Template talk:Vandalism information
| Note: This template has been nominated for deletion four times and was deemed useful. The previous nominations were: |
|
||
Available styles
Don't archive this section!
User:Zsinj's version: {{Wdefcon}} or {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Zsinj/}}
|
Wikipedia vandalism information  Low to moderate level of vandalism
2.60 RPM according to DeadbeefBot 08:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC) |
User:AzaToth's version
{{wdefcon|style=simple}}
|
| |||||||
{{wdefcon|style=simple|type=UK}}
|
| |||||||
{{wdefcon|style=simple|noinfo=yes}}
|
| |||||||
{{wdefcon|style=simple|noinfo=yes|type=UK}}
|
|
simple-light style
{{wdefcon|style=simple-light}}
|
| |||||||
{{wdefcon|style=simple-light|type=UK}}
|
| |||||||
{{wdefcon|style=simple-light|noinfo=yes}}
|
| |||||||
{{wdefcon|style=simple-light|noinfo=yes|type=UK}}
|
|
Based on AzaToth's, though the appearance is styled after the "infobox" class. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Gandoman's version
{{wdefcon|style=gandoman}}
|
|
Based on User:DakAD's, but the "Vandalism" header changes in size according to the level of vandalism.
User:Misza13's version: {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Misza13/}}
| 4 |
WikiDefcon 4 |
| 2.60 RPM according to DeadbeefBot —08:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC) | |
digital_me's version: {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Digitalme/}}
| 4 |
Low to moderate level of vandalism |
| 2.60 RPM according to DeadbeefBot | |
Note: This has a white border. See my userpage for how it looks.--digital_me(TalkˑContribs) 21:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
GangstaEB's version
User:Herostratus' version: {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Herostratus/}}
|
2.60 RPM according to DeadbeefBot 08:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC) change |
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)
- My sig is over 16 and it works fine. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS 8:09 am et 15 November 2006
User:Davidpk212's version: {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Davidpk212/}}
User:Hexagon1's versions: {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Hexagon1/}} and {{Wdefcon|prefix=User talk:Hexagon1/}}
| 4 | WikiDefcon 4
Low to moderate level of vandalism |
- My second version: "
4". +Hexagon1 (t) 15:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
User:ILovePlankton's version: {{Wdefcon|prefix=User talk:ILovePlankton/}}
|
|
2.60 RPM according to DeadbeefBot 08:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)change |
Shane's Version: {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Bugs5382/}}
| VANDALISM THREAT | ||||||
|
Based off the United States Department of Homeland Security Terrorist Meter --
Shane (talk/contrib) 20:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Awesome... GangstaEB (sliding logs~dive logs) 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Nautical version: {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Herostratus/Nautical/}}
|
Small craft advisory. (Low to moderate level of vandalism) 2.60 RPM according to DeadbeefBot08:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC) change |
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)
User:Timrem's Version: {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Timrem/}}
| 4 | WikiDefcon 4: 2.60 RPM according to DeadbeefBot |
Not really based on anything.
Gracenotes' version: {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Gracenotes/}}
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||||||||
| edit purge view |
Low to moderate level of vandalism | 2.60 RPM according to DeadbeefBot 08:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC) | |||||||||||
A tabbed version. It includes everything, but is meant to be compact... will probably improve visual appearance later. There is also an option, "type" (for lack of better parameter name in actual code), default at 100%, that determines the width of the template. It can be anything like 100% or 300px, but keeping the width above 40% or 250px should make the tabs be proportional on computer monitors with lower display resolution. Above, it's at 50%, with a center align. GracenotesT § 20:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Microtony's version: {{Wdefcon|prefix=User:Microtony/}}
|
2.60 RPM according to DeadbeefBot 08:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC) ch |
This one's size is about two userboxes (but a bit taller). Images are made by me. Codes based on Herostratus' version and modified a bit. - Microtony 12:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
Speedy?
