RuneScape talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit

Well folks, weigh in and tell me how to organize this. Shadowdancer 19:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is putting the RSWiki in the right direction. I'm not a member of the WP CVU, so I'm not familiar with their policies. Perhaps you could examine their CVU and transfer it over here when appropriate. Like you said, we shouldn't have substandard policies. [[image:Green party hat.PNG|14px]] Hyenaste talk 19:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Here is their CVU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Counter_Vandalism_Unit Shadowdancer 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Guidelines section can be included here. We haven't gotten enough vandalism yet :( to have the need to include much else. [[image:Green party hat.PNG|14px]] Hyenaste talk 19:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of simply having a section of where people report vandalism, and then the entry being crossed out when dealt with. But I suppose we should define vandalism first. Shadowdancer 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever you want to do–you're the uncontested leader of this. Luckily we're vandalism free for now, but looking at RuneScape on this list, we're bound for alot. [[image:Green party hat.PNG|14px]] Hyenaste talk 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I found five images defining a five-level DEFCON valdalism meter at Wikipedia:User:Anonymous_anonymous/Sandbox. These would likely be very useful. (Personally. I think we're at vandal-DEFCON 5 right now.) Oddlyoko 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Define Vandalism
Let's start defining vandalism, shall we? Someone else go ahead. Shadowdancer 21:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) senseless page blanking
 * 2) crude and innappropriate words or comments inserted into pages
 * 3) attacks on any user or player
 * 4) deliberate insertion of deceptive information
 * 5) any content that advocates breaking Jagex rules
 * That's what I have thought of so far. [[image:Green party hat.PNG|14px]] Hyenaste talk 21:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Changing the language of any article from English. Shadowdancer 21:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Insertion of ANY javascript or image that is a tool for hackers to steal passwords. Obviously.  Editors: Generally, try and keep to .png image files if possible or .gif if animated, .jpg is known to have weaknesses.
 * And how do we know whether an image is legitimate or not? Do we ban .JPG image formats? Shadowdancer 02:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be tempted to lol, but keep it open for now, because some very backward image programs can't save in .png format. --Eucarya 13:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This should be just a modification but I was suprised replacing a page with a few words about it that dosn't really explain what it is isn't vandalism and I really think it should be. Blue nacho 1234567654321 18:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What is not vandalism?
Alongside the above section, we do need to list what is not vandalism. Hyenaste talk 21:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What is not vandalism:


 * 1) Typos and other common mistakes (incorrect category, for instance) Shadowdancer 02:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

"Current Vandalism"
I meant for this section to be a place to report vandalism in progress for someone to deal with. Once the reported vandalism is handled the entry is rewritten in strikeout font. Don't use it to list people who have been blocked from RSWiki if they haven't been reported here first. Shadowdancer 18:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh, ok. I didn't know that. Oddlyoko 18:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not also add a "Wall of Shame" sort of area, where you can put the vandal, degree of vandalism (minor, major), and date of most recent vandalism by that user? It'd be a good way of keeping an eye on specific vandals, and to see how many vandals we've had recently. 18:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't the blocked user log used for that? Shadowdancer 21:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. A Wall of Shame would be redundant. [[image:Green party hat.PNG|14px]] Hyenaste talk 21:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think 71.200.212.203 was vandalizing the Hobgoblin page. When read, it says "Hobogoblin" above the image.

--Blankothe3rd 01:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And how is that considered vandalism?01:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it was changed from the right spelling to the wrong spelling. But it looks like a mistake. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  12:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Special attacks vandalized: Expect computer problems.

