Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Archive 2

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

text: *Ok, that's the problem, I'm using an old version of the script. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 17:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I now use godmode-light which is just as good as admin reversion. haz (user talk) 20:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback privileges]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Charter

message: 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)
thread_title: Userboxes

message: 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)
replies: text: I did some rearranging of a couple things on the main page to make it more clear. --nihon 03:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: [[: Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit/members]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Exactly that. --Zsinj 04:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to join? 

message: I have been getting cries from wiktionary about the large amount of vandalism. Banana04131 04:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I have Tawkbot2 monitoring for any changes, I am monitoring the channel as well. Tawker 00:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wiktionary]]

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Funny 

message: Should the main page be in a category? --nihon 09:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which one do you suggest? -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about those ones? (I added three to the main page). --nihon 02:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category?

message: I've noticed that a lot of recent reports were made by people who sent a , , or , 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 , , or ? 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)
thread_title:  Reports to [[WP:AIV]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dealing with WoW socks 

message: 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)
thread_title: Defcon

message: 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)
replies: text: I second that motion. --Buchanan-Hermit 05:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested pages to watch for new "associates"

message: 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)
replies: text: Zinteresting. Hmm... We should watch those IP ranges. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Government Staffers re-writing political articles on wiki 

message: User FireHoney has repeatedly vandalized Wikipedia, and must be stopped!
See here for more details. User_talk:FireHoney
--Steve Latinner 17:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid Vandal 

message: This particular vandal must be stopped as soon as possible. User:repartee has given birth to a new form of Wikipedia vandalism. This user edits articles so eloquently it does not appear to be vandalism at all. Add comments for suggestions on how to aprehend this user.
::If it doesn't appear to be vandalism then maybe it isn't? 84.160.247.104 03:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repartee 

message: I apologize for having to resort to this, I tried looking for Wiki help forums at Wikimedia... I run a small wiki for an MMO and I think I'm being vandalized by some sort of bot.  I don't know how to find the attackers IP and block off the addies.  I'd be very appreciative of any offer of help from someone "in the know." Here's my place: http://www.coffeespy.com/wiki  Just hit recent changes and everything changed today is a wierd code add to the end of the page.  Not sure what it's supposed to do.  Neospooky 16:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something?  Anything?  Please?  Even if it's to tell me I'm in the wrong place and should be asking this question somewhere else, please. Neospooky 11:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything wrong. Epl18 16:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asking for Charity

message: Just curious.. has anyone ever tried to compile statistics related to vandalism on Wp? (like number of reverts per hour, or number of incidents of vandalism per hour.. if such things can be measured) ikh (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony Sidaway has; see http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tony_sidaway for his pages on the toolserver, which include statistical tools such as this. Rob Church (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that :) an interesting one:  semi protection rocks. See sharp drop in vandalism and continuing unreverted edits (aka non vandalism) --Cool CatTalk|@ 00:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks pretty cool.. esp. how there's an obvious cyclical pattern to when most vandalism occurs.  How do you actually count the number of vandalisms?  by the number of reverts or actually count the vandalisms?  ikh (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rollback is to be used strictly to revert vandalism and spam etc (not every admin honors this (not that I am criticising or care) but vast majority does). I believe the script counts those. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, it looks for rollbackesque summaries, "rvv" and "rv vandalism" and similar edit summaries and assumes that for each revert, there's at least one bit of vandalism. Rob Church (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism Stats

message: I like that ;) --Cool CatTalk|@ 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism]]

message: Who the heck is he?  Is he using the same IP range? Can someone find a checkuser? --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to IRC convo he appears to be from AOL ips.  ALKIVAR™ 23:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Although it may be obvious, for those who are missing it: the date above is 6 6 2006. :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Or maybe Jimbo is going to make an announcement. --Rory096 21:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll bet mr treason is going to do something crazy.El benderson 04:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He wouldn't dare betray us like that! --maru   (talk)  contribs 04:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "ON JUNE 6 2006 WIKIPEDIA WILL MEET ITS MAKER" vandal

message: How do i get in?  Please contact me on my user page.  Auburnfan4--Auburnfan4 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can associate with CVU by adding userbox  or userbox  to your user page. If you prefer not to use userboxes, you can add yourself to the Category Counter Vandalism Unit Member/wikipedia/en.  Hbackman 04:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help please, i would like to be in the Counter Vandalism Unit 

message: I have been unduly accosted by a few members herein.  You lack the professional approach of User:Mintguy, User:RickK and User:Hephaestos.  Do not bother me again!  68.110.9.62 23:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you vandalize, we'll revert it.  Period.  --Rory096 00:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Per WP:VAND, the removal of warnings from your user talk page is considered vandalism. I discussed this on your talk page but you removed it. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I love it when vandals object to our existance... :P --Cool CatTalk|@ 00:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone noticed this guys (68.110.9.62) user page? I think he probably offended every possible religion, race or culture with it. What's the policy on removing this? Last I checked Wikipedia wasn't a soapbox for extremists. Yankees76 01:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You can create an account and log in, just the same as the rest of us.  Nothing's stopping you. Waggers 10:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anons are fine, unless they start vandalising, then they are dealt with little sympathy. --Cool CatTalk|@ 12:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. How hard is it to create a real profile? If you're a legitimate editor, you should have no problem creating a legit profile/username. Hiding behind an IP address while vandalizing is just weak. Yankees76 22:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I object to this organisation! 

message: Guys watch out for 24.62.120.208 he's been messing around with articles like Podcasting. Zhanster 03:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spotted a vandal 

message: Surely there is a better example of an NPOV addition than the one listed (), which seems to be a lot closer to plain vandalism (plus original research), with its obscene phrasing and off-kilter theories about the Nazis. Would anyone like to suggest one? ProhibitOnions 22:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there are better examples, but I decided to search through some of the non-NPOV edits I've had to revert. Here are a few: , , . EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 22:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV example?

message: Where did the defcon go?
--Activision45 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia:WikiDefcon page was deleted, due to a discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiDefcon (2nd nomination). However,  still exists. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: As the template survived the deletion debate, I jsut retranscluded it on the Project page. xaosflux Talk/CVU 02:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: defcon?

message: For those of us who enjoy fighting vandalism, but are not admins, this proposed policy could make life easier. Let's go over and try to make it into something the community can accept. --Measure 00:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges]] 

message: There's a group called the "Wikipedia Vandalism Unit" on MySpace. It only has three members right now, but I don't like the sound of it. Anyone got any extra bunker busters? --Ixfd64 09:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to drop a note to the foundation mailing list; the use of the copyrighted foundation logo without permission should prompt a nice firm notice to myspace. Essjay Talk • Contact 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bunker buster? Why can't we just use a MOAB? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This isn't good... 

message: I would like to join the Counter Vandalism Unit here at Wikipedia.  I would like to help track down vandals and put them out of business.  I come on to Wikipedia every weekday and a thrilled to be a member of it now.  Please let me join your group and tell me what to do.  I aslo need to know how to revert an article to correct vandelism (Steve 16:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the above discussion Wikipedia talk:Counter Vandalism Unit#Help please, i would like to be in the Counter Vandalism Unit. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 16:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would like to join. 

message: Is there some way to find all recent edits by a range of IPs? Gazpacho 19:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Finding vandal edits

message: How do you recommned that a user IP be blocked?  166.109.0.45 has repeatedly vandalized pages including American Revolution, French Revolution, and Tapir.  If you review the contrubtions made my this person you will notice a hold string of others.  He has been warned, but has disregard the warnings.  (Steve 19:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AIV --Measure 19:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for a User Block 

message: Monsters of Rock and Chris Cornell were vandalized. i fixed cornell, but not yet the other page. i'd like to see those guys banned! --Fireblues 13:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Monsters of Rock]] and [[Chris Cornell]] 

message: *Active: Via RC feed
*Pasive: Via "watched" pages
*Both: Both via RC feed and watched pages.
I think this should be stated in the article although I am not sure what the best way is. --Cool CatTalk|@ 00:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of RC patrolers 

message: Hi,
Please read the IHEU talk page, in particular Talk:International Humanist and Ethical Union#Verifiability.
Though I have struggled to maintain a friendly tone with him, I have acted in good faith, and done my best to accomodate Rohirok's preferences, but he continuously attacks my credibility and honesty, and repeatedly vandalises pages relating:
*IHEU
*Happy Human
*Amsterdam Declaration
*humanism
*Humanism (belief system)
*secular humanism
*American Humanist Association
*Council for Secular Humanism
and more.
I can forward a copy of the email response to any email address that you ask. You can also verify its authenticity with the website administrator at the IHEU. I feel that Rohirok should be warned off, or blocked, from further editing of these articles. --Couttsie 04:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IHEU long-term and complex vandalism

message: claims that she is Willy on Wheels. Anyone want to check out her user page?
*She was blocked several weeks ago as a sockpuppet. --InShaneee 05:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone see this user page? 

message: I've been reverting spam and vandalism since I became a Wikipedian (I also like to fix redirect links...and occasionally add content!)  Today I noticed something interesting.  (I'm not sure the best way to link in article history, so I'll fake it).  A couple days ago the page Canopic jar was vandalized [  diff].  Earlier today some of the changes were fixed [diff].  However, many were missed.  I fixed it (but it took me a couple tries) [my restoration] and [compared with pre-vandalism].  Had I not looked closer--I like to see if there were other "contributions" that haven't yet been fixed--I wouldn't have noticed this.  At first glance I saw that vandalism had been fixed.  A sophisticated vandal using two identities (different IP addresses, or one or two accounts) could easily mask their changes.  So I think that besides looking for other changes made by a vandal (or spammer), checking to see that all the damage has been corrected would be a good idea.  I'm a good guy, but very human, so while my fixes are in good faith, I'd always feel better if I knew other people are double-checking me. --Straif 17:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro and Suggestion 

message: This page has been vandalized, and is proving strangely resistant to further editing (at least by me.)  Should probably be watched.Bjones 14:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cam]]

message: Would it be possible to make a userbox that shows the current wdefcon level for interested Wikipedians? I obviously don't know how to do this. I like the idea of the present wdefcon box, but it does take up a lot of space. -- Tachikoma 15:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it is possible, but I see two potential issues. Wikidefcon itself is controversial, and the climate concerning user boxes is volatile at the moment. In other words, I wouldn't want to be the one to create it. —Wayward Talk 16:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I knew about the userbox controversy (if you see my userpage, I obviously don't mind non-inflammatory userboxes), but I didn't know that Wikidefcon itself was controversial. --Tachikoma 16:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It already has been done... just look at my user page for the code. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the userbox code! --Tachikoma 15:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about a wdefcon userbox? 