When I was here a bit ago, this template was showing a speedy deletion tag. Now it's gone, & I don't see it in the history. Have I finally gone insane from editing too long? :-) --Ssbohio 02:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- Probably so, I just had a quick browse of the history and didn't see any speedy tag. Seek medical advice. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 03:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is a complex template with various transclusions. The speedy delete was an attempt to clean out one of the transcluded templates, which then appeared on the main template page. And per the vandals reading these messages too, I'm not about to go into detail on how this template works. You don't need medical advice, for now. The vandals may cause certain psycological conditions such as annoyance, however. Kevin_b_er 07:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
SILLY-O-METER ALERT LEVEL 1 - DATABASE LOCK RECOMMENDED
Why does level 1 once again recommend a database lock? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Because of what just happened? -Spring Rubber 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- They locked the DB because of the sudden server overload, not the vandalism. Locking the db doesn't stop vandalism; it just locks the current version of every single article in place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Although it would probably help in an all-out vandalism fest. -Spring Rubber 04:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure the recommendations made on a userpage template are disregarded when it comes to db locks. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Although it would probably help in an all-out vandalism fest. -Spring Rubber 04:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- They locked the DB because of the sudden server overload, not the vandalism. Locking the db doesn't stop vandalism; it just locks the current version of every single article in place. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
Blanked
Just to give everyone a heads up the template was blanked. I restored it and will be watching it for furture blanking. I have also warned the User blanked it. Aeon Insane Ward 21:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe we should semi-protect this template? --Shane (talk/contrib) 22:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Reason for sudden spike.
Just incase you still don't know whats going on. Steven Colbert made a (sarcastic) request on his show tongiht, The Colbert Report for users to edit wikipedia to show a tripleing in the elephant population over last six months. The word on his show was wikiality, essentially truth is more about shared opinion instead of fact. YouTube Link [[1]] --mitrebox 04:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Ahoy, matey!
I made these for Severe weather terminology (United States), but y'know, they could be adapted for this template as a less military-style version... although the shapes might be awkward... anyway, somebody above (I forget who, sorry) did some magic with the templates and I'm not sure now how to make new template versions anymore... Herostratus 08:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK, figured it out, it's placed above with the others. Herostratus 04:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Defcon Level
I think that either the levels of vandalism are slightly elevated, or other patrollers are less active. Do you know how I can tell? I, a slowpoke, have been able to sucessfully perform many reversions today. --Gray Porpoise 21:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Things have quieted down.
Quited? Shouldn't it be quieted? Whispering(talk/c) 16:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Much Better. --Sakura Avalon 18:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Requested move
User_talk:Yanksox/Wdefcon → Template:Wdefcon – It's not a userbox. People who turned the template into userboxes have such template code to make it into a userbox already in the userspace. Its not a userbox, it should never have been GUS'd. Even the 'main' one is technically in User:Zsinj's userspace. Its a metatemplate, and should've remained in the template space, as its not a userbox. Furthurmore, the move to userspace flew in the face of a somewhat recent TfD in may. Kevin_b_er 15:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Survey
Add "* Template:" or "* User:" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
- Template: - yes, this isn't a userbox in itself. —Xyrael / 15:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is a box, and it goes on userpages. Template space is for encyclopedic things, more is tolerated in userspace. That's the principle of the WP:GUS and these is no good reason why it should not be followed here. Look, some of us would like to see the damn thing deleted - some others think it's fun - so userfying it is a compromise. No, it isn't my ideal solutions (which would be deletion) no it isn't yours (which would be something else), so let's meet halfway, like on userboxes, and go back to editing. Simple. --Doc 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Leave in userspace. I find it useful and don't want it deleted. So having it in the userspace is the best choice. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 16:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't care. Put it somewhere and stop moving it around. --Chris (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Template: - more centralised, less confusing. More people will be eager to edit it, since Template: is a neutral ground, unlike User: - a certain resistance from editing others' "private" subpages is natural and would reduce the template's openness (read: usefulness). Misza13 19:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- User. Only because it will be likely destroyed otherwise. My understanding is that there is either a decision or a movement to delete all templates that are not used in articles? I'm not sure if that's so but there is certainly a faction that believes in that, I think. And all the more so for this template, which was mentioned in the CVU MfD as a negative thing also. Therefore it could be deleted out of hand, not going thru TfD. And it doesn't really matter whether its in userspace or template space. Of course being in userspace won't really prevent it from being deleted, either. So whatever the majority decision is is OK with me. I agree with CrazuComputer in that sense. Herostratus 20:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Templatespace. It's survived two TfDs already, it's unlikely to be deleted, and if it does lose a TfD, it would be moved to userspace then anyway, so there's no reason to make it hard for people now. It's not a userbox. --Rory096 03:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Discussion
