Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit/Proposal

The proposal and the poll have been closed. Please do not add more comments for now. Thanks for your help and comments.

Introduction

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.

Logo

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:

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

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

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. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few points from Essjay

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 Cat^Talk|@ 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

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

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

Support --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
mild oppose Don't do good things that look like bad things -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the logo

We should stick to our logo.

Oppose We are right, but we can use something better. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too many people think it makes us look like we're officially sanctioned. We should just not use a logo. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 01:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I personally saw this unofficial but if others think otherwise, easy to lose it. --Alf ^melmac 02:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (see 'Getting a new logo'). // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Support we are right, we need to stick to the principles. Compu te r Jo e 12:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep teh logo, first choice The logo is fine. Why are we even voting on this? If you have a better logo, propose it on the CVU talk page and people can make proposals on their own. Which ever gets the highest vote. Just because random people are causing disruption with their complaints about "copyrights" (wow we are violating wikipedias copyrights on wikipedia, cute). And we actually have permission to use the images. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Censor the logo

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.

Support, second choice --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you mena, like

hehehe -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a new logo

We could find a better logo

Support (although I prefer the next choice) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 01:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Getting a new logo could be fun.--Shanel 02:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Give me a litle while, I've got an idea for something --Marinus 02:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Cat^Talk|@ 17:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disposing the logo

We should have no logo at all

Support, since we're not a true organization, we don't NEED a logo (although it doens't hurt either). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First choice --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 01:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still horizontal see above. --Alf ^melmac 02:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral; a logo is a good identifying feature, and is used by projects as diverse as Esperanza and the WikiProject on user warnings (See my vote under 'Getting a new logo'). // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, we need a userbox with it and other reasons but maybe not so big on the cvu page --A dam1213 Talk + 03:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to elaborate why do we NEED them (vs "people just like them")? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason why we have to listen to people complaining whom are only complining just to complain. Did you know people oppose RfAs because "user is a cvu member" kinda thing? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SHutting our ears is a way to go, ut there are others (improving is always better, and the concerns are valid even though the one doing them is just trolling). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A logoless CVU, is like a Cool Cat-less wikipedia. Yes, I am looking for an excuse to leave wikipedia. Dont gove me one. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oppose I see nothing wrong with having a logo, albeit one without Wikipedia/Wikimedia logos on. Ian13/talk 18:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CVU name

The CVU name should remain as it is

Oppose It carries undesired connotations. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sounds cool. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 01:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support the name is ok --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't care either way. --Shanel 02:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the name - in such a plainly open/voluntary setting as Wiki it is obviously half-joking. --Marinus 02:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. That's the first law of Wikipedia - whatever you do, someone, somewhere, will get pissed off about it. I've heard complaints from a few number of vocal editors, and everyone else doesn't care or likes it, so why the change? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm? still pretty horizontal, though a whim suggests Counter Vandalism Project would avoid further paramilitary association with the wording for those who might think like that. Though I agree with Titoxed, we can both be right, right? --Alf ^melmac 02:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; how about inserting 'WikiProject' in the name somewhere to de-militia the name? Perhaps WikiProject counter-vandalism. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep just because snowspinner claims we are a para-military organisation we are not required to change our name, if people think we are a paramilitary organisation strictly because of our name they are welcome to keep their misconceptions. Wikipedia gossip and wikipolitics are beyond the scope of my interests. I have better things to do such as revert vandalism. Instead of complaining about the CVU people ought to RC patrol. ALso some people campaigning against CVU are doing so just to oppose. Kim_ on irc for example complained about IRC restrictions till I lift them and after I lift them he did NOT even join. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change CVU name

The CVU should change its name to something softer

Support Yes, name isn't that important, and it'd help to dispel most misconceptions about CVU. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't care either way. --Shanel 02:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm? - see above. --Alf ^melmac 02:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support; how about inserting 'WikiProject' in the name somewhere to de-militia the name? Perhaps WikiProject counter-vandalism. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose not necessary. Just because people are complaining about the name implying us being a paramilitary organisation is absolutely why we should not change our name. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CVU page is fine

The page is quite fine

Agrees I think it's clear and easily references the relevant guidelines and policies. --Alf ^melmac 02:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (see 'Trimming the CVU page'). // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Trimming the CVU page

The page should be simplified

support Yes, get rid of the unused things (defcon, "join to the cause" stuff, etc) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
support per drini. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 01:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete the def-con thing, not sure about the rest --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's quite huge. --Shanel 02:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, you can get rid of the oft-unused {{Wdefcon}}. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page will always be a work in progress. Once the image issue has been resolved, I think further pruning will be unnecessary. I personally don't think 'six mouse scrolls big' is too much. As for the Defcon I'd forgotten about this, I never bother with and wouldn't really notice if it disappears (so I'm a bit selfish OK?) . "Identifying with the cause" is the one thing their that needs attention, though rewording would be better than nuking. --Alf ^melmac 03:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, both in getting rid of the defcon and in generally trimming the text. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 04:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, the cvu page ment to guide people ionto becoming RC patrolers. We can get rid of the defcon (I pay no attention to it) but any change should be done on the page, maybe suggest alternative versions and people can vote on that however a vote for change is an extremely unwiki idea. The page is editable go for it. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This poll is pointless

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:

If we are indeed a paramilitary body and hence I am the commander general (as suggested), I order the delete of this poll.
If we are not a paramillitary organisation there is no reason for this poll.
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.
Polls are evil.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 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 Cat^Talk|@ 17:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: User:The Cunctator and then ignore the mailing list completely. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 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]