→Reformed Vandals Program: new section |
Nutiketaiel (talk | contribs) →Barnstar Discussion: new section |
||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
I'd welcome any input to the discussion at [[W:Village pump (miscellaneous)#NEW PROJECT]] regarding an idea for a "Reformed Vandals Program". {{user|Thenachoman}} is relatively new to Wikipedia, and got off to a shakey start, but is now keen to make amends. I really do think that the idea has merit, and that further discussion might be able to help himher get the scheme off the ground. Please comment at the pump, best, <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background-color:darkblue; color:#FFFFFF"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B; background-color:yellow; border: 0px solid; "> ► </span>]]</span></small> 19:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC) |
I'd welcome any input to the discussion at [[W:Village pump (miscellaneous)#NEW PROJECT]] regarding an idea for a "Reformed Vandals Program". {{user|Thenachoman}} is relatively new to Wikipedia, and got off to a shakey start, but is now keen to make amends. I really do think that the idea has merit, and that further discussion might be able to help himher get the scheme off the ground. Please comment at the pump, best, <small><span style="border: 1px solid; background-color:darkblue;">[[User:Chzz|'''<span style="background-color:darkblue; color:#FFFFFF"> Chzz </span>''']][[User talk:Chzz|<span style="color:#00008B; background-color:yellow; border: 0px solid; "> ► </span>]]</span></small> 19:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Barnstar Discussion == |
|||
There is a discussion going on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards#The_Star_of_JD_Award_for_Excellence_in_Vandal_Fighting.|here]] regarding a proposed change to the name of the "RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar." As vandalism fighters, I thought some of you might be interested in commenting. [[User:Nutiketaiel|Nutiketaiel]] ([[User talk:Nutiketaiel|talk]]) 12:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:09, 28 April 2009
We need to fundamentally change the CVU
Currently, many people see the CVU as just a bunch of giddy, militaristic, immature editors who ought to be doing something important. We are fighting an endless battle while just sitting here and talking about how much we hate vandals. The war on vandalism has become our Iraq and we're all sitting around in the green zone. If we are ever to begin to drive away the vandal hoards, we must change the very nature of the CVU. We have to set solid goals and objectives. Among them:
- Support new features, policies, and software changes designed to combat vandalism.
- Create and maintain user scripts and tools to combat vandalism.
- Develop practices and processes to effectively combat vandalism while maintaining the spirit of accepting newcomers.
It seems that had been the CVU's original objectives, but we've lost sight of them. It's now mostly become a silly cabal of people putting userboxes on their user pages, howling like banshees and almost universially biting newcomers and thinking the're all out to get us. We use more templates than a large-scale manufacturer, which probably only encourages the problem by making initally good-faith editors hate us. We all seem to be very adverse to actually placing hand-written messages on an editor's talk page and answering their questions. We need to refocus before we just become another lonely page in this very big encyclopedia.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- You're right. There has to be someone to stand up and actually start doing something. We're a Wikiproject and we need to act like one. The question is right now, what task should we do first?. New templates? New features? A new essay on how to deal with vandalism? I pose that to everyone and we can start doing the stuff. As for those who just put a tag on their userpage just for the heck of it, I don't have a problem with it as long as they aren't going flat out against any established WP guidelines. As long as they are fighting vandalism and aren't doing more harm than good, I don't mind. If we provided a better layout at CVU where we can get to the stuff we need the most quicker, I think we'd reduce a lot of the immaturity. Later on, we might put out a template warning editors for violating WP:BITE. We should tailor more to the average half-inexperienced user, as well as the experienced user that has with bots and programs and the like. We're all fighting vandalism; that's what unites us. --Triadian (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not saying we wipe the CVU clean of it's culture, but the problem is that "culture" has overwhelmed the useful purpose of the CVU. The editors do useful vandalism patrolling things either in the oldschool style or with programs like Huggle and Twinkle, but they do that nearly independant of what actually happens back at the CVU. The CVU needs to get its act together befor it winds up at MFD, and enough people see it as a useless page.--Ipatrol (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I try to avoid getting involved in these endless discussions, but I feel compelled to say a few things. As far as the templates go, there's often so much vandalism that vandal-fighters can't take the time to hand write a personal warning to each vandal. Templates are more for efficiency than anything else. Most vandals are unorganized, and therefore must be dealt with on a case by case basis. It's hard to organize beyond 'everyone fighting vandalism when it is really needed- e.g. when we're at level 3, 2, or 1-and often times when it's not.' Many users do get become overly militaristic (I too have succumbed to this temptation in the past). I will say, however, that the CVU gets a bad rap from those who critisize what they don't understand. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Templates, essays, and the like