message: There has been a storm of vandalism on a few user pages. Something needs to be done about it. Every time a page is reverted, it is vandalized again.
Thanks, CharlesM 01:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From a very brief perusal, the vandalism looks like it's pretty much the same thing from different IPs. I suspect a single anon using a dynamic IP. Any chance we could prevail on an admin to block similar vandalism to the same page from a new IP on sight until this settles down? Hbackman 01:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, so far every IP he uses has been blocked. But he keeps coming back with more. If they block a range of ip addresses, it could cause chaos. CharlesM 01:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we just have to keep watching and reverting, then. Hbackman 01:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the wave of vandalism is over for now. CharlesM 02:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, it's always better when a vandal is busy vandalising userpages instead of articles. - Akamad 06:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about when someone changes your watchlist? I don't even know how that was done. All I know is that someone else had added a non-existent article to my watchlist.--Tachikoma 01:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably added it to your watchlist while it existed, and then it was later deleted.  ⇒  JarlaxleArtemis 03:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism on the rise on March 14th 

message: The bot is stopped, and I have already manually reverted all changes it made, returning to the previous versions (you can check mine history). The bot was not running at 22:54, I have stopped it immediately after I received the first message from Wuzzy. Sorry. Audriusa 08:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stopped, the activity fully reverted 

message: Isn't "counter" one of those adjectives usually hyphenated to the noun it modifies, as "anti-" and "semi-" are, and counter-productive and the like?  And when they aren't hyphenated, they are usually one word. (countercyclical is sometimes that way, sometimes with a hyphen, etc.). It is almost never used with a space between it and the noun it modifies, is it?
Shouldn't this be "Counter-vandalism Unit".  Or maybe "Countervandalism unit"? Gene Nygaard 13:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of this page

message: sorry to seem like a grammar stickler, but
it should be Counter-Vandalism Unit, with a hyphen
Counter-Vandalism is a compound adjective describing unit. 
just a  suggestion. —This unsigned comment was added by FTIII (talk • contribs) .
:Thank you for pointing that out. I will correct this. - Conrad Devonshire 03:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  grammar 

message: Isnt there some moderator for this Unit who can guide other members and make groups which can counter vandalism in different sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suyash (talk • contribs) 
Why? if you've got a specific area of interest, monitor it on your own. If not, use CDVF and IRC to counter it across the board. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 07:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moderator of this Unit 

message: I apologize if this isn't perhaps the most appropriate place to post this, but I'm currently having a dispute with a user over an edit I reverted as vandalism and was wondering if someone might be willing to offer an opinion as to whether or not the edit is indeed vandalism.  made this edit on 18 March which I immediately reverted as vandalism, assuming that his reference to "Strongbadiophage" was meant as a joke. As the user had already received one warning (test1), I tagged his talk page with the test2 warning and went about my business. 
A week later, he posted the following remark on my talk page: "Yeah hi, this is Jlhc, you said I vandalized an article. Well, according to hrwiki.org this is completly true, but I do have ADD so I did go a little off topic while trying to explain." My first impulse was to think that his remark was also meant as a joke, but I instead responded that if he could supply his source or better explain what he was trying to say, I would reconsider my decision. Today he responded with the following source: link. Apparently the "Strongbadiophage" is some miscellaneous joke by the character Strong Bad, which was more or less my reason for reverting the edit in the first place.
The only question that still remains is whether Jlhc posted the joke on the page in good faith or bad faith, as that clearly is the definition of vandalism. Typically, the second a user claims I wrongfully reverted one of his/her edits, I give him/her the benefit of the doubt, immediately remove my warning, and restore the page to his/her version; however, in this case, I have a very hard time believing that this edit was made with the intent of improving the article. I by no means wish to insult Jlhc if his/her edit was indeed made in good faith, but at the same time, I don't want to encourage any user to continue posting jokes and other random nonsense on serious articles. As such I was wondering if someone might give me some insight into whether or not they believe the edit was vandalism or an honest attempt to improve the article (or give me some advice in how to best handle the dispute). You can either answer here or on my talk page, or you can direct to me to some better place to ask this question. Thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 05:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a joke/nonsense to me. I would've warned the user with  or with . I think you're in the right here. The information that the user added is irrelevant to the topic of the article. I wouldn't call it bad faith editing per se, but I would definitely say that it's worth a warning, just so the user is aware that it's not appropriate to make joke edits. Hbackman 21:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Hbackman.  We shouldn't be overly concerned about labels here, whether or not it was vandalism.  The bottom line is it was a nonsense edit and had no business at all being in the article.  Anyone with a lick of sense should know that, so a test2 was entirely appropriate.  –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your support. I've responded to the user by, more or less, restating my orignial opinion on the edit--it just made me a little uncertain to have a user so adamently defend his vandalism (to the point of citing sources nonetheless), but your replies have reassured me that I haven't completely lost mind. Once again, thanks. AmiDaniel (Talk) 01:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for a Veteran Opinion 

message: Hello, I've spent part of the day reverting vandalism by User:63.238.185.98, who has messing around with InuYasha, Street Sharks, South Park, and Xbox. Sometime after I left the test 4 warning on the anon's talk page (and after I logged out), the person subsequently vandalised Bob Dole.
My question is, how long of a time period do you allow to pass before you start anew with test 1 for a given IP address? I would have reported the anon to an admin if the vandalism had been more recent, but now, I don't know.
Thanks. --Tachikoma 01:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The IP is registered to a branch of the Qwest ISP in Newark, DE. Since Qwest doesn't (typically) used shared IPs, the IP is most likely only being used by one computer or one very small LAN. Therefore, I wouldn't think there should be any problem blocking the IP for at least 48 hours because the intended user will be on the receiving end of that block (if anything, it will let him/her know that we're serious about blocking, and he/she might stop vandalizing). I'd say in this case you could treat the anon. just like a regular user, but that's just one non-admin's opinion. AmiDaniel (Talk) 01:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, should have actually read the question first--never mind what I said about blocking. I certainly don't think you have to start over at test1 the next day, but instead start with 3 or whatever you feel most comfortable with. There's really no policy that I'm aware of for these situations. AmiDaniel (Talk) 01:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: When talking about this kind of case in general, I think it really depends on the situation and preferences of the user. If you get all the way up to  and the user stops, but then starts up again in the next day or two, I don't think anyone would have a problem with you giving only 1 or 2 warnings out, with one of them being a . Same goes for users with a long period of vandalism. But I'd say it really depends situation-to-situation, and it's probably best to just use common sense. -EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  how to deal with anon IP vandal? 

message: has committed various acts of vandalism starting November 20, 2005, its most recent example being here . So far, it hasn't committed any vandalism since its last warning, but it should be kept an eye on. - Conrad Devonshire 05:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal IP 

message: Since the sockpuppetry by  as , I've been affected by a barrage of attacks by PoolGuy's new sockpuppets.  (See Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006 for details; see also PoolGuy's sockpuppets' repeated harassment on my talk page  and campaign of obfuscation and defamation on WP:AN.)  I've received mightily little help from others, both in terms of moral support and reversion/blocks of these sockpuppets; indeed, the lack of help is making me considering giving up Wikipedia altogether.  I imagine that I'd at least be able to count on CVU folks for support in both areas.  Please consider stepping in and helping, as real life business the last few days, which will last for another week, is preventing me from fully doing so.  --Nlu (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you considered requesting that your user and talk pages be semiprotected for a short period of time? That might help matters. In the meantime, I'll add your pages to my watchlist. Hbackman 17:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  The last time I semi-protected my talk page, another admin who had an axe to grind against me harassed me about it.  (See both User talk:nlu/archive14 and WP:AN, and it's really not been serious enough to warrant semi-protecting at this point.  (I'd semi-protect a page myself only if the vandalism is like once every 10 minutes or so, and I'd apply that policy to my own page.)  --Nlu (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help requested from CVU folks 

message: Is it appropriate to leave a warning on a talk page if you weren't the one that fixed the damage?  Specifically, this is regarding recent edits by User:Nk430.  This person page-blanked Google, leaving behind a two-word opinion of google.  S/he has also made similiar changes on user pages (not talk pages, user pages).  Someone, a bot I think, corrected the edit to Google, but didn't leave a warning.  In fact, as of right now, the only comment on the talk page is a welcome from a couple days ago.  To me at least, it appears that the only edits have been to promote a certain website, and to protest (to say the least) any attempts to revert thost promotions. I'm not about to revert changes to someone's user page.  I'd like to see some warnings, because I think if this continues, a block should be considered--however, without an appropriate set of warnings, admins are reluctant to block.   And why is it that bots tend to not leave warnings? --Straif 15:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think definitely.  Issue the warning.  (At least that's what I was told a few months ago when I wasn't an admin.)  Thanks for being diligent.  --Nlu (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that.  Also, it may be worth mentioning to the user (or bot controller) who fixed the page that they should in future leave a note on the vandal's talk page.  Pretty much all the vandal-fighting guidance I've seen tells them to do this, and there's even a template,  that you could use asking them to comply. Waggers 17:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (P.S. Don't forget to subst it!) Waggers 17:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll third that idea. And sometimes when you're running high-paced RC patrol, it's not necessarily that the reverter forgot to leave a message, but rather that you beat them to the punch. Perhaps check out the reverter's contributions and see if they typically leave warning messages or have been leaving them recently before putting that  template on their talk page. As for bots, I imagine some of the bots don't have the programming to leave warnings, but I know some bots do, such as User:Tawkerbot2. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 22:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Warnings on Talk Pages

