspace then anyway, so there's no reason to make it hard for people now. It's not a userbox. --Rory096 03:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Comment I don't care, I'm just adopting this thing as it appeared to have been hit by GUS. After seeing what happening to CVU, it would seem like a good idea to userfy stuff to avoid controversy. Yanksox 15:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Why was this moved?!..It has already surrived MULTIPLE TFD's. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• But if GUS is now policy, it can be speedy deleted with out a TfD. Herostratus 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • People fail to understand that although it is used on many user pages, its original purpose was WP:CVU. This is not a userbox and does not qualify for GUS. --Zsinj^Talk 12:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
    • But with the CVU deleted it may now become a target for Speedy Delete. There has been an Anti-Vandal Delete Spree going on lately. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 12:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It just needs to be established that as xaosflux said, this template has survived several attempts to delete it. If it is speedied, I will personally speedy undelete it. (And GUS is not a "policy." It's a "just do it" which is appropriate for userboxes. --Zsinj^Talk 17:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it only appropriate for userboxes? --Doc 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The middle word of GUS is "userbox" afterall. Userfication aside from userboxes getting sent to user space en masse. Kevin_b_er 19:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That reasoning is totaly circular. I know 'u' = usebox. But I am asking why the same principle as the one we apply to userboxes shouldn't be applied to other non-encyclopedic templates? --Doc 19:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Because that's not what GUS is. Propose a new policy that incorperates GUS and non-encyclopedic templates under the same umbrella of userfication and have it achieve consensus. Then you can make that argument. --Zsinj^Talk 17:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Propose a new policy? GUS isn't a policy. You just do it. It is a compromise between myspace tendancies that want every type of crap in template space, and those who wanted to delete it all. That's a good principle, and you've given no good reason why we shouldn't apply it here. Why isn't that a good idea? Do we really need to have another userbox style war before people are willing to compromise? I trust not. Stop lawyering and start discussing. Is this a valuable tool which we should keep in the main template space? Convince me. Is there a consensus that it is useful? If not, let's either delete it altogether - or work out a middle way (just like we did with userboxes). --Doc 17:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I find it useful in that I usually drop what I'm doing and go patrol Recent Changes, New Page, New Account, and New User Contributions when the DefCon goes to 4, and sometimes when it goes to 3. So yeah the DefCon definitely provides useful information to me. And you can't really just paste it into each user's page (which is what GUS does if I understand it correctly), obviously, because of its structure and the need for a change to propagate immediatly into every location where it appears. But whatever. I don't like doing anti-vandalism patrol, and if the No Fun Brigade feels it's not worthwhile I'd be just as glad to stop doing it. Herostratus 07:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hero. I start patroling when it hits three and will drop what I'm doing if it is at two. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 06:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'do not glamorise vandalism'

Vandalism

Low to moderate level of vandalism.

[edit]

Less than 100 edits/minute to begin with... only ~5 reverts/minute. Still some though.

on the principle of not glorifying vandalism/trying to avoid making vandalism 'fun' for the vandals, maybe we should make a toned-down defcon?

my reasoning is that, for a vandal, it might be fun to try to up the defcon level -- hey look, defcon 4. i wonder if i can bump it up to defcon 3? -- and also that it makes vandalism 'game-like'.

i was thinking of something along the lines of replacing 'wiki defcon' with something nutral like 'vandalism', dropping the numbers, and just keeping the descriptions.

thoughts? --DakAD 05:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea. Though the numbers may be neccessary on a template level as we need to feed parameters to produce the descriptions, though we don't need to show them. Do you have any designs? We can put your design into the proper subpage of your userspace so others can use it, and by that the main example (currently it shows Zsinj's version on the template page). Kevin_b_er 07:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that some users (me included) don't read the descriptions when opening their user page, they just see a color or a number, and if it is high enough, then they read the description and they hop onto IRC or start Vandal Fighter or something similar. Removing the numbers would make the template less effective, IMO. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, me also. But anyway I think it's highly dubious that vandals vandalize to because of the DefCon, although it's not possible to prove either way. Herostratus 08:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