Add any additional comments
- Comment I don't care, I'm just adopting this thing as it appeared to have been hit by GUS. After seeing what happening to CVU, it would seem like a good idea to userfy stuff to avoid controversy. Yanksox 15:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Why was this moved?!..It has already surrived MULTIPLE TFD's. — xaosflux Talk 17:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- But if GUS is now policy, it can be speedy deleted with out a TfD. Herostratus 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- People fail to understand that although it is used on many user pages, its original purpose was WP:CVU. This is not a userbox and does not qualify for GUS. --ZsinjTalk 12:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- But with the CVU deleted it may now become a target for Speedy Delete. There has been an Anti-Vandal Delete Spree going on lately. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 12:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- It just needs to be established that as xaosflux said, this template has survived several attempts to delete it. If it is speedied, I will personally speedy undelete it. (And GUS is not a "policy." It's a "just do it" which is appropriate for userboxes. --ZsinjTalk 17:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- But with the CVU deleted it may now become a target for Speedy Delete. There has been an Anti-Vandal Delete Spree going on lately. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 12:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- 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. --ZsinjTalk 12:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why is it only appropriate for userboxes? --Doc 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- The middle word of GUS is "userbox" afterall. Userfication aside from userboxes getting sent to user space en masse. Kevin_b_er 19:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- That reasoning is totaly circular. I know 'u' = usebox. But I am asking why the same principle as the one we apply to userboxes shouldn't be applied to other non-encyclopedic templates? --Doc 19:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because that's not what GUS is. Propose a new policy that incorperates GUS and non-encyclopedic templates under the same umbrella of userfication and have it achieve consensus. Then you can make that argument. --ZsinjTalk 17:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Propose a new policy? GUS isn't a policy. You just do it. It is a compromise between myspace tendancies that want every type of crap in template space, and those who wanted to delete it all. That's a good principle, and you've given no good reason why we shouldn't apply it here. Why isn't that a good idea? Do we really need to have another userbox style war before people are willing to compromise? I trust not. Stop lawyering and start discussing. Is this a valuable tool which we should keep in the main template space? Convince me. Is there a consensus that it is useful? If not, let's either delete it altogether - or work out a middle way (just like we did with userboxes). --Doc 17:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I find it useful in that I usually drop what I'm doing and go patrol Recent Changes, New Page, New Account, and New User Contributions when the DefCon goes to 4, and sometimes when it goes to 3. So yeah the DefCon definitely provides useful information to me. And you can't really just paste it into each user's page (which is what GUS does if I understand it correctly), obviously, because of its structure and the need for a change to propagate immediatly into every ___location where it appears. But whatever. I don't like doing anti-vandalism patrol, and if the No Fun Brigade feels it's not worthwhile I'd be just as glad to stop doing it. Herostratus 07:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Hero. I start patroling when it hits three and will drop what I'm doing if it is at two. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 06:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I find it useful in that I usually drop what I'm doing and go patrol Recent Changes, New Page, New Account, and New User Contributions when the DefCon goes to 4, and sometimes when it goes to 3. So yeah the DefCon definitely provides useful information to me. And you can't really just paste it into each user's page (which is what GUS does if I understand it correctly), obviously, because of its structure and the need for a change to propagate immediatly into every ___location where it appears. But whatever. I don't like doing anti-vandalism patrol, and if the No Fun Brigade feels it's not worthwhile I'd be just as glad to stop doing it. Herostratus 07:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- Why is it only appropriate for userboxes? --Doc 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
'do not glamorise vandalism'
| Vandalism |
|
Low to moderate level of vandalism |
| 2.60 RPM according to DeadbeefBot |
on the principle of not glorifying vandalism/trying to avoid making vandalism 'fun' for the vandals, maybe we should make a toned-down defcon?