message: We have many problems with them. They always vandalize, then their IP address will change before they get blocked. I have a suggestion (or solution) to end this problem. We could force AOL users to sign up before they edit so that justice will be served to the right person. Funnybunny 04:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Unfortunately, as far as I know, this policy will never fly.  --Nlu (talk) 05:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not so sure that "always" is correct.  I've seen plenty of AOL vandals, but when I look at the contributions for that IP address, many of the edits are legitimate.  Frequently, they are small things like grammar or spelling corrections.  But that is a good thing.  I understand your frustration though, I've followed around too many AOLer's or school district proxy IPs cleaning up one change after the other. Plus, if we manage to slow down vandalism from those sources (school proxies in particular), I may never solve one of the great riddles of our time: why is the word "poop" so popular? --Straif 19:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AOL users 

message: I've received some good feedback on a vandal warning toolbox that I wrote.  It's javascript that can be linked into your profile that adds some useful links to the Wikipedia toolbox when a user talk page is being edited.  It puts an array of warning messages just a click away, making it much easier and faster to leave appropriate messages, thus making it more likely that messages will be left.
I'm interested in seeing messages left on vandals' talk pages in almost all cases.  I'm also interested in any feedback from users of this tool, and I wonder if there are other appropriate venues in which to let responsible editors know about this, if it deserves the exposure.  Thanks.  --Kbh3rdtalk 20:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I personally find it very useful, of course, and I want to encourage warning comments on users' talk pages for the reasons discussed on the toolbox page.  What I don't know is whether there are other widely-employed tools alongs the lines of Lupin, godmode, etc., that provide the same functionality as part of a larger or better package.  (I don't see it in the same arena as standalone tools such as CryptoDerk.)  If there isn't such a beastie, and this therefore meets a heretofore unfulfilled need, then what steps to take to further popuarize it?  --Kbh3rdtalk 20:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think promotion is the key to increasing use (without spamming, of course). Post a link to it and description of it in the appropriate section on WP:CVU, Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol, and Wikipedia talk:Vandalism. You could also post a short "announcement of a new tool's release" or something on WP:AN, as I think many administrators might like it. Anyway, let me know if you need any help at all, and best of luck! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning toolbox 

message: Who is the leader(or president, whichever you prefer) of this organization? How do you become one? Can I become the leader when I create an account? 65.2.5.140 00:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really all that structured of an organization, ie, we don't really take orders from anyone or anything. If you create an account, though, you're quite welcome to join us. :) --InShaneee 01:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just curious.. 

message: I noticed some grammatical errors and poor wording in the discriptions for each level of the WikiDefcon meter. I tried to correct these, but after doing so and saving the template page, the messages stayed the same. I you click the "edit" tab of the WikiDefcon template, you will be able to see my revised discriptions, even though they do not appear in the WikiDefcon meter. Could someone please come to my assistance? - Conrad Devonshire 01:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind; I was able to take care of it myself. - Conrad Devonshire 19:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poorly written defcon level discriptions 

message: After reading about the "Jimbo Wales images vandal", I started to think about how such types of vandalism might be prevented. According to the report on Wikipedia:Long term abuse, the vandal would register an account, vandalize an article, quickly log out and register a new accout to avoid being autoblocked, and vandalize again. If a system could be set up to autoblock IPs that rapidly register new accounts, then this sort of vandalism could be prevented. - Conrad Devonshire 06:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Anti-vandalism idea

message: I for one do not understand what is going on here nor, apparently, do I have the capability to figure out what a Counter-Vandalism Unit is or does.  Perhaps a quick explaination?  Not all of us are as clever as you guys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.187.17.155 (talk • contribs) 15 April 2006  (UTC)
:Its just a place where Wikipedians who are dedicated to fighting vandalism can coorespond and learn about current vandal issues, new vandal-fighting tools, etc. It has been refered to as a WikiProject related to fighting vandalism. - Conrad Devonshire 17:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non compos mentis 

message: I've noticed on multiple occasions where high-traffic sites linking to Wikipedia articles, such as Slashdot tends to lead in a shapr increase in vandalism.  Is there any way we as non-administrators can combat this phenonemon?  I personally would think semi-protection would be rather effective, but often in the time it takes for that action to occur, an awful lot of vandalism will have occured already.  ANy thoughts? Wizardry Dragon 20:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A post on slashdot is likely to result in a large number of eyeballs being on wikipedia, unfortunately the number of vandals is uniformly distributed amoungst slashdot vs. other users. This makes vandalism a function of traffic not a specific site. Luckily the geekey slashdot community are probably more likely to jump in and fix things, than average, and the vandal will be tempted to hit the referred article. Perhaps if a vandal comes from a slashbot referrer they could be traced back. Undoubtably some daft vandal will have been logged into slashdot. The referrer could be used to trace their slashdot account, and so be able to finger them as offenders. I'm fairly sure slashdot will have no problem co-operating, they have no love of abuse (The entire ADSL network in my country is effectively blocked from slashdot since our National Monopoly won't respond to vandalism inquiries - they have dynamic-ip's) --Mig77 09:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Combating the Slashdot effect

message: I'm keen to assist with this venture. Let me know what I can do.
Extramural 16:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Volunteer

message: Hi everybody. Just a note to ask people to watch out when reverting part-blanking of articles: there may be a bug (affecting me and at least 2 other editors) that means the full article is not loading into the edit window.
If you see an edit that cuts the bottom off an article, of course revert it. But revert it manually - it's not vandalism - and above all don't warn the editor with a template. Write to them personally, perhaps to point them at Bugzilla #5643, but don't warn or block for it without good reason! Thanks folks. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch the blanking warnings 

message: User:General Eisenhower has established the Quick Vandalism Response Squad. He does not go into detail about what it is for, and to me it seems that the Counter-Vandalism Unit and the Recent Changes Patrol already take its place, but I have listed it in the announcements section of this article nevertheless. - Conrad Devonshire 23:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: so is this thing still going on? --  ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked at its page, and it says that it is open to new members, though so far User:General Eisenhower is the only member. - Conrad Devonshire 03:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a bit militant to me. --Knucmo2 01:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  QVRS 

message: Please revert Tuskegee Airmen, and please consider semi-protection. Vandalism to this racially sensitive page is not daily, but certainly ongoing. Latest was by anon IP use 66.213.29.242r:
:This IP address, 66.213.29.242, is registered to the Columbus Metropolitan Library and is shared by multiple users. Comments left on this page may be received by other users of this IP and appear to be irrelevant. Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking. In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts will be made to contact the Columbus Metropolitan Library to report abuse.
Thanks. Catherineyronwode 20:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuskegee Airmen vandalized again 

message: Is there an exponential increase, or am I just having bad luck with the articles I have been involved with since this year?
I mean, more exponential than the increase in articles.DanielDemaret 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the only criteria I have for the global level of vandalism is the "DefCon" meter, and it hasn't gone above 4 in quite a while.--Chodorkovskiy (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is a relief. :) Could you please direct me to the Defcon meter?DanielDemaret 06:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, see :Template:Wdefcon, or you can add  to any page where you want it displayed. I actually have the feeling that in the last few weeks vandalism has been startlingly low, which is definitely a good thing, but I don't know what to attribute it to (sorry for ending with a preposition lol), which bothers me a bit. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As long as it is not an error in measurement, it is good news. :) DanielDemaret 10:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And thank you for the template. My user page has been a bit empty of late.DanielDemaret 11:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I prefer to see the good side: IMHO, the more prominent WP becomes and the more people learn that it is open to anyone, the more sociopaths will try their hand here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 06:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  God I hope not... I rather not have to revert anything this week Aeon 13:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exponential increase in vandalism 

message: After installing the tool, the rollback buttons have appeared as they should, but when I have tried to rollback an edit, a large amount of code has appeared on the page with a message saying something to the effect of that my having the "right-click section header to edit section" and the "double-click page to edit page" options turned on was interfering with it. I turned them both off and the same problem happens. Here is an example of what appears:  --Conrad Devonshire 22:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Godmode, as I understand it, is FireFox dependent. Could this be the problem? AmiDaniel (Talk) 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am using Firefox, so something else must be the cause of it. I also have Lupin's Recent Changes Filter installed. Maybe it is somehow interferring with Godmode.--Conrad Devonshire 15:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem using Sam Hocevar's Godmode 

message: I got this piece on my talk page. Naturally, the person has called me a vandal. I think the person who sent me this is a bully. Wallie 17:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Threats and bullying now eh? Can't you see that you're acting like a spoiled child? There was nothing threatening or bullying about my comments.--Conrad Devonshire 00:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now threats from the CVU 

message: I just checked out the page, and there's a lot of *questionable* stuff on it, but I'm not good at looking at versions and I'm not even sure if it's actually vandalism (although it looks like it). Take a close look at the picture captions.--Anchoress 05:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted back to a version in March to get rid of the vandalism. Most of the vandalism occcurred on this edit about 3 days ago. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks.--Anchoress 16:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Adam Goldstein]] vandalism? 

message: As an ex-vandal, a message to other vandals. Go to Uncyclopedia! There you can "vandalize" without troubling people. You can add stuff there, make history up, things that could never happen. They don't consider those vandals. --69.67.226.10 00:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From an Ex-vandal

message: First the QVRS, now this?   What is going on?  American Patriot 1776 02:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let them have their fun - if this way WP gets more RC patrollers, so much the better. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 16:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is with all these new squads? 

