Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

hey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closed--Chip123456 (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I Have A proble with My Instructor, Riley Huntley, He claims he is extremly busy and he has contacted me but he won't start training me. Grizzly1110 (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you still believe that one-on-one tutoring is necessary? It seems like you were just having some problems loading Twinkle. If that's the case, perhaps asking a question at the Academy questions page will be an easier way to get the answers you seek. If one-on-one is still necessary, we can do our best to find you an Instructor. Achowat (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I meant that I am extremely busy at the moment/today. I have already started training with you, but I will not accept you as a student if you continue to write improperly, please see MOS:CAPS and follow the instructions. Please do not take this offensively but if you can't learn to type properly, how will administrators trust you to revert rollback rights properly?

Cheers,
Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   19:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Riley, before you bitch about someone else's writing look above and see "I am extremly at the moment. Dan653 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Dan, please watch your language, as I said above I did/do not mean offensive by bringing up his writing but it is for his own good and he could be more help to new users. For example, [1] or[2].

Cheers,
Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   19:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

First, WP:DGAF. Second, I am in disbelief about this: "did not mean offensive". I think you meant offense, but I don't know how administrators could trust you to rollback vandalism properly. In essence, don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.Dan653 (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Dan, you are blowing this out of proportion. It is not like I am threatening to report him to administrators for not using capitals properly (I would never do that), I was just stating my personal standards and that he would need to follow them if he wished to be trained by me. Can we drop this conversation? Thanks.

Cheers,
Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   19:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Dropped. Dan653 (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't Drop it Riley's being a Jerk Because When I asked for a new Instructor he decided he Does not need to mind his own buisness and he had to be a jerk about it and said yes, get him a different instructor which means he Hates me. And Dan You were not blowing it out of proportion. He Does not deserve to be an instructor. Or Part of the unit. In Fact He claims hes trying to stop vandalism when He himself could be a Vandal himself. He Stalks me, He worries about my conversations, He Does not mind his own buisness. !!! He is A suckup like this one girl who happend to have a crush on me at my elementary school. He thinks always needs to follow to rules. He thinks he needs to play It by the guidelines. He's a Jerky, Knowitall, Suckup. Grizzly1110 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to inform you that an administrator will soon be apart of this conversation because you have just made a personal attack. As your instructor, it was my job to reward you when you deserved it (which I did) and clean up your mess when you made mistakes (which I did), in no way was I stalking you or anything else. Also, most of the time your bad edits came up in Huggle, I barely went through your contributions. Cheers,
Riley Huntley   (Click here to reply)   20:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay everyone, my comments and questions:

1. Riley are you still going to go to dispute resolution?
2. Riley to my knowledge no instructor has forced their student to adopt their "personal standards". "Be youself because everyone else is already taken" (Oscar Wilde). If Grizzly writes with spelling errors so be it.
3. Grizzly, personal attacks are unacceptable in any degree.
4. To the two of you: You both were edit warring (if not, then you were really close) on the enroll talk page and that is unacceptable too.

Dan653 (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The dispute resolution conversation closed and a block was made. Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 01:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Closed Found out what you said five minutes after I posted. Dan653 (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Instructors

Memo Please make sure you have this page, the enroll page, and the status page watchlisted, thanks. Dan653 (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• All Watched - --Morning277 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

New Requirements for using STiki

This message is to inform CVUA members that with effect from 3 June 2012, following mandatory requirements are to be satisfied for using WP:STiki anti vandalism tool.

To reduce the probability of new users misidentifying vandalism. The user account must have either:

1. the rollback permission/right, or
2. at least 1000 article edits (in the article namespace, not talk/user pages), or
3. special permission via the STiki talk page.