my reasoning is that, for a vandal, it might be fun to try to up the defcon level -- hey look, defcon 4. i wonder if i can bump it up to defcon 3? -- and also that it makes vandalism 'game-like'.
i was thinking of something along the lines of replacing 'wiki defcon' with something nutral like 'vandalism', dropping the numbers, and just keeping the descriptions.
thoughts? --DakAD 05:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- I like this idea. Though the numbers may be neccessary on a template level as we need to feed parameters to produce the descriptions, though we don't need to show them. Do you have any designs? We can put your design into the proper subpage of your userspace so others can use it, and by that the main example (currently it shows Zsinj's version on the template page). Kevin_b_er 07:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that some users (me included) don't read the descriptions when opening their user page, they just see a color or a number, and if it is high enough, then they read the description and they hop onto IRC or start Vandal Fighter or something similar. Removing the numbers would make the template less effective, IMO. Titoxd(?!?) 07:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Right, me also. But anyway I think it's highly dubious that vandals vandalize to because of the DefCon, although it's not possible to prove either way. Herostratus 08:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- good point. would keeping the colour be enough? and, i'm not suggesting that the defcon itself encourages vandolism as such, rather it's a combination of things (the defcon being one) that makes vandalism more 'fun' --DakAD 07:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
Just a note - there is one version of the template that displays only the number and even no colors (User talk:Hexagon1/Wdefcon). The way the template looks like is really up to you. What we could decide on is what the default (Zsinj's) version looks like, since it's the one still being most widely used. Misza13 11:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thats actually what i meant (albeit not what i said): maybe we should make the default template a more neutral one, like mine or hexagon1's (or maybe a simple userbox that simply says Vandal|{{level}}, with {{level}} linking to the discription, something like that or either your or hexagon1's other template, but just with defcon replaced with something more neutral?
I finally figured out how the template works :-)
By chopping up Zsinj's and Misza13's templates, i made this one (example above)
Note the neutral tone, the lack of 'lets make 'em go up' numbers, and the psycological trick of making red indicate low vandalism, and yellow = high vandalism, so even making the color change hopefully shouldnt give the vandals any sense of achievement (actually, i got a bit confused and thought that 5 was a higher level than 1, but then liked the result :-D it gets more stark and attention-grabbing as the levels get more severe i think, without any chance of any 'lets push wikipedia into red alert' style fun-and-games for the vandals)
watcher recon? feel free to modify the template on User:DakAD/Wdefcon btw --DakAD 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't like this one to tell the truth. I prefere a simple one like Shane's Version, low key not to obivious. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 00:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
All this is well and good, as I think any number of versions can be added, and that's fine. I don't think any templates need to be deleted or replaced. It's a wiki. As long as the template is allowed to exist, folk should pick the version they like. I don't think deleting any versions is going to prevent the No Fun Brigade from deleting the template if they want to, anyway. The idea that flashy templates encourage vandalism and plain ones don't is dubious in my opinion, also. Herostratus 05:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. i'll leave mine up as another version, then, and if people want to use it they can :-)
again, if anyone wants to modify it/has any suggestions, go for it, as long as it keeps the toned-down feel (i made it smaller btw) --DakAD 19:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- I highly doubt that removing the numbers from the template will lower vandalism levels: Strong oppose. - Kookykman|(t)e 22:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm with Kookykman on this one. This seems like an instance of taking WP:DENY a little too far. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The current template might make vandalism "fun", but it makes reverting vandalism just as fun! I say leave it as it is. --Gray Porpoise 21:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
"Weird Al" Yankovic's White & Nerdy music video
Part of the new video has "Weird Al" blanking a page, replacing the text with "YOU SUCK!". "Weird Al"'s videos generally get considerible exposure online and on networks such as MTV. Could this pose a problem on Al-related pages? - Kookykman|(t)e 22:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- To clarify, the exact page was Atlantic Records, and has been vandalised recently. It's sprotected now, but keep an eye out.