message: Hi, I'm curious about the nature of this vandal. It always has an ip beginning 88.196. It always leaves the same message , DIF'S It sometimes picks out something from my userpage to add to someone else's, DIFS in a manner I take to be mocking. Does it conform to any  known BOT or vandal Thanks!  :) Dlohcierekim 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  88196 vandal 

message: I was wondering...
Is there any way to join, or do you just pick people?
Or, can you just become one without asking?
Thanks.
TeChGuY 14:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, no need to ask, campaign, or otherwise. Just look on our project page near the top of 'general information' for how to associate yourself with us. --InShaneee 19:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So then, you just put that box on your user page and your in?  Or do you have to fill something out?El benderson 04:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, just the userbox! Welcome to the CVU! --Ginkgo100 16:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Do You Join? 

message: Um, this isn't a report or anything, but I am a bit confused. If there are actual vandals on Wikipedia, then (forgive my rudeness) what the heck is a Userbox doing here that says you've been vandalized? I realize it could really be useful in some situations, but anyone can just get that UBX and act like they've been hit big. Besides, I recently got a new message that said I'd been vandalized, but when I got to the bottom, it turned out to be a (forgive my rudeness again) stupid joke, and someone had just put the same UBX on my User Page. I'm sorry if this comes off as being rude and rather rash, but I'm just a bit perturbed that it's been allowed to exist. Once again, I ask you to forgive me if I've offended anybody in anyway. And don't be mad at the prankster. She and I have resolved it. --DcPimp
Oh, sorry I didn't leave a date and time. I didn't know how when I wrote the above. DcPimp 23:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandal UBX

message: I don't mean to be rude, but did the Level 4 defcon say sockpuppets? Call me ignorant, but why is a reference to a sockpuppet in a defcon description? I read on some page a while back that that wasn't a typo or vandalism, either. So, uh, could you just explain this to me? I've been a Wikipedian for two weeks, and I'm still learning. --DcPimp 12:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sockpuppet," though it sounds silly, is a real term for a common phenomenon. This article can give you more info on these nasty little creatures. Best, Docether 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Thanks. That's a new bit of info for me. Guess ya learn something every day, huh? --DcPimp 01:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You've Probably Heard This Before... 

message: Here are a couple countervandalism strategies:
* Pick one day out of the month (e.g. May 22), and put it on your watchlist.  This date could be your birthday, or any random day.  Better yet, put the same date/different months also on your watchlist (e.g. June 22, July 22, ...).  These are frequently the target of vanity edits.
* Put your high school on your watchlist (or a bunch of high schools).
Perhaps, we can build a list of such strategies and put them on the main project page?  I have found these two to be very useful in finding vandalism. --Aude (talk | contribs) 17:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great ideas! I'm doing that right now. --Ginkgo100 19:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I personally do is to watch articles I created or contributed and as many articles related to my country as I can, because there aren't many argentina-related articles that are good for vandalism yet.  Other users would preffer to watch their state/province/administrative division's main articles, but if everyone did so most geography/biography/history related articles would be covered. —Argentino (talk/cont.) 21:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern with strategies like these is that, while they're effective for popular subject matter, vandalism to less popularly watched articles can easily slip through.  If we're serious about developing countervandalism strategies, we should look to ensuring that the whole encylopaedia is covered, not just our favourite bits. Waggers 11:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Waggers.  I think that limiting the scope of the articles we watch would be counter productive.  When I'm hunting for vandalism (using VandalProof), I'm looking at every edit being made and picking those edits that are suspect.  It may not be the best strategy, but I think it covers a broader range of the encylopaedia.  Tachyon01 17:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Countervandalism strategies

message: Just a heads up! For quite a few days now FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives has been taking alot of flak from a few vandals.  --Jcw69 06:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives 

message: Only a technical question: when I click on the link to the chanel I get a message saying something like "firefox doen't know how to open this link because the protocol (irc) is not associated to any program  " [quick translation from span.]. Can anyone tell me what do I have to download to be able to use it?—Argentino (talk/cont.) 14:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can check out this tutorial which explains pretty much everything. --Scott 18:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IRC Channel

message: There's another move to disallow anonymouse editing taking place right now. Kaiwen1 has apparently put up an informal, nonbinding vote, and while I don't place much faith in it, members of CVU would probably be more qualified than others to weigh in on whether anon vandalism is bad enough to require registration. It's worth checking out. Moulder 01:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The registration issue, again 

message: It's almost 6,6,06, so I thought I should post a reminder about the "Wikipedia will meet its maker" vandal. I'm not sure if there's any substance to his claims, but we might want to be on the lookout tomorrow just in case.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 19:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: bah standard bot vandalsim.Geni 03:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to be busy all day tomorrow, and so I won't be able to help out too much should the maker arrive. However, should Wikipedia's maker give you too many problems, he can't be that difficult to deal with =D. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "On June 6, 2006, Wikipedia will meet its maker" 

message: We have a rather dedicated vandal on The Great Dalmuti (see history page). Personally, I can live with the insults, but it's becoming a bit comical how persistent this guy is. I've ARIN-searched him to a dorm in San Jose State University, but that's about where my interest ends.--Mike Selinker 03:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anybody feel like addressing this? 

message: One who who poses as a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, that is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.218.61.59 (talk • contribs) .
::No results for Haz. Did you spell it correctly?--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a vandalizing user named Haz?

message: I was wondering, how many users actually know everything that this unit knows? How can we expect wikipedia to grow if only a few people know what pages have been vandalized and who the vandals are? Maybe somebody who opperates a bot could send out a message that can inform as many users as possible about recent vandalism. There should be something like this. D Hill 19:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Education

message: Tongiht, I've kept seeing vandals adding strings such as  --65.35.95.189 03:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: sounds like a sig string from someone using aol maybe? there's almost nothing that can be done to nail down an aol user... their ips change almost every request. -- frymaster 14:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting Vandal 

message: Currently, two AOL vandals are at large. It is unknown whether they are related. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALERT: AOL Vandals at Large 

message: This user has been very disruptive recently, posting ".F.U.C.K...S.H.I.T...C.U.N.T...P.O.O...A.S.S...B.I.T.C.H.!.!.!.!..." on everyone's userpage. Recommendation: block on sight for 15 minutes to 3 hours. If they are vandalizing in a range, then block for 5 to 15 minutes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  .F.U.C.K...S.H.I.T...C.U.N.T... etc. Vandal (AOL) 

message: This user has posted images of :Image:Ceiling cat 00.jpg everywhere. Recommendation: search in the "File links" section of :Image:Ceiling cat 00.jpg for suspicious activity (such as appearance of the image in a non-related article). Block on sight for 15 minutes to 3 hours. If they are vandalizing in a range, then block for 5 to 15 minutes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ceiling Cat Vandal (AOL) 

message: We're having a bit of a problem over at the  articles and portal with the sheer volume of petty vandalism (ie, "runescape sux lololol"). It is actually the seventh most edited article, beating what one would expect to be massive vandalism magnets, like Saddam Hussein. When the article spent several days semiprotected, only around 2-3 edits a day were made, unprotected; 30+. Keeping an eye on this article would be greatly appreciated, as vandalism is seemingly the main factor preventing the article from reaching Good Article status. Thanks, CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism at [[RuneScape]]

message: Isn't there a log somewhere which shows recently registered usernames that is used by admins to block inappropriate names on sight? I'm not an admin, so I couldn't use it, but I'm just curious about it, as I have been unable to find it.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 04:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Special:Log/Newusers. AmiDaniel (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Username registration log 

message: 205.188.116.199 is repeating vandalism on Canada.  Can we block him?  (BTW, what's the procedure for asking for a block?) Xiong Chiamiov talk contact 00:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I recommend bookmarking that, actually. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request block 

message: I've come up against a sophisticated spammer who has done the full range of spamming - images, blatantly advertisement articles for (minor) companies, link-spamming and even promotional categories! They are obviously quite aware of all kinds of wikitricks, including making a null edit to their user page so they show up as a blue link (grrr) and getting rid of speedy deletion notices. Unfortunately I was the first one to apply the "spam" warning template to their talk page so it may be quite some time before they end up stopping or being banned. So if you guys could keep an eye out on User:Amykocot, that'd be great. TheGrappler 05:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been watching this user for a few days now and it's quite evident that their account has been created to solely maintain 2 articles (both up for deletion) about 2 companies. Neither article should exist to begin with IMO, however this user account will revert and remove AfD notices and revert removal of link spam. User now has an IP address sockpuppet as well, 70.168.56.34. Suggest indefinate block on both. Yankees76 20:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very sophisticated spammer 

message: Just thought I'd alert you to the fact that you've got a CVU member (see user page) vandalizing — edit diffs are , , and .  Also, there's this vandalism via page move which was clear vandalism, and this page move may be vandalism or just unfamiliarity with the system. — Mike • 17:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His talk page also tries to trick you into thinking you have new messages on your talk page. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs 18:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there are many that do that . --MrFishGo Fish 12:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of Your Own 

message: I read on The Motivation of a Vandal that  The motivation of a vandal ranges, but their purpose is the same; to get attention. Neither being a psychopathologist nor knowing any vandals, I'm not sure if this is true, but I have no strong reason to doubt it. 
Wikipedia gives them attention in spades: impressive graphics with minatory messages in italic, bold, or both, and, for the real stars, even entire pages. Look, heeeeeere's Willy! And before I commented it out, he even had his very own little Willys graphic at the top right. Gosh, look at all those usernames he has created! And wow, look at all those other Wikis he has pissed on too! What a man!
I shan't repeat this comment of mine here, but briefly it suggested removal of anything that might aggrandize this twit. It prompted a stronger response from another user, who seems to think that the whole page might be deleted (though he/she concedes that parts of it might have some use to administrators). 
I agree. I think vandals and vandalizing IP numbers should be blocked and banned rather more freely than they are now -- but that much less freely readable fuss should be made over it. Consider removing graphics from vandalism-related templates: make them say what they need to say, as coolly and concisely as possible. (If the vandal is really too slow-witted to take in anything that's not in bold, he's unlikely ever to make intelligent edits; Wikipedia doesn't need him.) Don't give the troll anything to gloat over or to show off to his pimply chums. -- Hoary 03:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there are some problems with this. firstly, we assume good faith here. that's why the vandalism templates are called "tests" -- we assume that vandalizing is motivated by curiousity rather than malice and that strident pleas to cease will, in fact, be heeded. secondly, ip and account blocking are used as preventative rather than punitive measures. that's why most blocks are only for a couple of hours. it's to prevent an overcurious tester from causing too much damage right now. it's not to slap their wrists. now, i know there are a lot of long-term, persistant and malicious vandals out there, but if we build our policies around the actions of these people we create a more hostile and intolerant environment for everyone else. this more open/trusting model more work for the cvu? yes. but freedom and openness has a tendancy to be annoying and inconvenient... __ frymaster 17:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This project is a free encyclopedia, after all. As for many vandals being motivated by curiosity rather than maliciousness, I found out yesterday talking to my brother (a successful computer entrepreneur and no petty thug) that he has (wince) vandalized Wikipedia himself. He says he did it to see what would happen, and was quite impressed by the immediate reversions and polite test warnings, presumably from CVU and RCP members. I hypothesize this is a more common motivation for most vandals than a desire to damage the project. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs 19:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia feeds the trolls