New users who do not satisfy the above requirements will not get access to the Stiki server, so they will be unable to use the tool. Old users who had already started using stiki prior to 3 June will be able to continue using it, irrespective of the above requirements. --DBigXray 22:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Dan653 (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would also like to add that Criteria 3 will be specially accepted if the instructors of CVUA request it for their CVUA trainees. --DBigXray 23:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all, thank you very much for giving a specific CVUA exclusion. That really means a lot to say that what started off so small is being seen by a wider group of editors as something useful. WP:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Tools is in need of a serious sprucing up (just like every CVU page except the Home and Academy), so we'll make posting this information a priority. Achowat (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed I must admit that I am glad to see the initiative by the CVUA instructors to train vandal fighters. I had seen new users who tried to contribute in vandal fighting but committed incorrect reverts of good faith edits due to lack of clarity about WP:NOTVANDAL, by the time they understood the rules they had already received too many rebukes for their improper reverts that forced them to give up vandal fighting and take up other things or retire. Keeping the trainees under the guidance of an experienced Vandal fighter will certainly help in reducing these bad experiences. I will also recommend new users to join CVUA when they request STiki permission, if it is found that they lack an understanding of vandalism. --DBigXray 13:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Does someone want to make a template for that, kinda like the Rollback one? Theopolisme _TALK 02:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave a message at the CVU Template Noticeboard. Achowat (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• there is a {{STiki topicon}} already. What kind of template is User:Theopolisme referring to, can you please elaborate ? --DBigXray 13:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A "you just got denied for STiki, here's a group of editors who would love to help you out" template. Achowat (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Like {{subst:Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Invite-stiki}} Y! Achowat (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Gorgeous! :) Theopolisme _TALK 13:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for linking the template. This seems good. The request at Stiki talkpage is normally given if the user shows an understanding of vandalism. It is to help experienced and good faith users who have less than 1000 edits. Passing a template with a referral to CVU (in my opinion) should only be given if the user is new (they may feel bad that instead of getting stiki permission someone is asking them to get coaching). any thoughts, when and by whom will this template be used ? --DBigXray 13:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess I don't know enough about how STiki permissions work, but the Rollback version works when an instructor drops the Temp on the talk page of a user who had been denied at PERM. Achowat (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes thats seems reasonable. The same can be done for Talk Stiki whenever a user gets  On hold or N message at Talk:STiki. Somebody should also keep an eye on Talk:STiki. I can also give CVUA instructors, a headsup for such users --DBigXray 14:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out over there, then, as well. Theopolisme _TALK 19:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse

For those of you who do not know, the Teahouse is a new project designed to help and support new Wikipedians as they begin to find their way around here. I just left a message at their hosts lounge suggesting that they send any potential new vandal patrollers our way - hope that's ok. As someone involved in both projects, I know the value of both of them; I can also help with liaison between the two, if necessary. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

You'll hear no argument from us. The Teahouse is a great idea, and an influx of new buddig counter vandals to train is always going to be appreciated over here. Achowat (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

 Great!--DBigXray 15:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. (i had already notified them but i'm sure a second reminder won't go amiss) :-) benzband (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, ItsZippy! Electriccatfish2 (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Userrights

