Counter-Vandalism Unit | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
![]() Archives |
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||
|
||||||
Threads older than 90 days may be archived by MiszaBot I. |
Task Force
Ok, so what ever was the point of the Task Force? It looks like, honestly, just an attempt to whittle the unmanagable Category:Wikipedians in the Counter-Vandalism Unit into an actual managable list of members. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me. However, if this was the intent, there are surely better ways to go about it. So I suggest a two-pronged approach, outlined below (please comment using ** below each bullet so we can keep the conversation organized). Achowat (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Change Category:Wikipedians in the Counter-Vandalism Unit to Category:Wikipedians interested in counter-vandalism (If we want to keep it at all) and create an actual Watchlist-able list of members, so that new editors who join can be invited to attend The Academy and more experienced users who join can be put to good use. However, this would require the use of a Delivery-bot to inform all members of the Category that they need to "re-enlist" in the Unit, which may be troublesome. Achowat (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Find a good use for the Task Force; According to some MFDs, the CVU Task Force was also a place where counter vandals were supposed to "check in", to make sure there was always a CVU member patrolling recent changes. That seems, well, foolish to me. But, for the life of me, I can't think of a situation where anything called a "Task Force" would be useful in the new CVU. Any ideas? Achowat (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note that it says at the top of the list: "This page will list all the members of the CVU." Near as I can remember, I signed up on that list in response to this note from Ebe123. His note was in response to the project being tagged as historic the day before, and was sent to people who were using a CVU userbox. At the time, I think the Task Force was for determining the future of the CVU. As to the ongoing use of a Task Force as you've described, it may be useful to have the Task Force be a list of people willing to be notified with an automated talk page message or something if vandalism levels are high and assistance is needed. Mojoworker (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- That would be a good idea; Whenever Vandalism levels hit, say, 2 members of the Task Force commit to, more often than not, dropping what they're up to and Patrolling recent changes. Having an automated message dropped on the membership by script is something far, far beyond my technical ability, and I imagine beyond the abilities of every CVUnitarian. Perhaps we could ask that all Task Force members regularly check the Vandalism Levels and respond if necessary? Achowat (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note that it says at the top of the list: "This page will list all the members of the CVU." Near as I can remember, I signed up on that list in response to this note from Ebe123. His note was in response to the project being tagged as historic the day before, and was sent to people who were using a CVU userbox. At the time, I think the Task Force was for determining the future of the CVU. As to the ongoing use of a Task Force as you've described, it may be useful to have the Task Force be a list of people willing to be notified with an automated talk page message or something if vandalism levels are high and assistance is needed. Mojoworker (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think the point was to have an "on-call" list of online members to deal with extreme vandalism. I can't recall a particular situation in which I was personally called, though. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 13:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- So, what purpose can you see to this Division, or any other division referred to as a "Task Force"? Achowat (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'd see the purpose as a sort-of "emergency" team ready to combat extreme vandalism at a moment's notice. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 14:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "extreme vandalism"? Achowat (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- In terms of the "WikiDEFCON" levels, a level 2 or 1 where a large amount of editors would need to be ready to deal with vandalism. So, any situation where vandalism is out of "normal" proportions. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 14:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- And how would you go about letting these editors know that Vandalism is at a "Task Force" level?
- In terms of the "WikiDEFCON" levels, a level 2 or 1 where a large amount of editors would need to be ready to deal with vandalism. So, any situation where vandalism is out of "normal" proportions. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 14:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "extreme vandalism"? Achowat (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'd see the purpose as a sort-of "emergency" team ready to combat extreme vandalism at a moment's notice. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 14:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- So, what purpose can you see to this Division, or any other division referred to as a "Task Force"? Achowat (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure of the most practical way to do so. If it did work similarly to a "notification system" there would need to be a script implemented capable of notifying online users whenever necessary. I think it would be impractical to send a message to each user's talk page each time vandalism is abnormally high. Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 14:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Something a user could react to, such as a talk page message that would trigger the "new messages" template would be better than having to proactively check the {{Vandalism_information}} level template transcluded somewhere. I think it would require a BOT in order to do the talk page notifications to the task force members. I have Template:Vandalism information watchlisted and I notice that User:Cyberpower678 often updates the vandalism status. He is also a BOT operator, so it might make sense to ask him whether or not such a BOT is feasible. I'll inform him of this discussion and ask him to comment. Mojoworker (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Such a bot is possible to make. Users would need to opt-in to the bot notifications it sends out. It can be triggered at a certain defcon level recorded at {{vandalism information}}. I am currently developing a bot that will automatically update that template too simulating the huggle stats (which is hard since I have to translate vb to php).—cyberpower ChatAbsent 18:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Something a user could react to, such as a talk page message that would trigger the "new messages" template would be better than having to proactively check the {{Vandalism_information}} level template transcluded somewhere. I think it would require a BOT in order to do the talk page notifications to the task force members. I have Template:Vandalism information watchlisted and I notice that User:Cyberpower678 often updates the vandalism status. He is also a BOT operator, so it might make sense to ask him whether or not such a BOT is feasible. I'll inform him of this discussion and ask him to comment. Mojoworker (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Notification BOT
- Has there been any development into this? Achowat (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- No. As soon as I'm confident that this is what CVU wants, I will start to develop the bot.—cyberpower ChatOnline 21:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I think such a talk page notice (or whatever notification we decide) for "Emergency Response Team" members (or whatever we call it) could be a highly effective tool, so I vote to go ahead if Cyberpower has the time to do it. If there's no dissension, the next step would be a simple functional specification—trigger conditions, how often it should check, what the message should say (include instruction to remove oneself from the list), once it's triggered, how long before it starts checking again, perhaps not post another message if there is already a notice on the page (or at the end of a page), etc. Mojoworker (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can give you two options for the notification setup.