message: User Pete Peters registered yesterday and has engaged in stalking behaviour against user Arthur Ellis. Please examine his user talk and his posts. 70.51.52.253 19:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User Pete Peters

message: See user contributions. Abt 12 06:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 220.237.23.86, blatant vandal

message: I posted the following question at Wikipedia:Help desk and got the attached reply:
:I think that I have found some vandalism on the project, but it looks like it occurred some time ago.  I would clean it up, but I'm not sure how extensive it is, and I'm not sure what is correct and what should actually be on the articles in question.  Where should I report this, and what should be done next? --Brian G 19:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Most vandalism report pages are aimed at current vandalism. You could try informing the counter vandalism unit and give them as much information as possible. - Mgm|(talk) 21:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It appears to me that the section from Geddes, South Dakota that the user blanked was content that he/she earlier put in there as vandalism  and . The two edits are mere minutes apart so I suspect the user put it in but then had second thoughts and removed it. IrishGuy talk 21:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, Scottsbluff, Nebraska, Emery, South Dakota, and Geddes, South Dakota still contained vandalism, which I habe now scrubbed off. --Brian G 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspected vandalism 

message: I cant get access to the CVU IRC channel.  Can someone help me out? --False Prophet 00:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IRC Channel

message: A user has been publishing some Original Research on Tata Consultancy Services with some highly controversial statements regarding the company (for instance accusing them of establishing a "slave labour culture").  This lead to a revert war between two anon users which I have now stopped is now stopped.  But these statements have now been reposted to the article talk page with the caption "The section they won't let you see (please forward this to all your friends)".  I am tempted to remove this from the talk page on the basis of it being propaganda, but I am not sure if this can be rightfully done on a talk pages.  Does anyone know of any policies regarding this?--Konstable 01:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Although the editors of the page have accused me of being bribed by TCS, I have no conflict of interest here, I only heard of this company when I reverted the original research that I stumbled upon during RC patrol.--Konstable 01:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda 

message: I have been using the popups tool for some time now, and all of a sudden it has just stopped working. I  went to my monobook.js page and tried to reinstall it, but the popups are still not working. Does anyone know what might have caused this; a glitch in the code, perhaps?--Conrad Devonshire Talk 06:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, its working now.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error using popups tool 

message: ER MD continues to remove warning from his talk page. His defense is that he doesn't believe he was vandalizing even though he was blanking entire sections as well as making personal insults to others. He has been blocked three times, yet he continues. You can see some of the restored warnings here. Is there any way to stop this? I know that the policy has been argued by some, but it was my understanding that while someone may remove comments (which is considered bad form) removing warnings is another thing altogether. Am I incorrect in this? IrishGuy talk 08:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. He seems to be blocked at the present time, his IP was also blocked this morning. SB Johnny 11:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk Page Removal

message: Help with this 62.237.141.28 I was monitoring Omega 3. I can revert 1 or 2 but I dont know if this is repeated offender. This is out of my league.
:RIPE Whois
--Mig77 09:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure this is vandalism?  The edits look legible to me.--Konstable 11:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I'm not sure. The snake-oil in omega-3 has been removed before, and is definately factually questionable. And the talk page on that user shows unhappiness in some other areas. But I cant tell if the guy is just a little strange or if it is just a cover for repeating offences. Like I said, I'm not a "cop". I just patrol my tiny neck-of-the-woods and try to keep it clean, and up the quality. This edit has happened before, thats why I dropped it here, sorry if its a false alarm. --Mig77 12:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps just tag it with  and see if he comes up with a source? SB Johnny 12:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Traced it to the original snake oil article and tagged it with  --Mig77 15:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  62.237.141.28 

message: See Here. I won't link it in the vandalism policy as it's a policy and the guide is partially complete.
Constructive comments, suggestions, and ideas welcome.--Andeh 14:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Andypandy.UK/Imagepatrol|ImagePatrol]] Idea/Guide 

message: Grandmaster has given himself false warnings on his talk page and signed them with another user's name. Ostensibly, this is to cause trouble but regardless of his motives this is against Wiki policy. . Is there anything that can be done? IrishGuy talk 01:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be very, very careful when examining talk pages.  Grandmaster was replacing messages that had previously been removed .  Do not feel bad, as I have made similar mistakes, but be very careful and thorough when suspecting fraudulent user talk.--MrFishGo Fish 11:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Grandmaster|Grandmaster]] false signatures 

message: I found no link on this page's main page. NOVO-REI 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome aboard, friend!  Add yourself to :Category:Counter-Vandalism Unit members.  Remember to be courteous and civil, as your behavior shall represent the entire cvu.  I hope to see you around!--MrFishGo Fish 11:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How may I become a member? 

message: There is some strange vandal attacking this one with ever-chaning IP addresses.--Konstable 14:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To those just dropping by - no need to bother, the page is now semi-protected.--Konstable 12:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Crystal Palace F.C.]] - keep an eye 

message: Hi. I'm quite new to the anti-vandalism,  but I feel that Wikipedia is Communism should be one on the list of persistent ones. He's one of the few I've heard of. Kingfisherswift 15:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent Vandals 

message: This is a funny page. I totally respect what you guys are doing, and will not mock this page that much because many of the proud members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit protect my user page and my edits from vandalism. 
I am just wondering if I become a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit if I can print off the Counter-Vandalism Unit decal and sew it onto my sleeve.  
The WikiDefcon counter is soooo funny.... but I can't figure out any clever jokes.  Any suggestions?
Juvenile jokes aside, thanks for all of you guys' hard work.  Thanks a lot.
Signed:Travb (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Funny page

message: If anyone here is interested in helping me, I've got a vandal who believes it's fun to attack me personally. I've never met the guy (though I'm pretty sure I can tell what his name is). You can see his handiwork at Talk:The Great Dalmuti and also the history for the article The Great Dalmuti. Thanks in advance. I would like someone here to take the effort to at least temporarily block him. Thanks.--Mike Selinker 07:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a tiresome vandal who's making personal attacks against me 

message: A vandal has vandalised cibolo(a redriect page to Cibolo, Texas) to say "Cibolo is the Spanish word for buffalo"(which it isn't btw)  .  He(with differn't I.P. but I think it's both the same person) did this twice I and he reverted it twice.  But both times I had a problem.  I went back a few minutes later and found that it said "Cibolo is the Spanish word for buffalo" I went checked the edit page to fix and it said in the edit page #REDIRECT cibolo,texas.  I contacted an adim about it and I think he fixed.  I thought it was bug but when happend the 2nd time I started thinking that some how a vandal is using software to cause this.--Scott3 21:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW I forgot to say this but when I looked on the edit page both times it said I made the last edit.--Scott3 21:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[cibolo]] problem 

message: My corrections to the tiananmen massacre page have been removed and described as vandalism. I am attempting to correct factual errors in this section. What do I need to do next? How do I address the issue of censorship of wikipedia pages?
:The removal of NPOV material and/or nonsense is not censorship. As I said on your talk page, whether or not there is confusion as to where the people were killed does not mean the event was a lie to smear China's reputation or whatever. You need to read wikipedia's guidelines on how you should phrase statements, source them, etc. John Smith's 10:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon-IP's complaint

message: http://www.mercola.com/2006/jul/18/dont_rely_on_the_wikipedia.htm
Dr. Mercola is encouraging people who read his E-news advertisment to vandalize his entry.
Not sure if this is the right place to mention so.. feel free to delete this notie if proper. - pb —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Pbmax (talk • contribs) .
:Thanks for the tip. Someone has kindly protected the page from editing by new and anonymous users. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 19:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercola is encouraging vandlism 

message: is spamming links to movielanddirectory.com which is nothing more than a commercial ad site with links to IMDB. Every tenth or eleventh spam link, he makes a legitimate edit. I just went back to the 18th to pull all these links out of articles. Can somebody keep an eye on him? It is a real pain to have to go back multiple days removing links. IrishGuy talk 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spammer

message: I've been noticing a trend in some recent anon vandals. There is at least one, maybe two or three ip/users who are going around adding in "Kevin loves (something to do with the article.)" I don't know if this is a reported long time abuser or if this is new or what, but it seems to be catching on. User:124.184.196.35 has been caught doing it, and I'll see who else I can find doing it. Galactor213 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin Vandal? 

message: Hello there!  User:196.207.36.121 has been taking out what I consider to be legitimate facts from the 2006 Qana airstrike article, and labelling them as "propoganda."  The problem is, some of what he is removing has been somewhat borderline, e.g. some light analysis, or repeating the reaction of various groups.  I think it's vandalism, but I am hesitant to label it as such, and in any case I don't need a revert war.  Can someone more knowledgable than me please comment?  Would that user's contribs be considered vandalism?  Or should I just AGF? --Jaysweet 20:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another user apparently agrees with me, plus someone who I believe based on context to be the same individual is making accusations on my user page that he/she refuses to justify.  Is this enough to report as vandalism and take action against?  --Jaysweet 21:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this vandalism?