good point. would keeping the colour be enough? and, i'm not suggesting that the defcon itself encourages vandolism as such, rather it's a combination of things (the defcon being one) that makes vandalism more 'fun' --DakAD 07:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a note - there is one version of the template that displays only the number and even no colors (User talk:Hexagon1/Wdefcon). The way the template looks like is really up to you. What we could decide on is what the default (Zsinj's) version looks like, since it's the one still being most widely used. Misza13 11:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

thats actually what i meant (albeit not what i said): maybe we should make the default template a more neutral one, like mine or hexagon1's (or maybe a simple userbox that simply says Vandal|{{level}}, with {{level}} linking to the discription, something like that or either your or hexagon1's other template, but just with defcon replaced with something more neutral?

I finally figured out how the template works :-)

By chopping up Zsinj's and Misza13's templates, i made this one (example above)

Note the neutral tone, the lack of 'lets make 'em go up' numbers, and the psycological trick of making red indicate low vandalism, and yellow = high vandalism, so even making the color change hopefully shouldnt give the vandals any sense of achievement (actually, i got a bit confused and thought that 5 was a higher level than 1, but then liked the result :-D it gets more stark and attention-grabbing as the levels get more severe i think, without any chance of any 'lets push wikipedia into red alert' style fun-and-games for the vandals)

watcher recon? feel free to modify the template on User:DakAD/Wdefcon btw --DakAD 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this one to tell the truth. I prefere a simple one like Shane's Version, low key not to obivious. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 00:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

All this is well and good, as I think any number of versions can be added, and that's fine. I don't think any templates need to be deleted or replaced. It's a wiki. As long as the template is allowed to exist, folk should pick the version they like. I don't think deleting any versions is going to prevent the No Fun Brigade from deleting the template if they want to, anyway. The idea that flashy templates encourage vandalism and plain ones don't is dubious in my opinion, also. Herostratus 05:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. i'll leave mine up as another version, then, and if people want to use it they can :-)

again, if anyone wants to modify it/has any suggestions, go for it, as long as it keeps the toned-down feel (i made it smaller btw) --DakAD 19:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt that removing the numbers from the template will lower vandalism levels: Strong oppose. - Kookykman|(t)e 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Kookykman on this one. This seems like an instance of taking WP:DENY a little too far. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The current template might make vandalism "fun", but it makes reverting vandalism just as fun! I say leave it as it is. --Gray Porpoise 21:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Weird Al" Yankovic's White & Nerdy music video

Part of the new video has "Weird Al" blanking a page, replacing the text with "YOU SUCK!". "Weird Al"'s videos generally get considerible exposure online and on networks such as MTV. Could this pose a problem on Al-related pages? - Kookykman|(t)e 22:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the exact page was Atlantic Records, and has been vandalised recently. It's sprotected now, but keep an eye out.

[edit] Level 3

Has anyone else noticed it's almost always "significant levels of vandalism"? ReverendG 03:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Is Not! → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 8:11 am et 15 november 2006

Nope. It's level 4 right now. --Wizardman 15:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New style

see User:AzaToth/Wdefcon, for example:

WikiDefcon

Severe

High

Elevated

Guarded

Low

Less than 100 edits/minute to begin with... only ~5 reverts/minute. Still some though.

[edit]

 →AzaToth 01:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Very compact and unobtrusive (compared to the default one). Миша13 10:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] new way to specify styles

Have added the parameter style that will override the parameter prefix, and will make the template to point to wdefcon/styles/{{{style}}} _→AzaToth 03:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

How come the "main" wdefcon is on level 5, recommending a database lockdown, and the rest are on 1, saying everything is quiet and fine? Are they reveresed? Which one do I trust? | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 13:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 14:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another new style

WikiDefcon
Severe
High
Elevated
Guarded
Low
Less than 100 edits/minute to begin with... only ~5 reverts/minute. Still some though.