User box created!
Hooray for MS Paint! I've made a user box for people to identify themselves as CVU members: (deleted template) Shadowdancer 21:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions
How does one join and what are they entailed to do? -- Couchpotato99 22:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the article? Shadowdancer 23:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * umm... oops. Yeah sorry I missed that part. -- Couchpotato99 00:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Admins: Add to watch list
I recommend Administrators and Beaurocrats adding the CVU to their watch list. Shadowdancer 03:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

List of admins to PM?
At the top it says if you are reporting vandalism in progress, click here. Would adding just beneath that here is a list of RuneScapeWiki sysops who can be contacted via their RuneScape usernames:


 * Vimescarrot (User:Vimescarrot)
 * Geek Lord 66 (User:Couchpotato99)
 * Eucarya User:Eucarya'' - generally I have private chat 'On' - let me know if something's going on.

etc...would that be appropriate? Obviously, adding usernames to that list would be voluntary. Players who play with Private Chat off might not want their names on there, for example. I used Couchpotato because he's the only sysop i could think of whose wiki name is different from his RS name; justto show how that would work. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot 18:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

...
Since we don;t have a set rule, I think this stuff (meaning the CVU reports) should be cleared every month. Sounds good? Huanghe63 talk 06:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, the list was getting over populated, when not needed. 06:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't see why it needs to stay at all. We could just delete names/IP's as and when they have been dealt with. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  08:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

What on earth?
I didn't know that they were being deleted and i thoight they weren't saving and I don't think they should have been deleted so how is it an encyclopedia without this?
 * These aren't the style of articles that we write. We don't write about singled out players, unless they are like Durial321, and there were many other mistakes. The grammar was incorrect, it is not know if these are true "stories" or clans, and there were many misspellings. It just isn't the kind of up to standard article.22:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Message on your talk page?
In the objections section of the CVU page, it says "If you feel you have been wrongly accused of vandalism, then since you won't be able to edit this page, you will have to leave comments on your talk page. Comments left will be read by an administrator." Not many people would notice if an IP left a message on their talk page. Should we change it to leave a message on a sysop's talk page, then list admins that can be contacted (obviously voluntary)? Discuss.15:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're blocked, your own talk page is the only page you can edit. I wrote that when I checked every edit; I no longer do.....So I think we should probably just delete that section... JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  15:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I thought that the only pages you could edit were discussion pages. I'll try it.15:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

RS usernames...
What's the point in adding your RS usernames? Wouldn't it be better to just leave your username on the wiki?--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 23:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're logged in, players can communicate through private messages in realtime without needing to edit and respond and wait for replies. This enables admins to immediately deal with vandals. 00:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if they're logged in. I dunno, I just don't think they should be there, but whatever.--Richard (Talk - Contribs) 00:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Chasngcars, Moogel, etc
Well, lets continue here. I had a good day at work, had a short 4 hour shift, I, as we all know, work at a Food Basics (grocery store, it's a smaller no-name brand store owned by A&P) here in Niagara Falls, Ontario where I live. I come onto the wiki, log into RS for the first time in 2 months and notice the update. Next thing I know I have some pre-pubescent slapnuts named Chasngcars calling me (and everyone else) a racist, and then Moogel chases Patcong out of the wiki and then turns on me because of my professional-ness when handling situations and apparently he though I was impersonating a mod or just trying to tick him off, whatever. I had a good day, gone bad 01:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

How many times do i have to say this? i didn't "chase patcong off the wiki" he was going to quit because of his mom, research stuff before you assume. good philosophy. Moogel Hiscores 00:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Current Vandalism
Seeing as I for some reason can't edit the Current Vandalism, I'll post it here. Moogel is deleting my post in the What is your saying topic simply because I critiscized him when he insulted Clv and told her to leave the post. 21:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You were pesonally attacking me by calling me a "dick" so you could get a warning by that.Moogel 21:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it's not my fault, you are kinda a dick. From what I've read you've chased users off the wiki, you've insulted other users and you've edited other peoples posts, all of which are against the rules. So stop editing my post or I'll sic Oddlyoko on you. 21:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll let this go for now, if it escalates or continues I'll have to give you both a short block. 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Editing a post so that language is either censored or deleted is not considered vandalism. Besides, who are you Bob?  Today's the first I've even seen you around.  22:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone names User:Cursed heart is vandalising PKthis's page! 14:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it, but just so ya know. DarkMagic 16:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

CVUID!!!!!!
I've created a faster way to put in the user's name, talk, and contribs! When you want to report vandalism, you put   and it's similar to the unsigned template. Take me for example. If you were to report me vandalizing the Elvarg page, you would put....



That produces...