I created {{CVU}} to mark CVU related pages. I wanted to use {{WPBannerMeta}}, but the uniqueness of the message required a tmbox instead unless anyone else can think of how to make the WP banner work.--Ipatrol (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, I used the text parameter to get WPBannerMeta to work. --Ipatrol (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Help, I'd like to report vandalism
I'm a big of fan of Rove McManus, and somebody keeps putting quote marks around the word "comedian" as if he weren't a real comedian. What should I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.171.30 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Revert the edits and warn the user who keeps doing it, using the warning templates at WP:WARN. If they keep vandalising after you've given them a final (level 4) warning, go to WP:AIV and report them there - but please make sure you read the instructions there carefully first. If there are many different vandals attacking the same page, you may wish to consider requesting page protection. Hope that helps, waggers (talk) 15:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Think Tank Discussion: When to use Level 4im
We haven't done a think tank discussion since a deletion attempt ago, so I thought now would be a good time to bring that aspect back into the CVU so this page isn't as useless. So, for our first topic, I'm curious what you all think about the Level 4im warning tags. I personally am not sure when to use them and when to use Levels 1-4. Which do you all choose and why and under what circumstances? --Triadian (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I created Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Think tank for this discussion.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Ranking System
We really need a ranking system, such as badges, stars, stripes, and insignia. There are some CVU members that excel in their field, and may need an advance in rank. --Request from Commander Lightning —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC).
- Wikipedia doesn't have "ranks", anywhere. Hut 8.5 15:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
- If we try to do that, there's a good chance the deletionists will use it as cannon fodder... --Thinboy00 @141, i.e. 02:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Task force inactive
There has not been any sign of activity on the task force since July, should we put some notice on it or something?--Ipatrol (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Probably. Personally I'm not keen on belonging to something whose "alternative name is the Fast Action Response Team". waggers (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, {{Historical}}.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
WIB
I propose we form a subpage called the wikiintellegance beureau. The idea is simple yet revolutionary: prowl the internet, web sites, messageboards, mailing lists, and chatrooms looking for plans to vandalize Wikipedia. What is found could be posted on the page. Thoughts? --Ipatrol (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Musings
This task is just one of those that will never be complete- to quote the Joker from the film The Dark Knight, "some people just want to watch burn"- and some people choose to express this in such hardcore ways such as... vandalising Wikipedia! However, the task is made that much more futile and difficult by the method in which it has to be conducted. There's no way that every change on every article can ever be inspected and by trying to do so, idealistic editors come across countless good faith, quality edits, the odd edit by somebody unfamiliar with wikipedia and the occasional bit of spam, though very little vandalism. The task is clearly worthwhile, but seems to fall more within the scope of the new pages patrol, for whom I try to do my bit, and recent changes patrol. Perhaps a bot or some other automated system could be set up to flag up edits that meet particular criteria? Inevitably, it would flag up many, many good faith edits and some vandalism would slip through, but it would probably not be any less precise, though certainly less labour intensive than the current system. The vandalism that does slip through would probably be corrected by diligent editors- such as the page author or patrol members.
- Once the CVU actually has a list of potential vandalism, it can start becoming more effective, though it needs to be shaped into something more than a bunch of people waving userboxes and going mad on an artificial power trip. I realise this is not reflective of the majority of your members but is certainly the impression you give. HJ Mitchell (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Reformed Vandals Program
I'd welcome any input to the discussion at W:Village pump (miscellaneous)#NEW PROJECT regarding an idea for a "Reformed Vandals Program". Thenachoman (talk · contribs) is relatively new to Wikipedia, and got off to a shakey start, but is now keen to make amends. I really do think that the idea has merit, and that further discussion might be able to help himher get the scheme off the ground. Please comment at the pump, best, Chzz ► 19:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Barnstar Discussion
There is a discussion going on here regarding a proposed change to the name of the "RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar." As vandalism fighters, I thought some of you might be interested in commenting. Nutiketaiel (talk) 12:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)