I liked Azatoth's, but the black didn't quite fit with my plain talk page. This one is modified to match the infobox class. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Even more styles

User:Gandoman/Wdefcon

I've made a style based on DakAD's more neutral version, but where the "Vandalism" header changes to reflect the Defcon level. Gandoman 19:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I even allowed to post this here?

green

[edit] Wikidefcon

Has the Wikidefcon ever gone up to 1? I know the US Military's Defcon never has. — DominiquePonchardier 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's happened 4 times in 6 months, all 4 reverted in under 5 minutes. As you can see here, it's never 1.--Wizardman 21:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consider moving to 1

I know this seems really drastic but I think we should consider turning the WikiDefcon to level one as Vandalism is at an extremely high level. Almost every IP address edit on Vandal Proof has been vandalism and I think extreme measures need to be taken. Any comments? Tellyaddict 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That alone isn't enough. Yes, there is a small backlog at WP:AIV, but I don't see anything that justifies your suggestion. Addhoc 16:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot of vandalism, yes, but still not enough to warrant the database being locked IMO. RC patrol will keep up with it, so let's keep it at 2. 193.217.243.135 14:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted at least 25 offensive edits in the last 20 mins and thats on IP's alone, and aswell as taking a break to type on wp:aiv. Tellyaddict 17:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Very simply- no you haven't. You have reverted 13 article edits in the last half hour, this is good work, but not exceptional. Addhoc 17:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor issue

How does one edit the individual templates? It appears that some backend code has been changed, and several of the styles are not showing all of the information (usually the signature). — BrotherFlounder 04:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Design

Ok, frankly - I wish I knew enough about conditionals and other stuff to do this, but I don't (in fact i know nothing) - so I have to ask someone else to. Can we get a horizontal version of the original? Thanks either way, --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 05:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horizontal

like this?

AIV Vandalism information/Archive 1's WikiDefcon is at 4 VC
Normal levels sustained.
newuser contribs ---- Change level

--Flyingidiot 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks pretty cool, I would suggest adding images on the levels 2, 4, and 5 also ;).Oh and I think it would look nicer if it was smaller so it wouldn't look so pixily. Arjun 21:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Just added the rest of the images. i will shrink it a little too- and add an off setting. i dont know why but i will.--Flyingidiot 21:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

---

AIV Vandalism information/Archive 1's WikiDefcon is at 4 VC
Normal levels sustained.
newuser contribs ---- Change level

AIV Vandalism information/Archive 1's WikiDefcon is at 4 VC
Normal levels sustained.
newuser contribs ---- Change level

added placename feature. will add user name to header if placename=yes if placename=no, it will add default header, if nothing it will add third header {{{prefix|User:Flyingidiot/}}}alert/desc}} Flyingidiot 22:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's great - but I do have a question, is there anyway to get it to be the same level as what the actual defcon is?--Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 20:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So...it's like Defcon 2 right now

What happens at Defcon 1? We let loose the nukes? Everyone hides out in the mineshafts for 100 years? Bwithh 01:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we just check our watchlists, AIV, RC, etc. Right now there is serious spamming of talk pages by arguably the same person using sockpuppets. | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 01:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, User:Cplot is unleashing another sockpuppet attack. PTO 01:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen about 4 on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks alone! | AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 01:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You must've been playing Fallout too much. :-) And btw, I don't remember it ever be on lvl 1 (legitimately that is, because silly jokes occur of course). Миша13 22:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It was at level one after the IP snafu last year.--digital_me 19:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The following scenario is an example of a level 1 Wdefcon:

Some dedicated anti-Wikipedia computer geeks create multiple Wikipedia bots and uses multiple proxies for these bots, so that the proxies can't be blocked. Then, they hack into the Wikimedia servers and disable all editing and user rights and give them to the bots, and then block every Wikipedia user. Then, the bots would crawl into Wikipedia and do the following to all pages: blank, delete, protect, then add some crap like "Wikipedia sucks" or something like that. The Wikipedia editors, watching in horror, cannot counter-vandalise the bots, since editing capabilities were disable and they're blocked. The admins, desperately trying to save Wikipedia, will try to block these bots, but will fail...And every Wikipedia article, project page, portal, category, etc. will vanish...