Moved from User talk:Electriccatfish2

 – Per Dan's request. Theopolisme _TALK 22:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What does everyone think about having instructors user rights on the status page? Dan653 (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral Meh. Clutter. I don't know. Theopolisme _TALK 22:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral As above. Dan653 (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Mild oppose Seems fairly pointless; aside from adminship, rollback is the only permission that's relevent and all instructors have that anyway. No need for the extra clutter. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support (first contribution from the newbie :)) I agree with what Electriccatfish2 says about knowing qualifications of instructors (however just because you don't have file mover rights doesn't mean you can't help with images), but I think having it there is helpful (says in blue and white what the instructor is recognised as good at). But I also agree with Yunshui that it clutters a little. However, given that it may encourage enrollees to click on the link and 'discover' user rights I think it's worth keeping. Perhaps if it comes up in conversation (I don't know how), instructors with students might ask them what they think (since it's pretty much for them) - but I don't think it matter that much. But at the moment I'd say that the possible positives outweight the possible negatives. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 10:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I see no real benefit, aside from recognizing admins (which we do). Every instructor lists "Rollback" as one of the 'Tools Used' and that blue link will let students "discover" user rights. How is the fact that I sometimes help out at the Feedback Dashboard really help students learn the Four Steps? Achowat (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - I'm not really sure that it's necessary and I think it perhaps sends out the wrong messages. Most of the userrights (apart from rollback and admin) are completely irrelevant and have no place here. Telling people that you have file mover or autopatrolled rights is not helpful when it comes to teaching others about anti-vandalism. Rollback seems unnecessary too, because all instructors have rollback rights, which is noted on the main academy page. Admin is relevant - they can grant rollback - but I'm not convinced that it needs to be noted for all admin instructors. I chose to mention it in my comments only because I am willing to consider rollback candidates from the academy; that is a decision to be made by individual admins who help here, and some future admins may not see it as relevant or want to publicise their admin rights. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  Comment Admin rights are public, I mean anyone can look them up. Dan653 (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  Exactly, so why do we need to advertise them here? I'm always a bit wary at publicising my role as an admin when I'm not acting in an administrative function (which, other than as specified, I generally do not here). I know it's not intended as such, but it seems to suggest some kind of superiority, which makes me uncomfortable. As far as the CVUA is concerned, there is no need to have a blanket notice saying who is an admin - those who find it necessary can notify people themselves. Personally, I can see no benefit at all to having it (no-one has presented any real case in favour of this), and there are some legitimate concerns, expressed by me and others. Additionally, even if adminship is significant enough to note, it is the only userright which is, so I can't see the benefit of having a whole column dedicated to userrights when a brief note somewhere would do. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Can we Close as No consensus? It appears that the verdict is admins list their admin right if they would like to - otherwise, nothing is displayed. Theopolisme _TALK 18:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  I don't know is "No consensus" is best, there seems to be a pretty strong consensus towards what you describe. Achowat (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, I suppose so. So close as "admins list their admin right if they would like to - otherwise, nothing is displayed"? Theopolisme _TALK 18:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  Unless someone comes up with a reasonable objection, yeah. Achowat (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  (1) Agree with Zippy. (2) Consensus has been reached. (3) Could someone change the status page? Dan653 (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

   Done Achowat (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Rollback

I would like to start this place as an alternative route to WP: PERM. ItsZippy has graciously offered to assist in giving rollback to students. I think that we should set up this page, where instructors can request rollback for their students and ItsZippy can use the  Done and  Not done templates to grant or deny the request. I can help clerk there if you want, as I am a trainee clerk under Armbrust at WP: PERM. Basically, instructors will add their student to the request list and other instructors can make (Non-administrator comment)'s. In the end ItsZippy will make the final decision, just like at WP: PERM. We will keep this discussion open until July 16. On July 16, Achowat, Theopolisme, or Dan653 will be able to determine consensus. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Theo and Acho are right. We are making Zippy do something that we could easily do at WP: PERM, but we're not burdening him. You can see Zippy's comments by his part of the status page about him granting rollback. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose - per my comments at WT:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Enroll and also strongly disagree with these faux-RFCs for every small little issue when a simple discussion would suffice. Achowat (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Strong Oppose - the CVUA is not a backdoor, and never was. This seems a rather twisted way of getting rollback - isn't the way to get rollback to be judged by the community? Not just one person? This seems like, a) putting a load of work on ItsZippy and, b) messing up the Wikipedia process in general. Theopolisme _TALK 19:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Not everything needs archiving

