Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yankees76 (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 10 March 2006 (→I object to this organisation!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

File:CVU2.PNG

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

Archives: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4

Asking for Charity

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)

Vandalism Stats

Just curious.. has anyon 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)

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)

Thank you for that :) an interesting one: semi protection rocks. See sharp drop in vandalism and continuing unreverted edits (aka non vandalism) --Cool Cat 00:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I also have some stats located in the following two locations: User:Lightdarkness/Vandalism & User:Lightdarkness/Vandalism/Sandbox --lightdarkness 04:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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 Cat 17:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Misplaced Pages:Cleaning up vandalism

I like that ;) --Cool Cat 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"ON JUNE 6 2006[REDACTED] WILL MEET ITS MAKER" vandal

Who the heck is he is he using the same IP range? Can someone find a checkuser? --Cool Cat 22:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

According to IRC convo he appears to be from AOL ips.  ALKIVAR™ 23:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I rangeblocked earlier, but the block caused too much collateral damage. For now, we just need to keep reverting and blocking as we see it. Essjay 02:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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

Help please, i would like to be in the Counter Vandalism Unit

How do i get in? Please contact me on my user page. Auburnfan4--Auburnfan4 00:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You can associate with CVU by adding userbox {{user CVU1-en}} or userbox {{user CVU2-en}} 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)

I object to this organisation!

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)

If you vandalize, we'll revert it. Period. --Rory096 00:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not exercising your position appropriately. I have not vandalised. Prove that I did. 68.110.9.62 00:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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) 00:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this; we are not an organization that acts as a whole, we are a group of people with similar interests. Please take issues with particular individuals to the talk pages associated with those individuals. Essjay 00:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I love it when vandals object to our existance... :P --Cool Cat 00:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages wasn't a soapbox for extremists. Yankees76 01:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You hate me, so why not hate you in return? You call anybody "vandal" as any excuse to masturbate your "powers" over those with an IP addy. 68.110.9.62 10:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Anons are fine, unless they start vandalising, then they are dealt with with little sympathy. --Cool Cat 12:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Keep denying and casting aside random people who won't get with your program. That's trolling. 68.110.9.62 18:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Spotted a vandal

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

NPOV example?

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)

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)

defcon?

Where did the defcon go?

--Activision45 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages:WikiDefcon page was deleted, due to a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiDefcon. However, {{Wdefcon}} still exists. Titoxd 23:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As the template survived the deletion debate, I jsut retranscluded it on the Project page. xaosflux /_CVU 02:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for rollback privileges

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)

This isn't good...

There's a group called the "Misplaced Pages 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)

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 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Bunker buster? Why can't we just use a MOAB? Titoxd 01:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to join.

I would like to join the Counter Vandalism Unit here at Misplaced Pages. I would like to help track down vandals and put them out of business. I come on to Misplaced Pages 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))

Please see the above discussion Misplaced Pages talk:Counter Vandalism Unit#Help please, i would like to be in the Counter Vandalism Unit. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}• • 16:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Finding vandal edits

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

Request for a User Block

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))

WP:AIV --Measure 19:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Monsters of Rock and Chris Cornell

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)

Types of RC patrolers

• 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 Cat 00:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

My bot

I am almost done with version 2.0 (complete rewrite of basiacly everything), while I am at it what new functions would you guys want. Bot can only read the rc feed :) --Cool Cat 22:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess no one cares... damn you pgk, I wont admit defeat! :) --Cool Cat 01:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps add a variable to express links in expanded (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/ links) or Wikilink format? That would be useful. Titoxd 01:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean diff links?

Ex Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wexford_GAA&diff=next&oldid=39353234

--Cool Cat 04:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

A switch between diff links and wiki links, I mean. Titoxd 03:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats easy to code but[REDACTED] does not have a way to make ] links link to diffs. --Cool Cat 17:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

IHEU long-term and complex vandalism

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)

Can somebody please help me? Rohirok is continuing to vandalise these pages. He also seems very confused by the fact that the American Humanist Association (which claims religious status) is both secular and Humanist. --Couttsie 21:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone did something, but the situation has improved considerably. --Couttsie 03:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyone see this user page?

Roxanne Harman (talk · contribs) 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)

Intro and Suggestion

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 . Earlier today some of the changes were fixed . However, many were missed. I fixed it (but it took me a couple tries) and . 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)