message: I just reverted the vandalised page Anime.  The vandal, 24.64.223.203, seems to have other uncorrected vandalisms, for example at Edward VIII of the United Kingdom which I did not revert.  I have to get back to my day job and so can't go through his/her/its edits to see what else is still uncorrected.  Someone should take this up.  My apologies for not having time at the present.  --128.125.196.55 21:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked it. Its a shared IP for Shaw Communications, all of the contribs I checked are good. Thanks for the heads-up though. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism in Progress 

message: Possibly sockpuppets, but more likely at least 2 users behind it. Check the "mischievious" commentors on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butlin... they've been uploading and replacing images on various article pages. SB_Johnny | talk 16:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Group to watch 

message: Copied from Wikipedia talk:WoW; posted by Firehawk1717:
I decided to go googling, and i found that one of Willy on Wheels suspected IP addresses (69.44.58.97) is near 5150 Broadway, San Antonio, Texas. Someone check it out, and we can get him arrested. Vandalism is a crime, you know. Thanks Centralops. And thanks Idea.nl (2nd link goes to translated version)
What do you make of it?--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 20:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, we need to keep in mind that not all instances of such vandals as Willy on Wheels are necessarily the work of the same individual. In the case of someone as long-term and as notorious as Willy, for example, it's almost a given that many of the edits attributed to Willy were the work of imitators or fans. There is really no good, reliable way to isolate widespread vandalism to any one person. Unless a vandal were stupid enough to edit from the same IP every time and never register an account, that is. Dr Chatterjee 23:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, from what I've heard, the original Willy is from somewhere in England (and his grammer testifies to that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmonde Dantes (talk • contribs) 
*Comment - And also, I'm not an expert on how the IP system works, but  I wonder if this is even reliable information based on how IPs are assigned.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 00:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What it comes down to is that there are just too many factors working against the prosecution of any Wikipedia vandal or group of vandals. For one, tracking down a vandal is frought with difficulties. Beyond that, finding concrete proof of their actions is equally difficult. And finally, there seems to be no legal precident that criminalizes Wikipedia vandalism in the first place. Wikipedia is open-sourced; it is the online equivalent of a giant chalk board. You can't arrest people for "vandalizing" the chalk board by writing on it with the chalk you provide them -- no matter how silly or offensive their writing may be. Dr Chatterjee 00:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But we're not going to let him clean the erasers, of course (to extend the wonderful chalkboard analogy). They're really not doing any actual harm... it all gets reverted pretty quickly. Best approach in handling them is to keep your sense of humor, and enjoy the challenge of being in the CVU. --SB_Johnny | talk 01:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location for IP#69.44.58.97 

message: If it's possible to do, should Willy (or Bobby, etc.) be arrested?
*Oppose - He's not evil, he's just annoying. People shouldn't go to jail for being annoying. SB_Johnny | talk 23:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, we need to keep in mind that not all instances of such vandals as Willy on Wheels are necessarily the work of the same individual. In the case of someone as long-term and as notorious as Willy, for example, it's almost a given that many of the edits attributed to Willy were the work of imitators or fans. There is really no good, reliable way to isolate widespread vandalism to any one person. Unless a vandal were stupid enough to edit from the same IP every time and never register an account, that is. Dr Chatterjee 23:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, from what I've heard, the original Willy is from somewhere in England (and his grammer testifies to that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmonde Dantes (talk • contribs) 
*Comment - And also, I'm not an expert on how the IP system works, but  I wonder if this is even reliable information based on how IPs are assigned.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 00:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What it comes down to is that there are just too many factors working against the prosecution of any Wikipedia vandal or group of vandals. For one, tracking down a vandal is frought with difficulties. Beyond that, finding concrete proof of their actions is equally difficult. And finally, there seems to be no legal precident that criminalizes Wikipedia vandalism in the first place. Wikipedia is open-sourced; it is the online equivalent of a giant chalk board. You can't arrest people for "vandalizing" the chalk board by writing on it with the chalk you provide them -- no matter how silly or offensive their writing may be. Dr Chatterjee 00:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But we're not going to let him clean the erasers, of course (to extend the wonderful chalkboard analogy). They're really not doing any actual harm... it all gets reverted pretty quickly. Best approach in handling them is to keep your sense of humor, and enjoy the challenge of being in the CVU. --SB_Johnny | talk 01:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quick poll

message: A single user with puppets or possibly a group, see the this RfC. Apparently vandalizing Floral Park, New York, and Gang. --SB_Johnny | talk 01:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing vandalism 

message: has been removing markup tags from numerous articles (including an AfD article I was watching). Looked over his contribs, and several articles have been edited since, apparently not realizing the vandalism had occurred. SB_Johnny | talk 22:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tricky vandal... admin attention needed 

message: I made my first trivial edit a while back, happened to look for it and found that it's been reverted and marked as vandalism.
What am I supposed to do? Just edit it back again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Somerandomnerd (talk • contribs) .
:I looked up your edit and it appears you changed a statement in a Star Wars article. You did not provide a reference for the statement, and probably another user incorrectly believed it was vandalism. It may help to know that that user failed to assume good faith. If you change it back, be sure to include a link to the source. Take a look at WP:V and WP:CITE and feel free to ask if you have any other questions. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 23:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  But I'm not a vandal 

message: Recently on the page about the vandal CapnCrack I posted a sentence which tried to explain his motive for vandalism (based on a post he made to the page himself). The sentence I added stated that he is gay and vandalises the page  Oklahoma Christian University because it is intolerant of homosexuals (though the above edit only states that he dislikes the school's stance on homosexuality, not that he is gay himself). This vandal obviously dislikes being called "gay", as twice he has removed this sentence from the page (see  and ). Even though it isn't completely accurate, I am wondering if keeping that sentence on the page will be beneficial, as it will cause CapnCrack to spend his time removing it instead of vandalising elsewere. What do you think about this?--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 03:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, on second thought, it might just encourage more vandalism, so I'm going to remove the part that says he's gay.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 01:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, why would that matter in the first place? SB_Johnny | talk 01:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he doesn't like being refered to as "gay".--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 01:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe he isn't. I just don't see the relevance of a vandal's sexual preference. (Or pretty much anythng else about the vandal aside from their propensity for and method of vandalizing). --SB_Johnny | talk 01:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Two of several possibilities: Either he's gay but stating he is doesn't distract him from his vandalism; or he isn't, and stating he is incites him to more vandalism. Either way, I can't see that making unsourced statements, whether the vandal or any other reader would consider them positive, negative, or neutral, would necessarily be beneficial in terms of reducing vandalism. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something interesting I've noticed about CapnCrack 

message: Based on this edit, I wonder if this IP might belong to Johnny Knight (see WP:LTA).--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 17:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspicious IP 

message: It's quite ridiculous that a vandal is a so-called "member" of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Does he really believe that adding a  tag gives him immunity? That user has a long history of vandal activities, mostly arbitrary reversion and deletion of articles which does not settle with his POV. Which is also quite ridiculous, as the user is also ...
More than 75% of the user "Contributions" are either POV or vandalism, or both. A few examples:
* User_talk:Yousaf465/Archive_1#Content removal
* User_talk:Yousaf465/Archive_1#Vandalism
* User_talk:El_C#more_Yousaf465_vandalism
* 1996 shelling of Qana (diff)
* Zar'it-Ayta ash-Shab incident (diff)
Sincerely,
– Fuzzy 18:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can put a CVU userbox on their userpage, because anyone can edit (...and the fact that anyone can edit seems (unfortunately but inevitably) to lead to vandalism, which is why the CVU exists). Fuzzy, you might want to open a Request for Comment about the user if you find his/her behavior to be problematic, though I'm sure a few members of the CVU will be watching now (I personally haven't looked at the conrtibs yet, but I will later this evening). --SB_Johnny | talk 20:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked El C to ask the user stop vandalising. I hope no further admin intervention is required. BTW, I also haven't managed to decipher Yousaf465 comment below...  – Fuzzy 14:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed and removed. Having been banned on 5 July 2006 for vandalism definitely makes it inappropriate for him to be "misrepresenting" himself. --   Netsnipe  (Talk)  20:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: ...... what? American Patriot 1776 06:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I should have looked at those summaries. This is an edit-war problem on 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict and related articles (which has of course been raging for the past month). --SB_Johnny | talk 09:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by a CVU "member" 

message: Above I posted a link to an edit by an anonymous IP that hinted that it was used by a sockpuppeter known as "Johnny Knight". I believe that this edit may confirm my suspicions. The IP has since made more edits to his WP:LTA entry claiming to be the vandal.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 07:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This IP also made two edits to WP:VANDALNAME. One, (which I provided a link to above), added "Johnny Knight" to the list, while the other added "General Tojo", suggesting a possible connection between this IP and the General Tojo vandal as well.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 07:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP confirmed to be that of sockpuppeteer 

message: hi, i am just wondering who decides WikiDefcon, has it ever been at level 1 and what differences  are there to wikipedia at different levels.  i mean do all article become locked at WikiDefcon 1 or something, because i think that would be cool--Greg.loutsenko 23:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the last few days have seemed to have more vandalism than normal or alot more, I usually just look over a few article that I've spent alot of time on and those are being vandalised viciously, namely the Eric Clapton article. Is this more widespread or just limited, the defcon would say I guess but who decides the defcon? - Patman2648 00:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: When would level 0 ever be used? If the current level of vandalism is ever "unknown", then wouldn't it just be assumed to be the most recent confirmed level of vandalism?--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 03:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: On that one I have no idea I think it is for the IRC Channels being down or something....not sure Count. Æon Insane Ward 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for reference, a few days back there was a database lockdown due to network issues, followed by sporadic reachability of the site by several users. Wdefcon was set to zero for this. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiDefcon 

message: I just wanted to remind everyone to monitor the "current issues" section of WP:CVU and see that it is up to date. When I updated it a while back it was several months out of date.--The Count of Monte Cristo Parley 03:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a reminder 

message: This is the ultimate in plaigerism from the Counter terrorrist unit from 24. I am surprised wikipedieia hasn't been sued of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.170.243 (talk • contribs) 
:...says the vandal who made this edit. IrishGuy talk 20:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How uber sad are some people? 