Could we please stop putting an archive box around every discussion that has 'finished'? It is incredibly unhelpful (even detrimental to consensus) to close off a discussion when one person decides that it is time to finish it. Except for important, controversial cases (which are incredibly rare at a place like this), there is no need to archive discussions like this. Even when a consensus is found and a chance implemented, it if important that other people are still able to comment (after all, consensus can change). More than once today (and quite a lot since I joined) I have been unable to make a comment on an ongoing discussion because someone has archived it less than an hour after the last comment. I'd also request that someone undoes the closure of the above discussion - it's been open for less than a day and has not allowed further comment (Dan's not been able to reply to me, for example). By all means, implement the changes soon if there is no significant opposition, but leaving it open allows people to make comments later on. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hear hear! Needed to be said! Achowat (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(1) I agree that not every discussion needs an archive box. (2a) My feeling is that the discussion should be archive boxed when the proposer withdraws the idea, as there is no need to comment on it anymore or (2b) when there has been no comments for at least 24 hours after consensus has been reached. (3) People are still able to comment when a discussion is closed and they are always welcome to reopen as they see fit, because, as you said, consensus can change (ccc). (4) Changes will be implemented when consensus is reached and they can be archived boxed no sooner then 24 hours after the end of the discussion, if at all. Dan653 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that after two or 3 days after consensus, the thread should be closed for addtional comments to be raised.--Chip123456 (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should close the above discussion, there's nothing to discuss as the change was rescinded, why are we keeping it open? Dan653 (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@Chip: A simpler alternative would be to set MiszaBot to 3 days, rather than systematically surrounding discussions with tags. benzband (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

@ BB: I don't use the archove tags, so I'm easy on the decision.--Chip123456 (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

ItsZippy raised an issue for it to be reopened, out of courtsey I have completeted this action on his behalf. Also, with regards to the whole 'ItsZippy admin thing', I think, Electric has been doing this on several occasions. On the instructor status list, users talk page.....its something, if I was an admin, would detest, being treated differently.--Chip123456 (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

See my comment on the enrollment page. I think ItsZippy should be treated like any other instructor. After all, Adminship isn't a trophy, it just shows that he is more experienced than us. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know you've said that. I was talking about other comments prior to that one. It doesn't matter, though. I've undone your above per request of IZ :) --Chip123456 (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IMHO, the very last thing you want to do is create a power illusion. Seriously, these "rights" are just tools that certain users have been given to help them in their task. benzband (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think Electric and others have understand that now.:)--Chip123456 (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Who are others? Theopolisme _TALK 21:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

To get back to the original topic, and respond to Dan... I think that archive boxes should be used even more sparingly than that - only when it would be damaging or disruptive to leave a discussion open. There is no need to close down a discussion once a 'consensus has been reached' because (as we all agree) consensus can change - it can change in 24 hours, 3 days or 6 months. Certainly, after a period of time a new discussion thread would be preferable to continuing the discussion, but by that time a thread is archived. A withdrawal is not necessarily a reason to close as, as other editors may still wish to build upon or develop an idea.

I'm not convinced that closing discussions and allowing users to reopen it if they want is a better alternative. The archive box tells people not to edit the discussion is large, red letters - that is quite a deterrent (I will rarely undo an archiving, even if I think it's been pre-emptive).

As far as I can see, there is absolutely no reason to close any 'finished' discussions which are not highly controversial or likely to cause considerable disruption; on top of that, closing discussions deters users from commenting on discussions which they may have an important opinion on. This is even worse when a discussion is closed after less than 48 hours after a handful of the 'regulars' have all supported each other (which seems contrary to our aim to be part of the community and avoid detachment). Let's keep discussions completely open as much as possible (after all, we want to encourage as much discussion as possible to make this Academy as good as it can be) and only close when absolutely necessary. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with Zippy. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus? Use archive boxes sparingly, if at all, just allow them to be archived by Miza like normal. Dan653 (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think thats what most instructor's would like, so support--Chip123456 (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- but please, can we stop voting on every little thing? Theopolisme _TALK
• Agree :P Dan653 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Instructors and students