Level 3
Has anyone else noticed it's almost always "significant levels of vandalism"? ReverendG 03:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Is Not! → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKSCRS 8:11 am et 15 november 2006
Nope. It's level 4 right now. --Wizardman 15:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
New style
see User:AzaToth/Wdefcon, for example:
| Severe |
| High |
| Elevated |
| Guarded |
| Low |
| edit |
→AzaToth 01:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting. Very compact and unobtrusive (compared to the default one). Миша13 10:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
new way to specify styles
Have added the parameter style that will override the parameter prefix, and will make the template to point to wdefcon/styles/{{{style}}} →AzaToth 03:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Question
How come the "main" wdefcon is on level 5, recommending a database lockdown, and the rest are on 1, saying everything is quiet and fine? Are they reveresed? Which one do I trust? | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 13:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- See here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 14:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- See here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 13:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Another new style
| WikiDefcon |
|---|
| Severe |
| High |
| Elevated |
| Guarded |
| Low |
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)
Even more styles
I've made a style based on DakAD's more neutral version, but where the "Vandalism" header changes to reflect the Defcon level. Gandoman 19:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Am I even allowed to post this here?
green
Wikidefcon
Has the Wikidefcon ever gone up to 1? I know the US Military's Defcon never has. — DominiquePonchardier 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's happened 4 times in 6 months, all 4 reverted in under 5 minutes. As you can see here, it's never 1.--Wizardman 21:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Consider moving to 1
I know this seems really drastic but I think we should consider turning the WikiDefcon to level one as Vandalism is at an extremely high level. Almost every IP address edit on Vandal Proof has been vandalism and I think extreme measures need to be taken. Any comments? Tellyaddict 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- That alone isn't enough. Yes, there is a small backlog at WP:AIV, but I don't see anything that justifies your suggestion. Addhoc 16:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is a lot of vandalism, yes, but still not enough to warrant the database being locked IMO. RC patrol will keep up with it, so let's keep it at 2. 193.217.243.135 14:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've reverted at least 25 offensive edits in the last 20 mins and thats on IP's alone, and aswell as taking a break to type on wp:aiv. Tellyaddict 17:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Very simply- no you haven't. You have reverted 13 article edits in the last half hour, this is good work, but not exceptional. Addhoc 17:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Minor issue
How does one edit the individual templates? It appears that some backend code has been changed, and several of the styles are not showing all of the information (usually the signature). — BrotherFlounder 04:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
New Design
Ok, frankly - I wish I knew enough about conditionals and other stuff to do this, but I don't (in fact i know nothing) - so I have to ask someone else to. Can we get a horizontal version of the original? Thanks either way, --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 05:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Horizontal
like this?