message: Hi, i just wanna know how to join. Killswitch Engage
:Just add yourself to the list on the main page, and/or put a userbox on your userpage :). SB_Johnny | talk 11:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Joning

message: How does this work, exactly? --SB_Johnny | talk 11:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IRC authentification

message: I just though I should let you know that Randallrobinstine has resumed sockpuppet vandalism.--67.67.217.220 03:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RANDALL|Randallrobinstine]] is back 

message: user:203.217.13.143 appears to be a bot that is removing links to specific sites, especially, for some reason, http://www.crystalinks.com . --Eliyak T·C 19:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous bot? 

message: I'm concerned that CVU gets an "official" look-and-feel from having these two logos work in the official project logos. I had to go halfway down the page before I ever saw a disclaimer that it is not an official arm of the Wikimedia Foundation, and having their name and logos at the top of your page certainly could lead some to question this... I'm sure you're tired of hearing this, but was there ever a response to Wikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Archive_4#Trademark.2Fcopyright_vio from The_Cunctator? -- nae'blis 20:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. These logos should, at the very least, not be saying "Wikimedia Foundation", regardless of trademark law. —Centrx→talk • 20:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And is this project related to Meta or other Wikimedia projects? I think having just the left one with the Wikipedia logo, without the "Wikimedia Foundation" text, would be best. —Centrx→talk • 03:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please take copyright and trademark concerns to the board. And yes at least I am tired of dealing with this. --Cat out 20:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  official imprimateur 

message: Despite the outcome of Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll, whether vandals will be allowed to remove legitimate warnings from their talk pages is presently being discussed, again.  Please share your thoughts on this matter at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings John254 22:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is absurd - we have NEVER allowed polls conducted within what is essentially a wikiproject to set sitewide policy, especially when there was substantial objection - 9 people when the "consensus" option had 19 votes - to even trying to determine consensus that way. Phil Sandifer 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Did it get mention on the mailing lists? Village pump? The weekly what's going on? You ran a sparsely advertised poll for under a week. And deletion debates - particularly ones that gather only 13 votes - are not adequate gagues of sitewide consensus. Compare the participation in this poll to, say, Wikipedia:Trolling poll, which was held two years ago, when the site was appreciably smaller. Or Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement. Consider also a longstanding taboo against voting (And remember - RFA is not a vote as such. It's a poll used as a tool for what actually picks administrators, which is bueraucrats). This is not how you form policy. Simple as that. Phil Sandifer 23:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It has been disputed, added, removed, and clarified since January, when it went in as an example, you're right. There's never been a clear consensus of support for the blanket classification of removal of warnings as vandalism. -- nae'blis 17:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will vandals will be allowed to remove legitimate warnings from their talk pages?

message: Just so that everyone here knows about this - the page Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels is up for deletion, discussion can be seen here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels 2.  If you have any thoughts on this discuss them there.--Konstable 04:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WoW's page up for deletion 

message: Before you laugh me out the door, I'm going to nominate the Counter-Vandalism Unit for a deletion discussion, on the grounds that it glorifies the fight against vandalism, and thus glorifies vandals by association. Witness the countless attacks on this page by vandals over the last few months. They're like moths to a flame, and perhaps it's time to put out the flame. If you disagree with me, please feel free to do so on the deletion talk page that I will create. Please take this seriously, and do not attempt to remove my deletion notice out of hand without considering the facts of the case. Dr Chatterjee 00:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: The above account has been blocked indefinitely; it is the account of a user banned for disruption. —Centrx→talk • 05:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: With same logic Wikipedia:Wikiproject Anime and Manga glorifies vandalism to anime related articles. This is simply a wikiproject against vandalism. Stephan Colbert vandalised wikipedia in a televised manner, now THAT promotes vandalism. This page is not glorifying anybody. --Cat out 20:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh heh, sorry. Knee-jerk reaction. It's the end of summer and it already looks like snow. -- Ned Scott 06:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Putting CVU up for Deletion

message: I have had to revert due to vandalism but the procedure was somewhat long, especially because I had nothing to automatically create a description for the reversion.  I have seen many reversions that have the format "(Reverted edits by XXX to last version by XXX)"  so I am just wondering if there is a tool for non-admins that creates this tag and makes the process faster.  "Godmode-lite" looks like something that would work, but any input is greatly appreciated.  If this is the tool that makes the tag, how does one use it?  I couldn't find much data on this topic, so I apologize for asking if this information is somewhere else on wikipedia.
:I'm very interested in revision software too. I have tried using Vandal Fighter witch is great for finding vandalised articles but it dose not have a revision tool and I have applied for VandalProof but I think my number of edits are too low. Dose anyone have any advice or suggestions. Zippokovich 20:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have it! use the popups tool
Zippokovich 21:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speedy Reversion Tool in Common Use

message: I have not logged on nor edited articles in a while however,
I just recieved a message saying that my Ip () has been vandilising articles and will be banned if i don't stop. Umm... what the hell, I have not vandilized any articles nor know of anyone else in my household who even goes on wikipedia. It could be because we have a wireless interet conection and someone is stealing it or something and i have no idea what else to do or where else to complain. So could you help me out and give me some sugestions, seriously, this is pissing me off. --Gilimonster 18:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, but where? i can't see a vandalism warning on your userpage, or your ip's userpage? --Dak 12:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If it's your wireless, you should secure it. Someone could do a lot worse than vandalize WP from you IP, and if they're vandalising, they might not be the sorts of people you want sharing your bandwidth anyway. ----SB_Johnny|talk|books 20:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you have a static or dynamic IP address? --Ineffable3000 17:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Umm... Help

message: Just to show that I want everyone to suffer: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geni (talk • contribs) .
:/me applauds! — xaosflux Talk 12:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad. :) Me likey. I'd prefer her with a mop though since people will call us military because she is holding riot gear... --Cat out 14:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: so will that be a gateling mop or a howitzer mop?Geni 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gently cleaning/holding (just like how a maid would do). A new wiki-tan image might be drawn for it. :) --Cat out 14:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see why a mop would be appropriate, but I think she'd look very cute with a feather duster, and maybe a little frilly maid's cap. Her costume already looks a bit like a french maid outfit.  -- Vary | Talk 16:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm would think that would be more sutiple of the various syntax repair people. Unless you are tlaking about a RPFD with a tandem warhead.Geni 18:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advise a mop as the mop represents admins, something we aren't. American Patriot 1776 19:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Is this some sort of bad joke?  Did I just die and go to hell?  What the hell is that... that... thing over there -> ?--digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 21:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It an attempt to blackmail the foundation.Geni 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I certainly think that it will accomplish that ;) --digital_me(Talk•Contribs) 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: All chuckles aside, this little "joke" is evidence - obviously intended to belittle and insult a group of Users within the Wikipedia organization, those devoted to actively cleaning up vandalism.  At this point we need a mature independent Administrator, who is not a stakeholder in the argument whether the CVU should or should not be allowed to exist, to look at intervening on the behalf of some Users, who are clearly under attack as a group for whatever reason.  --T-dot 14:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being POV (PRO-CVU) I think this logo is great, and am in NO way insulted by it, not think it should be seen in any way as a personal attack by [[User:Geni|]. — xaosflux Talk 15:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the logo is not an attack on the CVU. While I would not describe myself as being pro CVU (I hate being pro things people expect you to get involved and stuff) I'm yet to see what I think logicaly sound argument against their existance. The image is mostly a joke (I have a very strange sense of humor) but    not one aimed at the CVU (if anything it contains a slight dig at the foundations policy on the use of their logos).Geni 16:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Attack on the CVU or not, you guys plagiarized the WikiProject Anime and manga's logo and I thought you guys didn't vandalise other people's work, considering yourselves part of an anti-vandal organization. What i'm trying to say is...you guys vandalized the logo of WikiProject Anime and manga! I thought you guys were supposed to PREVENT vandalism, not PROMOTE it! Is the CVU trying to have a good laugh before it dissolves by its own MfD? 74.225.117.237 18:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: credit is given to the two works it is derived from. That covers both plagiarism and copyright. One of the side effects of the GFDL is that people can create derivative works.Geni 18:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, and this is one of the potential project mascots for all of wikipediak :meta:Wikipedia_mascot#Wikipe-tan.  Vandalism would be if the production copy was chaged, forking is NOT vandalism. — xaosflux Talk 18:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: even if it weren't licenced under GFDL, the fact remains that plagarism/copyvio != vandalism. --DakAD 19:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice job, CVU. I, at least, find the juxtaposition of girl+riot gear hilarious. --tjstrf 18:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: With the help of :ja:利用者:Kasuga, I  created a new logo. Its released with a free license and does not use any wikipedia/wikimedia logos. Enjoy. --Cat out 21:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CVUtan

message: #THE COUNTER-VANDALISM UNIT IS NOW BEING CONSIDERED FOR DELETION AT Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination). Please feel free to vote there. --Cat out 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. Checkuser shows that Dr Chatterjee = Bobby Boulders = WoW. Looks like that funny stuff in my eyes was just wool after all! Well, back to vandal thumping... --SB_Johnny | talk 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No suprise there... Really... --Cat out 23:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Deletion Discussions 

message: It's five days should the deletion tag be removed?---Scott3 Talk Contributions  Count: 950+  00:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MFD runs for 8 days, but it has now been closed. — xaosflux Talk 01:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove deletion at the top? 

message: Why did the CVU logo go through so many changes? Toronto fille 01:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a nutshell, there were copyright issues with the derrvited images, out of a nutsehll:see above. — xaosflux Talk 06:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??? 