The previous scenario would be a level 1 Wdefcon, although users wouldn't be able to change the Wdefcon level anyway. :)

*Ed clearly watches too many action movies* :) Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've got another scenario: Stephen Colbert tells all of his viewers to vandalize Reality. Every damn Colbert Report watcher goes and vandalizes it. That sounds a lot more fun... *cough* :D. PTO 05:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Its amazing the kind of can of worms a popular media figure can open by entrusting their commands to be followed by loyal fans. I cannot help but think it a tad funny even though I never endorse vandalism :P...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consider moving to 1

Hi, Vandalism is at huge amounts at the minute. If the vandalism continues for the next 15 mins at the same level or higher I think we should consider moving to level 1. Any thoughts??? Tellyaddict 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

From looking at recent changes, it seems to me it's not even a 2. --TeckWiz^Parlate Contribs_@ 19:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Alert! I agree! Vandalism = Super High! RyGuy Sign Here! My Journal 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Tellyaddict and TeckWiz posted those messages two days ago Ry. :-) It's not too bad right now (WP:AIV is average length). · AndonicO ^{Talk · Sign Here} 18:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... It looked pretty bad 2 seconds ago... hmm.... well, whatever you say :-) RyGuy Sign Here! My Journal 18:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi, I'm an experienced editor but I was just wondering, is there a page or something where you can tell if the wikipedia servers are coping well; as a couple of weeks ago when Wizardman moved it to 1, he said in his edit summary the servers are almost crashing, as-well as this... is there are a more detailed description on how and when to move levels up some they will be correct?Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Increases to level 1 are extremely rare, in fact that was probably a one-time thing because of the Colbert vandalism. It came in huge drones that all the pages were going very slowly. I don't think there's any page where you an tell how the servers are doing, just that if you notice a geat amount of lag while editing solely due to vandalism, that can give you a hint.--Wizardman 20:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I had the same questions. Check out:

• Wikipedia's Status
• More detailed statistics

Danski14 22:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immediate Recomendation

I think we need to go to Defcon 2. The amount of vandalism over the past day, especially the past hour is on the extreme rise. I have reverted countless pages and been seconds late to revert countless more. What does the community think? --Zrulli 03:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DefCon 1?

If vandalism keeps up in the next 15 minutes, it may be appropraite to change it. ---CWY2190^TC 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised it was moved to 2 so lightly. From what I see in the move log, the mass page move vandalism it described was mainly just the one account (that is - Special:Contributions/Wheels_for_life) :/ - either way, good to see it back on 4. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It calmed down after I put this up. Coincidence? I think not. :} --CWY2190^TC 03:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GameFAQs

Just a heads up: vandalism may spike because Wikipedia is being featured in a GameFAQs poll. — Deckiller 15:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and here are the poll results. There is no "I vandalize there regularly" option, though... not like that's what I would have picked :) Gracenotes^T § 16:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting article...

Heres an interesting article from the LA times about editors and vandalism patrolers who helped protect and update the Anna Nicole Smith page:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-ca-webscout25feb25,1,4914275.story

Check out the last paragraph. I was interviewed by the reporter, since he saw me in the ANS page edit history. He asked me how a found out that the page was 'Under Assault'. At first I was reluctant to tell him, but eventually I told him about WikiDefcon, and mentioned that it was a *slightly* constroversial feature, and that it probably wouldn't be a good idea to mention. It looks like he changed the name slightly, to "Wikidefcom" to avoid any un-needed attention to this page. Additionally, since it is semi-protected, I guess we don't have much to worry about. Still, I thought people might find this interesting.