 * 18:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ideas? What do you think? Maybe it shouldn't be in small font? 18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's already a template I made recently for use on the RfA page, hehe. Oddlyoko talk 18:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't we modify this to work specialy for the CVU page? 18:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There you go, and there's room for the user's personal comment at the end. If they've vandalized more than one page, you can add that in the manually typed information. =) 18:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Admins, please....
I've noticed that not all of our administrators have their runescape wiki username down for the list of administrators. Admins, please put your name down in the administrators part of the main page ASAP. 22:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

CVU...
Dear all,

With all due respect, I don't mean to raise a stink here after having joined less than an hour ago, but have you guys heard of "Don't Feed The Trolls" policy and "Vandalism Is Not A Game"? :-) We had a big problem on Halopedia when we had an organization like this...I'm still wet behind the ears here, but I'm just noting that on Halopedia, all our recurrent vandalism stopped when we scrapped our counter-vandalism organizations. ;-) Cheers, Relen tless Recu sant 'o the Halopedia Team http://images.wikia.com/halofanon/images/a/ac/Fleet_Admiral.jpg TALK • SPEAK 03:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question, but I'm not sure it has to much affect on whether we get vandels or not. Most of the vandels seem to be kids who I think would vandelise pages because they can anyway. In some cases, there have been several children in a classroom that have been vandelising at the same time (although this does not happen too often). There have been some cases of persistant vandels, who seem to want to cause problems rather than just doing it "because they can".


 * The CVU page itself can be useful as I'm not on Wiki or Runescape that much, but I have my watch on the CVU page set to send me email, which is monitored from my desktop, so it allows me to respond if someone posts on the CVU page (for about 8 to 10 hours of the day). 10:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you on drugs?
I just witnessed some vandalism in progress, so I went to report it. What did I find? The CVU page under protection. That's retarded. Why did you folks do this? Planeshifted 22:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit suspicious* of you, Planeshifted...but I have no clue as to why this was protected.
 * * You remind me of...someone.
 * It's semi-protected, meaning that logged in users can edit it. 22:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's semi protected to prevent IPs from vandalizing it (it's happened in the past). Registered users with accounts older than a few days can edit it. Dtm142 22:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Imo, I'd rather deal with a vandal once a month then not allow a entire usergroup to report vandalism. 22:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well leaving it semiprotected (i.e. allowing logged-in users write access to the page) is sensible. I was confused as to why I couldn't report vandalism though.  And as for me reminding you of someone, I'm actually Blackout from Transformers. Planeshifted 22:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just checked, and it looks like the reason was that your account is not old enough yet (less than 2 days old). 09:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Main Page helps with Dragon Slayer???
A while ago, i was having a look at the Dragon Slayer page for some reason, and at one point, there was like 3 copies of the main page there. I edited it to kinda reverse it a bit, but i didnt think of reporting it here. What do you guys think?

Warnings
What is our official policy on blocking? As far as I can see, and the others aren't even being used. I'll use the templates when i find vandalism, but I've found plenty of users without talk pages blocked for 24 hours and such for messing with articles. The main reasons I'm bring this up is:


 * Sometimes, people need second chances and just a warning or message of what they're doing wrong. Take Patcong for instance. He was a vandal at first, but is a good Wiki editor now.
 * Wikipedia has 2,280,897 articles as of 05:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC), and every vandal I've seen so far has received their fair chance to stop vandalizing before the block. Also, on WP, some vandals carry out useless editing after temporary blocking. If we do go ahead and use the vandal templates, an effective soulution would be perm blocking for registered accounts and something else for the IPs. I can't think of any way to deal with them. 05:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * is sometimes used, though uncommonly. Most active admins, which doesn't include me, block IPs after a single offense. I, on the other hand, give 1 to three warnings before a block. Our page on blocking is at RuneScape:User block policy, though it doesn't set any guidelines to what lengths blocks should be placed for what. 05:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * One-time vandalism doesn't necessarily show an editor is only interested in vandalism. They may be bored and simply need constructive criticism. Though, shouldn't we set a standard which applies for all users? After all, every editor from the IP to bureaucrat has the same editing rights. Those rights may be taken away at the discretion of an admin, bureaucrat, or Wikia staff, but all users deserve in simple fairness an equal opportunity to redeem themselves. "With equality comes equal importance." I suggest a number of warnings from 3-5 (I'll let others comment) beofre any bans take place. 05:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Vandals adding offensive remarks, blanking pages, and entering false information deserve immediate blocking from 1 or 3 days or even a week if the edit is very offensive and/or intolerant of others. Others I let slide or block only 1 or 2 hours to make an entry in the Block log for later 2nd or greater strikes. If it was a error (duh, there's the Cancel or Back key; why hit the Save key?), then during the short time they are blocked, they should read 'Help' on the left navigation bar and review the Rules and other Help pages. Chrislee33 05:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to sound harsh, Chrislee33, but it seems you completely ignored the main part of my message. "Others I let slide or block only 1 or 2 hours to make an entry in the Block log for later 2nd or greater strikes." Why would you let some slide? All editors are equal. Besides, from what I've noticed, the admins here in general don't even tell the vandal what they've done wrong! No talk page means no warning. No warning means no communicaton, no constructive criticism. For example, you can't send a little kid to their room for messing up and not say a word in the process as to why they're going there. Why is it fair that you have the ability to be heavy-handed with no reason to back it up? Sure, vandalism is wrong, plenty of people with enough common sense can see that. You said, "during the short time they are blocked, they should read 'Help' on the left navigation bar and review the Rules and other Help pages." But after all the blocks, what's that going to do if they were never told to stop? By the way, if a vandal does deserve immediate blocking, where in print does it say that's how things should be handled? I just checked the block log at 00:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC). There were about 10 users out of 500 that were actually foramlly warned as to what they did wrong. I think the fact that .02% of vandals which are warned proves my point. But to further expound, I'm not backing up vandals, just trying to say that an official policy must be established before Wikians resort to their own personal methods.   00:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your points are well taken. I usually try to block only the obvious one who use offensive language, profanity, those who submit information that is clearly false (1 gp for a rune item!). But after all the blocks, what's that going to do if they were never told to stop? These vandals know what they are doing and warnings will not help. In case you missed it, Total Rune has declared a vandal war on us ( See RuneScape:Yew_grove), so I've been a little busy reverting a lot of vandalism, I don't have time to give warnings to those editors that you refer to.  I'm glad you are helping to put warnings up. I just don't have the time to do that. Be Bold. Please start working on the official policy since it seems that you are very interested in it and submit it to the community for feedback and consensus. I much rather work on more productive editing than reverting vandalism. Looking forward to you becoming an admin to help us out with the blocking.  Even if you don't want to be a sysop (who are more like janitors rather than management), please continue to make any other contributions to the wiki. Thanks.  Chrislee33 03:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't read everything, and sorry if I bring something up that was already discussed or is off topic. However, I agree with Chrislee, vandalism is a sign of immature behaviour and deserves a block. I'm not sure about all admins, but when I block a vandal, I leave my vandal template on their talk page. I usuaully block minor vandals for 1-3 days, and I leave the message on their talk page. If someone vandalizes, they are showing that they can't handle editing and that they can't take things seriously. Of course, some people might be bored and just want to do something, but at someone else's cost?... This behaviour deserves a block, and the only REALLY SERIOUS blocks handed out are to major vandals and infamous users such as Buck Nell, Total Rune, and some others. If you ask me, 1-3 days is a deserving punishment for an immature vandal, and I'm sure they can wait 3 days, it's not like the world is comming to an end. If they want to come back after 3 days to show that they want to contribute, they can do that. Sadly, most vandals don't follow in the footsteps of our long-time editor Patcong (it's been a year ever since he joined) and will just abuse their warning. That is why a 3 day block is necessary. It not only teaches them a lesson and gives them time to think over what they did, but keeps them from vandalizing again. So seriously, I think vandals can wait 3 days before they come back to edit, just to have some time to think over what they did and decide if they want to help edit or not =\. That's what blocks are for, right? 20:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit, I tend to be one of the admins that will just block for vandalism as soon as I see it. But warnings don't tend to be very effective, IMO. There is no way that vandals are unaware that blanking pages is wrong. Most of the time, the vandal simply ignores the warning; sometimes, the warning becomes trollfeed instead. It is very rare that anything constructive happens as a result of a warning, at least in my experience. Sure, it is possible. But I think that if a vandal were to change their mind and contribute instead, they could just wait out their block, or better, ask to be unblocked on their talk page (which is mentioned in the block message).