message: Why not change our name to suit the logo?  Sailor Moon is under trademark no doubt, unless someone wants to claim fair-use.  What about "Anime Maids of Wikipedia" or "Wikipe-tan Janitors Association"?  I'm sorry...  The logo just makes me want to drop on the floor laughing every time I see it.  But seriously is the logo staying?  And what about choosing a new name?--Konstable 03:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Maids of Wikipedia" and "Janitors association" make me want to drop on the floor and die. CVU is perfectly good as it is.--Chodorkovskiy (talk) 06:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, about the matching uniforms: you can always get the ones as pictured on this page... Titoxd(?!?) 06:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that's a logo I can live with. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we can use that one to replace the  hand hrm.--Konstable 06:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Chodorkovskiy above, leave it be, especially now that we just got done with rounds and rounds of deletion disucssions.  — xaosflux Talk 06:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "Anime Maids of Wikipedia" is too long. How about "Animaids of Wikipedia"? Factitious 20:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets leave the name alone.  but I do like the french maid.  Just picture it a vandal sitting there vandaising a way and the message pops up with a french maid saying this is your last warning, I would die laughing if that happened to me. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 05:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I like the idea, the image in question is copyrighted. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name to suit our logo? 

message: I'd like to see a message box at the top of this page that says something like "All prior nominations of this page for deletion have been made in bad faith by known vandals. Nominators of this page for deletion should provide evidence substantiating their reasons for nomination". Just a hurdle, the wording can change -- Clappingsimon talk 09:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those boxes are being transcluded from Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/oldmfds, although they may have been started that way, the third nomination was full of content/context based discussion as well (non-consensus, closer to keep then delete it felt like though). — xaosflux Talk 21:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just mention that they (the first two) were "bad-faith nominations"? --tjstrf 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MfD messageboxes

message: How about putting the following suggestion into the "detection" part of the project page: "temporarily put the daily featured article on your watchlist, as it is bound to become a target for vandals". Or something of the sort, you get my point. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good idea. I generally try to do it if I have the time, and I've caught a lot of vandalism like that (even if I did have to sully my contribution list with a Pokemon character...). EVula 16:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watching the FAs 

message: Please watch out for vandalism at Gay, Russia due to its obious atractiveness. Our glorious RCP'ers missed this today. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It lasted a full 20 minutes. How fucking horrible. I'm going home. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oy vey... Some articles seem made for vandalism... added to watchlist. EVula 18:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it lasted 20 minutes, but I had a notion that someone had an eye on RCP at all times, more or less, and an IP edit to Gay, Russia must be on of the most suspicious recent changes ever!! :) - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I use Lupin's tool, which singles out that kind of vandalism really well. (Of course, I wasn't using it this morning...) --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 20:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gay, Russia]]

message: Moved to Wikipedia talk:Voting is evil where it belongs. --  Drini 22:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Will [[Wikipedia:Voting is evil]] become a guideline?

message: There appears to be a long-standing dispute that I just got caught up in, regarding whether removing warnings from one's talk page should be considered vandalism (and possibly by extension, a reason to block said user). I've heard people claim consensus supports this, and others claim consensus opposes it. I am aware of several lengthy discussion pages on the topic - however, I would appreciate it if someone could give me a quick summary of why people think this is necessary. I hope it will be possible to reach some sort of compromise on the issue, to alleviate the dispute. >Radiant< 13:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings.  It's pretty brief and to the point.--MrFishGo Fish 18:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Upon analyzing the situation, I think the main issue for the policy is not what we think should happen, but what in fact does happen. See also Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#Removing warnings, once more. >Radiant< 10:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing warnings 

message: Could you guys watch The Wealth of Nations?  I can't keep up with vandalization stuff, but that seems to be what you do best.  I don't know where to put it on a watch list, but it should be there.  Thanks. --יהושועEric 02:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Needing Protection 

message: I have created a new SVG version of the logo, based on the blue one.  Peter O. (Talk) 13:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: SVG logo

message: You all can have all the logos you want and deny the military implications of the group name until the cows come home, but in the end you will still be percieved as a bunch of vigilantes by lots of newcomers and infrequent editors. The very idea that people need to self organize to "take action" against vandalism (real or percieved) looks like a self appointed posse of judges, juries and executioners. Whether the "need" exists or not, you all have to deal with how it looks to others who dont share your dedication and enthusiasm to your percieved cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.10.18.77 (talk • contribs) 
:Based on your history of vandalism, I think you simply don't enjoy getting caught. IrishGuy talk 01:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How can we be vigilantes and an organized group at the same time? If the CVU was disbanded, we would rightfully be called vigilantes since we would all revert vandalism purely on the self-interest of pages we care about. On the other hand, if the CVU became more cohesive we would be called a self-appointed organized group of judge, jury, and executioner for our concentrated grip on Wikipedia pages. I find it impossible for us to be both at the same time. Gdo01 01:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add to that the fact that under the above definition, all justice systems on Earth are vigilantes - they all started out with a bunch of random people not happy with the way things were... Unless you believe in divine right. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 10:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AKA Vigilantes of Wikipedia

message: [THIS CONVERSATION HAS NOW BEEN ARCHIVED.  DO NOT DELETE OR OTHERWISE CENSOR THE DISCUSSION.]
Your self-appointed counter vandalists saw fit to disallow me from deleting messages left for me on my talk page.  After repeatedly restoring these messages, they then block my whole account, and then locked down any editing of my main user page and talk page.  The irony, is that I was trying to request the wikipedia administrators to delete my user account.  My one page that I tried to create was immediately deleted by another user, and I agreed to that, but my requests for deleting my account or changing the username were also deleted from the request page as well as my user pages.  So I'm saying you guys are out of bounds and out of control in this case.
Update: Ironically, I was censored and blocked just for saying this by the admin , an anonymous person who got admin power after a mere 3 months of heavy activity (see also  and many other examples), while making little to no meaningful contributions to Wikipedia's real content.  Looking up some other bad admins like , , and , I found similar patterns.  If someone can become an admin after just 3 months of heavy activity, that means the system can be gamed and taken advantage of, as it has too often (I have numerous references to that fact).
Update 2: Censored again by admins  and .
Update 3:  has blocked me from any editing and completely deleted any history of this discussion.  Furthermore, he is now preventing any unregistered user from editing this page. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Wikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
If this isn't the right place to make a criticism of the self-appointed Counter Vandalism Unit and bad admins, then where is?  I
know I can post this to Wikipedia Review or other sites which accept
criticisms of Wikipedia, or popular news sites like Digg or Reddit.  I posted a link to a person stating a similar point of view to Reddit today, and it got upmodded almost 500 times.  See: http://reddit.com/info/nz6z/comments This expose on the abuse of power by Wikipedia's admins was the top story on the front page of Reddit all day today, and is still at #2 at the time of this writing, and it is already one of the top ten links ever posted to that site.  So this episode has resulted in an enormous amount of negative publicity for Wikipedia.
The quality of admins has precipitously dropped in the past 6 months.
Now anyone can easily and anonymously game the system and become an
admin after a mere 3 months of heavy editing activity, while making
little to no meaningful contributions to Wikipedia's real content,
including, ironically, , who deleted this statement and blocked my
entire IP address range.  Who needs China, when the censorship is
already so rampent within the Wikipedia system?  If they agents of
censorship in China only knew, they wouldn't bother with trying to block
Wikipedia.  Maybe they are catching on now.  People are starting to wake
up to the unimportance of Wikipedia's real information.
Some initial specific suggestions (again, I will be rewriting this sometime in the future):
* all admins must use real names
* all admins must have content expertise and have made most of their contributions to the content of Wikipedia, not talk pages, user pages and special Wikipedia pages.
* all voting on requests for adminships can be done anonymously, with only an indicator of one's current admin status being made public
* a detailed record and analysis of all the user's edits must be made available to voters using things like Interiot's tool
* admins are put on probation after first given powers.  certain powers are restricted or must be seconded by an established admin
* powers can be limited, such as no deleting, no blocking, no locking
* every year an admin has to go up for re-evaluation.  the same process every time
** I know, you're thinking, that idea is ridiculous, the vandals would have a field day and many good admins would have their powers taken away. Well I say that is a good thing.   Wikipedia needs new and more qualified admins.  Even the U.S. Senate, a system that 90% of Americans think does a poor job, is a more efficient system than Wikipedia's.  At least senators have a 2% chance of not being re-elected.  Only 14 out of over 1000 Wikipedia admins have had their privileges revoked in the history of this site.  That's 1.5%.  And only a few admins have voluntarily offered themselves up for a re-evaluation. 
Of course, none of this is going to happen.  That is why Wikipedia is
already starting its slow spiral of death just like usenet and the
original wiki. 
--Purposely left unsigned.
If you have such disbelief in the system healing itself, then why bother?  In my opinion, and that of many others, the Wiki process is self-healing.  Legitimate users would be reverting vandalism with or without the presence of a formal Counter-Vandalism project.  The project is merely for these editors to gather together, coordinate, and discuss issues.  What you're asking is for the system to become more bureaucratic, which is something I'm opposed to - it's not ArbCom, it's not MedCom, it's the CVU.  It's a WikiProject, and sometimes people seem to get this idea that it's more than it is.  I think we need a Wikipedia:What the CVU is Not entry if such misconceptions continue.  it's not some official effort to annihilate all vandals from the face of Wikipedia - it is simply a collection of concerned editors with similar goals - to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. Just my two cents. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I'm having some difficulty taking this post seriously.  made his first edit in January 2004  and became an admin in July 2006 (RfA). I'm not particularly inclined to do any additional research in to Purposely's claims, as it seems that he or she has some bone to pick and thought this was the proper place to bring it. It is not. EVula 22:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was from a user banned for some other trolling, and was previously posted and removed from this page, e.g. . You can remove it if you want—it is clear inflammatory nonsense from a banned user; I thought he might feel as though he got his satisfaction and would stop fooling around if it was left up. —Centrx→talk • 23:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Please note that members of the CVU are not necessarily admins. No special privileges are granted; This is just a collection of individuals working together to help combat vandalism. Admins and CVU members are not the same, nor is one a subset of the other. --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter Vandalism Unit needs some accountability