Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Don't archive this section!

Wikipedia vandalism information (abuse log) Low to moderate level of vandalism [view • purge • ] 3.55 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 23:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This has a white border. See my userpage for how it looks.--digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 21:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: This appears to be only used here, here and here, but not on Digitalme's userpage. Just saying in case someone is confused why it isn't shown on his userpage, linked above as an example. +Hexagon1 ^(t) |*̥̲̅ ̲̅†̲̅| |>̲̅-̲̅| 03:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well at the time, it was my userpage. I keep several ready, depending on my mood. ;) --digital_me^{(TalkˑContribs)} 03:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:GangstaEB/Wdefcon

3.55 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 23:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Darn. If a sig is over about 16 characters it breaks this template by forcing it to be longer than a userbox. Is there any solution to this I wonder. Herostratus 04:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My sig is over 16 and it works fine. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 8:09 am et 15 November 2006

3.55 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot 23:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based off the United States Department of Homeland Security Terrorist Meter -- Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome... GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small craft advisory. (Low to moderate level of vandalism) 3.55 RPM according to EnterpriseyBot23:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Based on the US Weather Service's maritime warning flags. 5=no warning 4=small craft warning 3=gale warning 2=storm warning 1=hurricane warning. Adopted in the 1950's and until recently flown at US Coast Guard stations etc. Admittedly US-centric. Also, the double flags would be flown on one pole, but that made the graphic too tall... Herostratus 04:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really based on anything.

Based on AzaToth's, though the appearance is styled after the "infobox" class. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add any additional comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I finally figured out how the template works :-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

see User:AzaToth/Wdefcon, for example:

_→AzaToth 01:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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