- Like ClueBot and MiszaBot, one adds the subscription tag to their userpage with configuration settings.
- Like the Signpost, we create a delivery list. (Harder to implement)
- Which do you prefer?—cyberpower ChatOnline 23:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can give you two options for the notification setup.
- I think such a talk page notice (or whatever notification we decide) for "Emergency Response Team" members (or whatever we call it) could be a highly effective tool, so I vote to go ahead if Cyberpower has the time to do it. If there's no dissension, the next step would be a simple functional specification—trigger conditions, how often it should check, what the message should say (include instruction to remove oneself from the list), once it's triggered, how long before it starts checking again, perhaps not post another message if there is already a notice on the page (or at the end of a page), etc. Mojoworker (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I like option 2 better. But, I guess it depends on how much more work it is. Seems like a member list on a page here would make it easier to explain how to unsubscribe. Mojoworker (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm getting ready to finish the development of the bot and am getting ready to post it in a BRFA. I just ran into a problem. This bot will check the template every minute, and therefore notify every minute. We should set a limit as to how often this bot should post to a page. I say once every 4 hours. Any thoughts? I would like some input so invite task force members to come and comment here.—cyberpower ChatOnline 23:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
- You can start signing up at Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Notifications list. Just follow the one simple instruction.
- I still need some input as to the length of time the bot should wait out before sending another notification.—cyberpower ChatOffline 06:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I like option 2 better. But, I guess it depends on how much more work it is. Seems like a member list on a page here would make it easier to explain how to unsubscribe. Mojoworker (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
I'm OK with the Notification List replacing the Task Force. I brought the timing question up earlier when I mentioned "simple functional specification—trigger conditions, how often it should check, what the message should say (include instruction to remove oneself from the list), once it's triggered, how long before it starts checking again, perhaps not post another message if there is already a notice on the page (or at the end of a page)". So, it sounds like it will check once a minute, and wait four hours after being triggered until it starts checking again. That seems reasonable – four hours sounds like a good starting point. What will the message say? I think it should be succinct, since if someone signs up and then disappears, their talk page will eventually be clogged full with notices, unless you can do the test to "not post another message if there's already a notice on the page (or at the end of a page)". Mojoworker (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- I know that SuggestBot has (or, at least, once did have) the capability or simply replacing its own notice with an updated notice (if there's already a notice on the User's talk). Is that something we should look into? Achowat (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- So updating the notice if DefCon changes should be done instead? Should it remove it's own notice when vandalism dies down.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 18:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Removing Talk Page notices is sort of tricky business when it comes to other people's talk. Would it be possible to, say, have a conspicuous template that Task Force members could have on their Talk Pages that would be updated and still populate a "Change in Talk Page" message? Achowat (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Templates are a good idea but, I'm not going to make them. There need to be two. Assistance needed and no assistance needed.—cyberpower ChatOnline 21:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- We could make a template that could be placed at the top of the page like the {{statustop}} template. Something like {{CVUNotice|status=xx}} where the BOT just fills in the xx part (and maybe a date/time parameter). That would still trigger the "Change in Talk Page" message and has the advantage that we could change the message text by editing the template. Mojoworker (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I say we give users as many options as we can. A top-icon, an invisible template, a standard box template. The more options we have, the more likely people are to use them. (But, as we test this Bot, we should probably stick to one format). Achowat (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- During testing, it will create a new section and notify them. We can add a template that can be configurable on how it appears the way they want it to. The bot will change it when they need to be notified to trigger their talk page.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 14:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- I say we give users as many options as we can. A top-icon, an invisible template, a standard box template. The more options we have, the more likely people are to use them. (But, as we test this Bot, we should probably stick to one format). Achowat (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- We could make a template that could be placed at the top of the page like the {{statustop}} template. Something like {{CVUNotice|status=xx}} where the BOT just fills in the xx part (and maybe a date/time parameter). That would still trigger the "Change in Talk Page" message and has the advantage that we could change the message text by editing the template. Mojoworker (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Templates are a good idea but, I'm not going to make them. There need to be two. Assistance needed and no assistance needed.—cyberpower ChatOnline 21:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- Removing Talk Page notices is sort of tricky business when it comes to other people's talk. Would it be possible to, say, have a conspicuous template that Task Force members could have on their Talk Pages that would be updated and still populate a "Change in Talk Page" message? Achowat (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
- So updating the notice if DefCon changes should be done instead? Should it remove it's own notice when vandalism dies down.—cyberpower ChatLimited Access 18:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Counter-Vandalism Unit in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on the Counter-Vandalism Unit for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Future of CVU/Drive
First of all, great work everyone so far! The Academy is now up and running, self-sufficient really (we've now got an Admin in our ranks and STiki developers have given CVUA students and graduates an exemption from the usual requirements). I think the above conversation (though it has died a bit) is progressing towards making the Task Force a useful tool in alerting online editors of severe levels of vandalism. The question becomes, how do we 'fix' the other Divisions, how do we make them strong? "Tools" is an easy fix, the page information (I believe) is accurate, all that's needed is someone to make it look not-terrible (a project I fully intend on starting and completing shortly after UEFA Euro 2012; though feel encouraged to try to beat me). "Vandalism studies" and "The Think Tank" are going to be harder and, frankly, require a greater level of participation than we currently have.