There is a point, I suppose, that blocking times are rather uneven. I agree that it would be beneficial to have a more specific policy that lays out whether there should be a block or warning for a given offence, and what length or warning level. It might be difficult, however, to get everyone to agree on such a policy, and if there isn't broad agreement, then it pretty much defeats the point of creating one. One thing I see in the discussion above, though, is the notion that everyone should be blocked for the same amount of time. We do need a consistent standard for blocks, but that doesn't mean every type of vandalism should be treated in an identical manner, which looks to be what is implied above. Probably, if we were to go about making a policy like this, vandalism with obviously malicious intent would get a more serious block (or warning...) than edits that could be construed to be accidental, which makes perfect sense to me. Skill 10:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This situation has become thorny. I think this needs to be brought up on the yew grove and there we could discuss it more openly. I have a compromise in mind. 20:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
People keep on vandalizing this page so can someone please semi-protect this? -- 20:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll give it 3 days of semiprotection. Dtm142 20:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- 20:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

vandals ip?
how do you find a vandals ip?  Frede173  17:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the username shows up as a number (ex. 123.4.5678), then the user is unregistered, and that number is the IP. 21:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Solution to allow full protection of RS:CVU
At User:Catcrewser/Litterbox I have created a copy of RS:CVU and changed it in a way that will allow full protection of RS:CVU to prevent vandalism of it. The changes to make it work on RS:CVU are in comments on the page.


 * User:Catcrewser/Litterbox(RS:CVU) - The Main page, would have Full Protection(Sysops only)
 * User:Catcrewser/Litterbox/Page1(RS:CVU/Current_vandalism) - The Current vandalism section, would also have full protection. This would be an editintro also, used when you edit Pending reports.
 * User:Catcrewser/Litterbox/Page2(RS:CVU/Pending_reports) - The Pending reports section, no protection. When edited the Current Vandalism section will appear as an edit intro. Vandals can cause slight harm, but it would be very limited since it is the section where they would be reported and they can't edit the rest ;-).

This solution should work(at least in theory and in my tests on the copy of the wiki I have on my computer). - 03:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I really like this idea and think it would be very useful. Thanks for thinking of this, Catcrewser. :) 04:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I followed the lead somewhat. Far too many admins have this page on their watch list to move the reporting section to another page, so instead I moved the "introduction" part that explains what this page is all about to a separate page and had it transcluded to here.  I left the intro to be semi-protected, at least in the spirit of openness and allowing "anybody" to edit most of the content of the wiki.


 * Seriously, this is the last page that a vandal wants to mess with anyway. Anybody stupid enough to blank this page or add jibberish/offensive language is going to be dealt with very quickly and harshly.  It really isn't a problem, even though I've seen a couple of vandals try.  I give such vandalism a life span of about 1/2 hour at the worst possible situation where none of the admins are on-line... a rather rare occurrence considering the number of admins that we have here that are quite active.  I really don't know how useful this is going to be, but at least it does remove the temptation to mess with the content and requires knowing how to maneuver through the wiki to be able to find the content.  --Robert Horning 12:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cvuid
Since the cvuid template allows users to specify which page was vandalised, it might be a good idea to switch the example text to. Although it's easy for a responding administrator to simply check the vandal's contributions, being able to narrow down exactly what was being reported is always important, especially if the report was incorrect and feedback needs to be given. It should still remain an optional parameter, but at least it will encourage contributors to specify exactly which page(s) was/were vandalised. 01:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont know how other admins do it, but I check back up to 10 or more contribs per reported vandal (in the rare cases there are that many). And I go in chronological order, as I feel it helps determine if its an accident, real vandalism, or when was the last time they did it. The specific page being listed listed is something I consider to be clutter. But like I said, thats me. I really like it best when people leave that off.--Degenret01 01:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more in the case in which you aren't sure exactly what the user was reporting, and you need to discuss the report with the contributor. It can't hurt to know which one, really.  02:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)