Also, I thought I told him to use my real name, and am unsure why he used my wiki name. Danski14 21:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

I see comments about backlogs at AIV mentioned a lot in the defcon comments. Should we make a secondary scale here (or at a new template) that lets admins know the severity of the AIV backlog? It seems that might be more informative than the "AIV backlog forming" comments. If I have time, I'll make an example of what I mean. What do you think? timrem 01:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I for one think it's a good idea as an add-on to this template, ... a separate template is unnecessary. Something as simple as a field called AIV backlog:number , with a link to WP:AIV would be simple enough. However, because the template is not updated that often, probably the best thing would be to have an automated system (dedicated bot, similar to the AIV helper bots) to update the count periodically. Anyone else think such additions would be useful? Danski14 22:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I just realized that time backlogged is probably a lot more useful then number backlogged. It is when it hasn't been checked in a while (even as little as 5-10 mins) that we want to alert admins to check it. Danski14 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I also found out that User:HBC AIV helperbot already posts alerts when WP:AIV gets backlogged. I don't think it would be hard for the operator of the bot to change it to post alerts on wikidefcon as well. Danski14 22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made an example of a template which could work, all it requires is a new AIV backlog parameter here. Feel free to improve it. timrem 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who can edit WikiDefcon?

Can anybody edit the vandalism levels or only administrators? --- Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 01:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, anyone can edit it... except vandals, of course :).. ( I think they're not even supposed to know about this). Just check out the descriptions for a general guideline. Danski14 02:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think we need more people to update it. It helps the non-IRC people stay up to date on the condition, and alert them when help is needed. Danski14 02:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another question

I don't know why but why are Defcon meters "stuck" on a certain number. Like if somebody changes the number the main template changes but the others are stuck on the previous number? I tried clearing the cache but it still does not work. I have to edit my page and "resave" the defcon so it updates. My browser is Firefox 2. --- Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 22:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You might need to purge the page, though I'm not sure why. For your userpage, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hdt83&action=purge should purge it. timrem 22:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] defcon

One question :]

Has the wikidefcon ever reached 1? Partapdua1 03:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

See this enrtry. Also if you read through the previous posts then you'll find out. :) -- Hdt83 | Talk 03:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have also seen the defcon at 1, twice. However, question: what do 0 and 6 mean? They apparenly exist. This doesn't need to be answered, I just wanted to bring it up that it seems to work and exist. (May be just the way it was redefined.) -- Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Defcon automated now?

I just changed the levels to 3 but now some bot just comes in and replaces my message. Are bots allowed to do this? [3] -- Hdt83 | Talk 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, on behaf of Wikipedia editors who issue it a command from IRC. ffm ✎t 01:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] google bombing via defcon template??

Hdt83: Are you using the defcon template to spread your name?? 84.44.169.208 00:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, what makes you think that? Although I sometimes wish that Google wouldn't post every instance of my username on WIkipedia. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 01:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dumb User requesting information

I've had a read through the archives and still ain't sure :) :- 1. How is the DefCon level changed? 2. Is it automated (from number of AIV queries, etc.) or manual?

Thanks someone. MojoTas 03:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Can be changed one of two ways, via WP:IRC or manually by clicking the "edit" button. Real96 03:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIV backlogs

AIV gets backlogged dozens of times a day and each time it's resolved in less than 15 minutes. Putting it in the Wdefcon is silly when you consider the amount of time it takes the job queue to get to all those recursions. Please stop adding notices about AIV to your Wdefcon descriptions. Zsinj^Talk 00:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DELETED

This template has been deleted by Thebainer. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we get this back? ASAP. Felixboy 15:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What the hell? There were four AFDs that resulted in keeps, and this was just deleted out of the blue? Kuroji 15:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to add that there's a horrid backlog at AIV, but it's been deleted, without consensus as far as I know. Don't know why it was deleted... · AndonicO ^Talk 15:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if we can't get any good reason for deletion can we get an admin to revert it? Felixboy 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already asked at WP:AN, and at User talk:Thebainer. I guess we'll have to wait a while. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

YAY! its back, thanks whoever did that. Felixboy 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

EVula did it. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help, but I have caught a fair amount of shit for doing so (some of it rightly deserved, to be fair). The lesson here is not to be bold at work, as I'm trying to do invoicing and explain my actions at the same time. :D EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that then. :-) · AndonicO ^Talk 15:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 24 ok so here is a deletion review. Felixboy 15:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So since it was restored, would the discussion still be on deletion review, or would this be moved to templates for deletion as it's already been kept four times and is ineligible for speedy delete at somebody's whim? Kuroji 00:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wdefcon's DR has now closed, with a result of "Keep Restored". That doesn't mean someone can't submit a fifth TfD for the template, but I seriously doubt that it would be successful anyway. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming

As you can probably see, I've renamed this template to {{vandalism information}}. I've simply replaced instances of "Wdefcon" or "defcon" inside the template with "vandalism information" instead. As such, the functionality is not affected and it can carry on informing users of current vandalism issues just as it has done previously. Yet at the same time the militaristic connotations are reduced. Those attitudes are not conducive to a civil and collegial environment and have no place in the template namespace. --bainer (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the template namespace version being the toned down version, as the userspace-hosted versions are still the same. I think that works well to address the concerns (baseless as they may seem to me, I still think it's a good thing that they're addressed :D). EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to edit the template in my userspace, edit the template in all other userspaces. Otherwise, you're singling out my specific version as all versions of the style of this template are in userspace. Also, I think you, bainer, were a bit rash is deleting the template without any notice whatsoever. While I support de-militarizing this template, a graphical representation would still be useful and I do not understand why you would remove it. Thanks. Zsinj^Talk 06:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why would you take it upon yourself to rename this template without asking anyone? — BrotherFlounder 14:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The notion of "pick your battles" is clearly replaced by "find something to do" on the wiki. Anyway, I also support the graphical representation. Well, no reason why I can't include the text "wdefcon" in my userspace, is there? (Besides an imperative from God... I wish I got those more often!) Gracenotes^T § 10:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Thebainer. There was nothinng wrong with the way it was and I think it should be restored. Purgatory Fubar ^Converse or Snafu 16:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No functionality is impaired by renaming the template. I concur with thebainer on this renaming (note that I disagreed strongly with the speedy deletion earlier this week). This is a pretty good compromise. -- nae'blis 16:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Doing something doesn't make it right or its motives valuable... Gracenotes^T § 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone restored the image on the default template, which seems fine to me considering the lack of consensus. I've moved Thebainer's demilitarized one to {{Vandalism information|style=demilitarized}}, and propped it to second-from-the-top on the template doc. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That was I. I restored the image, and kept the other changes, however, I have no problem with the other changes being reverted as well, but it seems that change has been deemed ok here. The image removal was major though, and needs consensus. Prodego ^talk 23:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I like EVula's point above, which seems to have been somewhat buried. It might be nicer to have the main template-space version as the toned down one. The userspace template need not be modified at all to do that. The only problem I foresee is with all of the userpages that are already using it... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand the template. All designs are in the user space. Zsinj just happens to be hosting the one seen at Template:Vandalism information/Archive 1. --Kevin_b_er 00:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Errr, that's what I mean. The one that's pointed to when you use {{Vandalism information}}, or when you look at its page. That can, without any effort or pain, be swapped over to the tame one, and it might be more appropriate to do so. 04:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You're talking about a style template that's in my userspace. The functionality of the content template (template namespace) is very open to users' own designs. As far as "taming" it down, it has yet to be explained how removing the image satisfies this.Zsinj^Talk 16:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

No. I'm talking about the default value for the prefix/style, not the template in your userspace. And IMHO, removing the image takes a good chunk of the 'game' out of it, along with the military connotations. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The honest truth is that users will still vandalize Wikipedia regardless of whether there is WP:DEFCON or not. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^{Talk to me} or _{learn something new!} 21:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I support the renaming. · AndonicO ^Talk 15:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a new level to the template