To that end, I propose a Contest, a Drive of sorts. This will, hopefully, engage some new Users who may become active in the CVU and help us make the Unit better. There are many ways we can do this (most reverts, most reports, etc) but I have ideologic problems with that (because, well, I don't want to 'reward' people for getting other editors blocked and if there's a 'prize' for finding vandalism, then most 'competitors' will take a competitive attitude and, well, I see WP:AGF issues.
What I, therefore, propose is a "Long-Standing Vandalism Hunt". Specifically what I would like to see is a start time "Say, 00:00 UTC on 1 July 2012" and the only Vandalism reverts that count are those where the page was Vandalized over 24 hours from that start time. It'll run all of July, but only edits on or before 29 June would count. There are hidden nooks and crannies where Vandalism persists, and it might be quite a bit of fun to go looking for it, while also accomplishing a job that would otherwise not get done. We can give out Barnstars and other awards just like the Copy Editors backlog drives. Does this sound like a good idea, or am I crazy? Achowat (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Drives that encourage quantity, which is good, but this is sometimes achieved at the expense of quality, which… well, you get the point. benzband (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- The approval for this task is facing a lot of opposition. I am a little skeptical if this task will be approved. I have to first find enough people who will support and sign up for it. You can help me with that. I haven't gotten to perfecting the code, primarily because the code repository where the code is stored.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Contests make me jittery. That is all. Theopolisme TALK 16:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- The approval for this task is facing a lot of opposition. I am a little skeptical if this task will be approved. I have to first find enough people who will support and sign up for it. You can help me with that. I haven't gotten to perfecting the code, primarily because the code repository where the code is stored.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Tools
FYI, I started messing around with a new Tools page. It looks like crud right now and I haven't really done too much.... but, ah well... User:Theopolisme/Stuff if you want something to giggle at. Theopolisme TALK 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Level one user warnings
This RFC may be of interest to members of this project. --NeilN talk to me 17:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Keywords and watchlist functions
I'm not sure this is the right place to broach this subject, but I'd like feedback on what technical options might exist to alert editors to changes to particular words on Wikipedia across article space. I've noticed for example that many IP editors will change Palestine to Israel and vice versa when it is inappropriate to do so. I'd like to know if there is a way to highlight or redflag such changes so they can be examined to see if the change is legit based on sources and usage or not, so as to maintain article integrity. i bring this up here because when its done without regard for academic, historical and contemporary usage it amounts to a form of vandalism. Thoughts? Tiamuttalk 17:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
RfC concerning the Counter-Vandalism Unit
An RfC has been launched and all committed vandal fighters and CVU members are encouraged to comment and vote.—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Terminology
I've heard discussion of how it's not right to use any other term (e.g. "shoot") for fighting vandalism, but would it be allowed for someone who identifies as a carnivorous mammal-WikiFauna (e.g. WikiPuma) to say that they "maul" vandals? Brambleberry of RiverClan Mew ♠ Tail 20:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Why not? RAWR Theopolisme TALK 21:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- There's a pretty clear reason "why not". The reason is because when we pretend that reverting vandalism is a battle, we take a battleground approach. Even if we don't, the next set of anti-vandals come and will. We treat IP addresses as though they are arrest warrants. We fail to assume good faith and we revert more than we should. Do what you want on your user page (following the rules, of course) but the policy of the CVU should be (and, judging by consensus is) that likening the reversion of vandalism to any kind of combat or other physical confrontation is not a helpful endeavor. Achowat (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
All CVU members are invited...
All members are invited...
...to the Rollbackers and Reviewers Cabal! Join now! --J (t) 16:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Also invited on
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rollbacker and Reviewer Cabal --DBigXray 13:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
New Page Patrol discussion
There's something resembling a proposal here to remove the CVU banner from Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol. Some here may like to comment. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)