Hi, just a quick one, what is everybody's views on putting a limit of 1 student per instructor when student numbers are low? There are many instructors (not talking about myself) who have no students, whilst others have 2 or 3. No problem if anybody disagrees, but it would be nice to see students spread around more.--Chip123456 (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

My original impression is "Nah, let people be their own judge of what they can juggle". Achowat (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok! :)--Chip123456 (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the numbers are somewhat misleading as well - I had three at one point, but am now facing one retiree (who left, 2 times no less and is still editing under the Retired template, in a HUFF), one attacker (Urgh.), and one (thank goodness) graduate. I just realized that was a ramble that had nothing to do with the previous conversation. As you were, as you were. But -- I think just let people, as Acho said it, juggle how they'd like. Theopolisme _TALK 17:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree with Achowat. Though I appreciate efforts to make sure instructors have students, the primary focus should be the students. Instructor numbers should not dictate how students are allocated; the needs of students should. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Zippy. Theopolisme _TALK 17:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I'm 'cool' with that. However, as a general courtesy, if you've recently taken on a student, maybe 'step back' for a while?--Chip123456 (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

When I try to match students with instructors I start with tool use, if there are multiple instructors who use the same tool, who aren't full, I move on to time zone. If there are still multiple instructors left then I go by how many students they have and have had, I try to give new instructors a student before an instructor who already had a student. Also, I agree with Zippy: Student needs before instructor numbers. Dan653 (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've thought about it before. The number is the amount of students that you can handle at any given time. However, as a courtesy, we should let a new instructor or someone without any students take a student if we already have one. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Achowat - Stepping Down

It is with a heavy heart that I would like to announce my resignation as both a Coordinator and Active Instructor of the CVU Academy, effective immidiately upon the selection of my successor. I do this for two reasons: one personal and one for the good of the Academy.

My personal reason, on the face, is to pursue other on-Wiki activities. But there is more there than just that. I feel as though my activity is waning, that my enthusiasm for the program is at a low-point. This is not about the aims of the Academy, but rather a personal lack of energy towards it. The Academy is still a good idea, training new users is something we should never overlook. I just feel as though my current role in the CVUA is one that feels more like a chore than a labor of love, and I will go off to find a project or program that will once again feel right for me.

The second reason is that I feel I've had, in general, a negative effect on the discussions of improving the Academy. I have a very conservative editing philosophy. I believe that what we have now is good and that any change needs to demonstrate a notable improvement. I feel that a new program such as the CVUA is hindered, more than it is helped, by this philosophy, especially from someone regarded as the "Founder" of the Academy.

I'm just a man, a man who had an idea a few months ago. It has turned out to be a great idea, one that many have benefited from. We've had about 30 students enroll, and that is great! A real demonstration of everyone's commitment to the program. I've personally seen two of my students move on to the ranks of Instructors and grow my coaching tree to about 10 Graduates. That feels good, that feels great, but I feel I must move on.

It feels that, too often, my comments are treated like that of a god-king and I feel my very presence does more harm than good. New ideas that I disagree with, new ideas that I like, are often swarmed with pile-on votes. My word becomes consensus. Whether the instructors and editors here feel that to be true or not accurate, it is a feeling I've had for a while. The Academy, simply put, has outlived my usefulness. It's self-sustaining, self-sufficient. That's quite an accomplishment, and one that I personally have great pride in. If anyone were ever to ask me for my proudest contributions to Wikipedia, it would 100% be this project. But I've always thought that it's better to leave a moment to soon than a moment too late.

So with that, I leave you in Dan's capable hands, for now. I will still hang on doing the job I was entrusted with until a time when a second coordinator is chosen and will happily decide the Consensus for my replacement. There are good candidates both in and out of the Academy, and I trust that you all will chose the best replacement for me.

I will be around. I'm not retiring or taking a WikiBreak or anything. My talk page will always be open for questions. If there are more enrollees than the current crop of Instructors can handle, I'd be happy to pinch hit on a few more students. This project has single-handedly introduced me to most of the people I would consider my on-wiki friends. And I thank you for that.

