Jump to content

Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit/Proposal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The proposal and the poll have been closed. Please do not add more comments for now. Thanks for your help and comments.

Introduction

[edit]

The CVU is again under fire at wikien-l. Read it at [1] and search for "[WikiEN-l] The Counter Vandalism Unit? Whaa? The Cunctator"

This is not the first time CVU has met opposition. Actually there are many wikipedians opposing it. I believe most of the opposition comes from misunderstandings, but I also believe we could be doing things differently to dispel such misunderstandings. So please read those emails in the url above, the take a deep breath, keep your head cool (after all it's not a personal attack, they're actual concerns of people) and read my proposals below on how we could improve the situation.


The main objections are (and have always been):

  • CVU is a paramilitary-like body.
  • CVU logo is a copyvio.

Since the second it's easier, I'll tackle it first.

[edit]

We know we have permission to use the logo, although the foundation reserved the rights to raise objections in the future if they consider it so.

There are several approaches:

  1. We stick to our guns, we have permission, we don't care if people object.
  2. We know we have permission, but we can get another logo that doesn't use the wikiglobe
  3. We don't use a logo at all.

So far, we've been following approach 1, we could continue doing so, but it must be realized that the objection "it makes CVU look as a sanctioned foundation project" is a valid one. We always claim we're nothing more than a bunch of people who like to do clean up and keeping wikipedia clean, we're not a formal organization, etc., so why help perpetuating such impressions?

Therefore I believe any of the other approaches would be better in the long term.

Now there are many people involved in the project. We could run a contest for people to submit new logos, we could get a great logo that won't raise the objections of it being copyvio, or looking like it is sanctioned by the foundation. Or we could sit for an afternoon to sift through commons and find a suitable image.

If we aren't an organization sanctioned by the foundation, we don't need people believing it?

We could also not use a logo at all. This may sound too radical, but think of it: why do we need it? We only need the IRC channel, and a page for listing documentation (special vandals, bots, announcements, etc.). There's truly no need for either a logo or buttons for pages. After all, aren't we just a bunch of people who like keeping Wikipedia clean?

Name

[edit]

The second objection comes mostly from the name as it suggests a SWAT, or a paramilitary organization. We know we are not, but that doesn't change the fact that the name suggests it. So I propose also changing the name to something more neutral and softer, perhaps Wikipedia:Floor scrubbers or something like that (suggestions welcomed). There are plenty other wikipedian organizations, they're not opposing that, they're opposing the feeling of a "combat unit".

So the point is: the name is not really important (we could remain doing the same things we do regardless of the name) but changing it would help to dispel most misconceptions (and therefore opposition) to what CVU does. (For instance, if Wikipedia:Esperanza had originally chosen the name The happiness cabal a lot of people would have objected to it being a cabal (even though it's not), and it would have met opposition that it doesn't face currently since they have a softer name. This is despite the fact that they DO have more organizational structure than CVU.

Other stuff

[edit]

Well, I recall when Cool Cat proposed killing the userlist people thought he had gone nuts, but after some thought, it doesn't seem like a bad idea. I'll expand on this.

There are plenty of things on the CVU page that we don't really need. What we really need, is just an announcements board for info and documentation, and the IRC channel. Nothing more. Think of Category:Pages watched by the Counter Vandalism Unit, for instance. We don't really need that (after all we're not just watching THOSE pages, aren't we?). I've commented on the buttons, and the wikipedians list, even though nice, it's not really needed. We have the IRC channel, we can see who's there and who isn't.

The defcon.. we DON'T NEED that. If people are on the IRC channel, they see the increase in vandalism, we make comments to each other, etc. The benefits of the defcon are minimal and the disadvantage is that it promotes the "they're-a-military-like-thing" objection, and it's also somewhat subjective.

So my point is, we should sit down, talk among ourselves about what we really need and drop the rest. We are doing great work, we are being helpful to Wikipedia, and we shouldn't reinforce the feelings of opposition. We should keep what we really need, and not keep carrying what only brings ill-feeling towards our work.

One other objection I've seen to the CVU is that its "members" bite newbies. I've personally never come across that, but if the CVU apparently makes some people feel like they can do what they want, perhaps we should also make it a point to emphasize no biting newbies. Also, if membership is dissolved, people will be less likely to blame or associate someone's behaviour with the CVU (as it should be). Anyone who continues to exhaust the community's patience or behave aggressively should be dealt with on an individual basis, not as the member of an organization.--Shanel 02:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I reply to that the same way I've always done - if someone bites a newbie, I don't care if he's a member of the CVU, ABC or the XYZ, he should face the consequences of that. We do not condone newbie-biting. Period. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few points from Essjay

[edit]

I'd like to raise a few points of my own: First, I fully support both the name and the logo, as I created the first draft of the logo, and was involved in the CVU since the beginning. However, valid issues are raised about using the WP/WM logos without permission (although we tried our best to get permission, it isn't our fault the Board hasn't gotten around to doing something about it). Further, it is a matter of fact that the template for the logo was 24's "Counter Terrorism Unit", which raises issues of violating thier copyrights. We knew that at the time, but didn't consider it close enough to be an issue.