| AIV Vandalism information's WikiDefcon is at
4 VC | |
 | |
| Normal levels sustained. |
|
| |
| newuser contribs ---- Change level |
--Flyingidiot 20:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looks pretty cool, I would suggest adding images on the levels 2, 4, and 5 also ;).Oh and I think it would look nicer if it was smaller so it wouldn't look so pixily. Arjun 21:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Just added the rest of the images. i will shrink it a little too- and add an off setting. i dont know why but i will.--Flyingidiot 21:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
| AIV Vandalism information's WikiDefcon is at
4 VC | |
| | |
| Normal levels sustained. |
|
| |
| newuser contribs ---- Change level |
| AIV Vandalism information's WikiDefcon is at
4 VC | |
| | |
| Normal levels sustained. |
|
| |
| newuser contribs ---- Change level |
added placename feature. will add user name to header if placename=yes if placename=no, it will add default header, if nothing it will add third header {{{prefix|User:Flyingidiot/}}}alert/desc}}
Flyingidiot 22:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh that's great - but I do have a question, is there anyway to get it to be the same level as what the actual defcon is?--Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 20:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
So...it's like Defcon 2 right now
What happens at Defcon 1? We let loose the nukes? Everyone hides out in the mineshafts for 100 years? Bwithh 01:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, we just check our watchlists, AIV, RC, etc. Right now there is serious spamming of talk pages by arguably the same person using sockpuppets. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 01:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, User:Cplot is unleashing another sockpuppet attack. PTO 01:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen about 4 on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks alone! | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 01:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, User:Cplot is unleashing another sockpuppet attack. PTO 01:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- You must've been playing Fallout too much. :-) And btw, I don't remember it ever be on lvl 1 (legitimately that is, because silly jokes occur of course). Миша13 22:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- It was at level one after the IP snafu last year.--digital_me 19:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The following scenario is an example of a level 1 Wdefcon:
- Some dedicated anti-Wikipedia computer geeks create multiple Wikipedia bots and uses multiple proxies for these bots, so that the proxies can't be blocked. Then, they hack into the Wikimedia servers and disable all editing and user rights and give them to the bots, and then block every Wikipedia user. Then, the bots would crawl into Wikipedia and do the following to all pages: blank, delete, protect, then add some crap like "Wikipedia sucks" or something like that. The Wikipedia editors, watching in horror, cannot counter-vandalise the bots, since editing capabilities were disable and they're blocked. The admins, desperately trying to save Wikipedia, will try to block these bots, but will fail...And every Wikipedia article, project page, portal, category, etc. will vanish...
- The previous scenario would be a level 1 Wdefcon, although users wouldn't be able to change the Wdefcon level anyway. :)
- *Ed clearly watches too many action movies* :) Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 01:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've got another scenario: Stephen Colbert tells all of his viewers to vandalize Reality. Every damn Colbert Report watcher goes and vandalizes it. That sounds a lot more fun... *cough* :D. PTO 05:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Its amazing the kind of can of worms a popular media figure can open by entrusting their commands to be followed by loyal fans. I cannot help but think it a tad funny even though I never endorse vandalism :P...¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've got another scenario: Stephen Colbert tells all of his viewers to vandalize Reality. Every damn Colbert Report watcher goes and vandalizes it. That sounds a lot more fun... *cough* :D. PTO 05:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Consider moving to 1
Hi, Vandalism is at huge amounts at the minute. If the vandalism continues for the next 15 mins at the same level or higher I think we should consider moving to level 1. Any thoughts??? Tellyaddict 19:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- From looking at recent changes, it seems to me it's not even a 2. --TeckWizParlate Contribs@ 19:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Alert! I agree! Vandalism = Super High! RyGuy Sign Here! My Journal 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Tellyaddict and TeckWiz posted those messages two days ago Ry. :-) It's not too bad right now (WP:AIV is average length). · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 18:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm... It looked pretty bad 2 seconds ago... hmm.... well, whatever you say :-) RyGuy Sign Here! My Journal 18:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Tellyaddict and TeckWiz posted those messages two days ago Ry. :-) It's not too bad right now (WP:AIV is average length). · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 18:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Alert! I agree! Vandalism = Super High! RyGuy Sign Here! My Journal 17:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Question
Hi, I'm an experienced editor but I was just wondering, is there a page or something where you can tell if the wikipedia servers are coping well; as a couple of weeks ago when Wizardman moved it to 1, he said in his edit summary the servers are almost crashing, as-well as this... is there are a more detailed description on how and when to move levels up some they will be correct?TellyaddictEditor review! 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Increases to level 1 are extremely rare, in fact that was probably a one-time thing because of the Colbert vandalism. It came in huge drones that all the pages were going very slowly. I don't think there's any page where you an tell how the servers are doing, just that if you notice a geat amount of lag while editing solely due to vandalism, that can give you a hint.--Wizardman 20:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I had the same questions. Check out:
Danski14 22:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Immediate Recomendation
I think we need to go to Defcon 2. The amount of vandalism over the past day, especially the past hour is on the extreme rise. I have reverted countless pages and been seconds late to revert countless more. What does the community think? --Zrulli 03:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
DefCon 1?