There is a huge gap right now between Defcon 3 and Defcon 2. One involves heavy IP vandalism, while the other involves sockpuppet and vandalbot vandalism, respectively. However, could there be another level involving IP vandalism? I mean, sure, we almost always have heavy IP vandalism, but sockpuppet vandalism isn't a really big problem; I can't remember when we last jumped the gap between 3 and 2. However, if IP vandalism were to suddenly hit a huge spike, we couldn't update the template appropriately. So, is there a way we can add another level to deal with incredibly heavy IP vandalism? Diez2 15:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Just get rid of level 1 – which is never used, ever, and RC patrol wouldn't be any help if it was – and move level 2 up to level 1, and insert a new level between 2 and 3. In other words, do nothing at all, just change the definition of the levels (and then watch as people completely ignore the definitions) – Gurch 00:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gurch – it's not necessary to add more levels. Just rename them, moving them all down a level. The defcon is just a quick reference anyway, with no hard and fast standards to meet (unless I've missed something). KrakatoaKatie 02:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wdefcon 1 is a ceiling which is never to be reached. It is the goal and mission of the RC patrol to prevent Wdefcon 1 from happening. Reworking the description of Wdefcon 2 sounds like it would be a plausible solution versus renumbering the entire scheme. Also, didn't we just recently decide that the normal level is '4' with '5' being especially low? Moving everything down a level would make 5 useless and make 1 more used. This would effectively be making the argument that vandals will fight to get it to 1 and actually succeed at times. Zsinj^Talk 14:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What they mean is move 2 to 1 and create a level for 2. The fact that vandals will more often reach WikiDef 1 doesn't mean anything, because the meaning of WikiDef 1 would've changed. Anyway, I agree. If WikiDef 1 were reached, it would be pointless to warn Wikipedians, because by this time, too many pages would've been blanked or vandalized. No one has the patience to go and blank as many pages as possible! So what's the point of WikiDef 1? It would take a coordinated effort too large to hold plausible, or an equaly large number of vandals. As I said before, no one has that kind of patience. --Defender 911 10:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

I'm no coder and can't figure out how to get User:Herostratus/Nautical/Wdefcon and User:Herostratus/Wdefcon to show the user's sig. Also someone said that the Change links were broken although it seems OK to me. If anyone would be kind enough to take a look at these I'd greatly appreciate it! Herostratus 11:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Done --ROASTYTOAST 03:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Herostratus 15:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrote Template

I redid the Template. You can see it in my workshop. The new definitions are at workshop page 2, the main template is at workshop page 1, and the default template (style) is at the template workshop. Tel me if you like the changes. (Also, Level 1 is basically redefined as the end of the world. :) ) —Andrew Hampe ^Talk 00:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Not all is vandalism. Couldn't this say "increasing vandalism and experimentation..."? 86.134.162.149 00:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Experimentation on articles does the same damage as vandalism. Experimentation should be done at the sandbox. --Boricuaeddie 00:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. Jmlk17 04:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defcon one

Have Wikipedia ever reached level one or two on Wdefcon? Just curious. Janus8463 01:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw DefCon 2 a yesterday, and apparently it was at DefCon 1 a few hours ago. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 14:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Happens every so often...not enough to truly be rare though :). Jmlk17 22:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it was definitely Level 1 earlier. I ran right over to Newpages with my vandal-whacking stick. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 08:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Always fun eh?  :-P Jmlk17 08:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I won't deny that I did a total double take. Sort of like a "ehh--WHA?" or something close. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 08:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info

So who updates the vandalism info? I've seen the meter on several pages and I'm not sure I understand. Is there a tool that's gaging the level at a current moment? How often does it update? J Crow 23:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The levels are manually updated. Any editor can change the level to what he/she feels appropriate. The meter is usually on userpages to notify others what the current level is and whether they should assist in checking for vandalism. --Hdt83 ^Chat 23:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting?

What is the vandal tool for is it to protect your user page and talk page, i was thinking of placing it my my user page but not until i know what it is used for..... SKYNET X1000 (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really the right place to ask, but here goes...I'll assume you're talking about Lupin's anti-vandal tool. It will only assist you in reverting vandlaism. Only admins can protect pages - however, you can request a page be protected at WP:RFPP. NF24^{(radio me!)} 11:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

That's all i wanted to know, thanks for replying.. SKYNET X1000 (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A scruvy trick!

For some reason this thing's protected, but there's no entry in the protection log for it! 68.39.174.238 (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, a bit odd now eh? :) Jmlk17 09:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Decimal levels

I know this probably won't be supported, but I was wondering if decimal levels are possible. Styrofoam1994_talk^Contribs☭☺☻ 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, they aren't supported. Your best bet would be to round up or down. --Dadude3320 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)