I would like to propose a new logo, both to deprive our attackers of ammunition, and to avoid the problems inherent in using copyrighted images like the WP/WM logos. As far as the name goes, I don't have any issue with renaming it to something agreed upon by the active CVU'ers. (For lack of a better term for those who use the CVU.)

I want to make it perfectly clear: I don't believe we should yield to the attackers by any means. However, it is often useful to make changes in order to deprive them of ammunition to use against us. I support doing just that, and have attempted to keep enough of a tie-in to our old logo to maintain identity and our dignity, but make sufficient difference that the copyright and Foundationo-support claims lose thier base. Essjay Talk • Contact 14:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improved new CVU logo copy (I dont like it much)

I'd like to quote someone on the mailing list. And I dont believe tossing old image will achieve what we are primarily trying to achieve.

I resent that, most of us have our own mind and our own attitudes,

philosophies and approaches to our wikiwork. And again, this is no about coolcat, you seem to be shifting the target of yoru criticisicm: cvu is bad, not it's not cvu, it's the name, not it's not the name, it's the fantasy, no it's not the fantasy, it's one person statemetn, no it's not a pern statement, it's his influence, and so on.

as someone pointed: you're just looking for things to criticize on.
(responding to The Cunctator)
I second Essjay. I also don't believe we should yield to the attackers by any means. We should keep the image primarily because they are making it an excuse to attack us. We get rid of the logo and they will find new reasons to attack us. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Essjay hears the Twilight Zone music*

I created that very same image but decided against uploading it! Great minds think alike!

The reason I went for a bit more drastic alternative is to avoid the problems of "you have foundation support" involved with using the foundation name, as well as trying to get away from referencing the copyrighted 24 image too closely.

And as for the mailing list, I'm pretty sure I'm the one responsible for saying you're just looking for things to criticize on. Essjay Talk • Contact 23:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polls

[edit]

So, I'd like to have a straw polls for the issues I've raised. Feel free to comment on the talk page or add more proposals.

Delete this page

[edit]

We should stick to what we are dong and ignore baseless complaints on the mailing list.

[edit]

We should stick to our logo.

[edit]

We should censor our logo and remove the "Wikipedia Foundation" text and replace it with perhaps something else this would satisfy the masses looking for an excuse to complain.

On the other hand, Medcom is not officially affiliated with the foundation yet uses wikipedia logo. There is nothing more normal than using derivatives of the wikipedia logo on wikipedia.

you mena, like hehehe -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that... --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

We could find a better logo

I've quickly knocked up something - it needs more work and won't get me a Turner prize but it looks good as a small button and is entirely GNUPL. If the idea seems workable I'll put in the necessary polishing work, or someone else can do whatever. --Marinus 06:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Horizontal shrugs shoulders if others find an acceptable alternative, I'll support. --Alf melmac 02:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support'; the current logo strongly suggests official approval, which it's never had and never tried to obtain. I'd also suggest de-emphasising the logo on the page, so that the logo doesn't take up the entire screen. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 04:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose current logo suggest official approval? Have you ever read anyones userpage? Are you suggesting my userpage has foundation approval? Since this image apears on many userpages: . If that image was fine for over a year, no reason why CVU logo has any problems to that end. We are affiliated with wikimedia foundation. We serve wikipedia. If people are going to whine about every tiny bit, there will be no end to their demands. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sceptre (Talk) 20:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

We should have no logo at all

This is not about the worthiness of your contributions, drop it. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CVU name

[edit]

The CVU name should remain as it is

Change CVU name

[edit]

The CVU should change its name to something softer

CVU page is fine

[edit]

The page is quite fine

Trimming the CVU page

[edit]

The page should be simplified

This poll is pointless

[edit]
Logo had boards permission and is NOT a copy vio. People who are against the CVU are welcome to file a complaint, I do not care about them. 3/4 reasons:
  1. If we are indeed a paramilitary body and hence I am the commander general (as suggested), I order the delete of this poll.
  2. If we are not a paramillitary organisation there is no reason for this poll.
  3. Votes for change? Since when do we vote for change? Its a wiki, go make edits or sugget in talk page. Do not vote for change.
  4. Polls are evil.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 17:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also we have a wikipedia boot camp in welcoming newbies. Why the heck arent people complaining about that instead, or complaining about how millitary arbcom is. Seriously, why are people even complaining? And why is it the same people since the begining whom are only trying to find excuses to oppose. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See: User:The Cunctator and then ignore the mailing list completely. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re bootcamp and complaints, yes there are plenty about the name see Template_talk:Welcome --pgk(talk) 20:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Counter_Vandalism_Unit/Proposal&oldid=1251529865"