If vandalism keeps up in the next 15 minutes, it may be appropraite to change it. ---CWY2190TC 00:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm surprised it was moved to 2 so lightly. From what I see in the move log, the mass page move vandalism it described was mainly just the one account (that is - Special:Contributions/Wheels_for_life)
:/- either way, good to see it back on 4. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- It calmed down after I put this up. Coincidence? I think not. :} --CWY2190TC 03:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
GameFAQs
Just a heads up: vandalism may spike because Wikipedia is being featured in a GameFAQs poll. — Deckiller 15:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, and here are the poll results. There is no "I vandalize there regularly" option, though... not like that's what I would have picked :) GracenotesT § 16:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting article...
Heres an interesting article from the LA times about editors and vandalism patrolers who helped protect and update the Anna Nicole Smith page:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-ca-webscout25feb25,1,4914275.story
Check out the last paragraph. I was interviewed by the reporter, since he saw me in the ANS page edit history. He asked me how a found out that the page was 'Under Assault'. At first I was reluctant to tell him, but eventually I told him about WikiDefcon, and mentioned that it was a *slightly* constroversial feature, and that it probably wouldn't be a good idea to mention. It looks like he changed the name slightly, to "Wikidefcom" to avoid any un-needed attention to this page. Additionally, since it is semi-protected, I guess we don't have much to worry about. Still, I thought people might find this interesting.
Also, I thought I told him to use my real name, and am unsure why he used my wiki name. Danski14 21:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I see comments about backlogs at AIV mentioned a lot in the defcon comments. Should we make a secondary scale here (or at a new template) that lets admins know the severity of the AIV backlog? It seems that might be more informative than the "AIV backlog forming" comments. If I have time, I'll make an example of what I mean. What do you think? timrem 01:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I for one think it's a good idea as an add-on to this template, ... a separate template is unnecessary. Something as simple as a field called AIV backlog:number , with a link to WP:AIV would be simple enough. However, because the template is not updated that often, probably the best thing would be to have an automated system (dedicated bot, similar to the AIV helper bots) to update the count periodically. Anyone else think such additions would be useful? Danski14 22:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I just realized that time backlogged is probably a lot more useful then number backlogged. It is when it hasn't been checked in a while (even as little as 5-10 mins) that we want to alert admins to check it. Danski14 22:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I also found out that User:HBC AIV helperbot already posts alerts when WP:AIV gets backlogged. I don't think it would be hard for the operator of the bot to change it to post alerts on wikidefcon as well. Danski14 22:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've made an example of a template which could work, all it requires is a new AIV backlog parameter here. Feel free to improve it. timrem 22:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Who can edit WikiDefcon?
Can anybody edit the vandalism levels or only administrators? --- Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 01:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, anyone can edit it... except vandals, of course :).. ( I think they're not even supposed to know about this). Just check out the descriptions for a general guideline. Danski14 02:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I think we need more people to update it. It helps the non-IRC people stay up to date on the condition, and alert them when help is needed. Danski14 02:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)