But mostly, I think you for taking a little dream I had way back when and turning it into something I can be proud of. God bless you all. Achowat (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

*round of applause* ;-) benzband (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I know whatever project you find you will make great and wish you the best of luck. Dan653 (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, the awe is overwhelming. As well as being dissapointed by your academy departure, I wish you the best for your future endeavours. By the way, the latter reason for your resignation is not factually correct, your judgement skills are outstanding and will be missed. Good luck!--Chip123456 (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I am so sorry to see you leave. You were instrumental in this project and it couldn't have happened without you. Most importantly, you served not only as my instructor, but as a true friend and mentor. That being said, I wish you luck in all of your endeavors here and I hope you visit still visit the academy from time to time. Best, Electriccatfish2 (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC).

Thank you very much for your great service, Achowat; you have left a great legacy. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I would write an essay if I could - whenever I needed you, whenever anything - you were there. You will be missed, Acho. Always- Theopolisme _TALK 20:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

New Coordinator

Moved from Wikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy/Status#New_coordinator

All Nominations

Nominations

• Theopolisme by Riley Huntley and Dan653
  

Do you accept?: Thank you all so much for recognizing me - and yes, I accept. :) Theopolisme _TALK 20:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Achowat told me on my talk page that he would like to nominate me, but I'd rather serve as a deputy coordinator. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• ItsZippy by Electriccatfish2

Do you accept?

Coordinator Selection

I have boldly created the selection page here; please make/discuss any amendments you think necessary. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

... Where? Theopolisme _TALK 21:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Coordinator selection. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Midnight... In what time zone, me'friend? :D Theopolisme _TALK 21:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Erm, UTC probably. Feel free to fix that. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please clarify why there isn't an oppose section? After all this is a vote. I also do not see why there is a date for when we can start discussion, since this is Wikipedia, shouldn't we just model this after a RfA and have the voting and discussions start when the user accepts the nomination? :) Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 23:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Support, Support, Support Riley's points - why no oppose? Was actually actually to ask a similar question - also, as mentioned by R, can we just start discussion now (when user accepts)? Theopolisme _TALK 23:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

(1) Midnight of UTC. (2) There will be no oppose only a questiosn section and a support section, if you don't want the user to be a coordinator, then don't support them. Dan653 (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we can start discuss/support now though - why wait? Theopolisme _TALK 00:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Because ItsZippy wants time to think about his nomination, and everyone might not have been on a computer today. Dan653 (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, no hurry then. Sorry. Theopolisme _TALK 01:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason I thought we should hold back to wait for nominations was that I don't know if it would be fair to start discussing the merits of certain candidates until we know all the people running. It may be that we make the deadline sooner (a week is quite a while for a small project). How about a deadline of midnight Sunday? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I did put in "unless three days go by without any nominations" for a reason . Dan653 (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sneaky, sneaky.... :D Theopolisme _TALK 20:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the date for the end of nominations to this Sunday (which gives us two days), which seemed to be the rough consensus here. Does that seem reasonable to people? Would we like to make it sooner, or keep it longer? Also, I have declined my nomination; my reasons are at my talk page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Closed because it is doubtful anyone else will add themselves. Please put you supports here Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Coordinator selection. Dan653 (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Role of the Coordinator

Interesting point was brought up on Zippy's talk - what, specifically, is the role of coordinator? It's no good for us to have this long, drawn out process if we don't even no exactly what the job is - Dan? Theopolisme _TALK 12:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The role of the coordinator is to have students given to instructors in a timely manner, answer questions, and deal with problems i.e. 1/10th, Fishingking, Grizzly, and Dede2028. Dan653 (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, just checking and making sure we were all on the same page. :) Theopolisme _TALK 13:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Coordinatorship grew out of this conversation and the original role was intended to decide borderline cases for either Enrollment or Instructors. Achowat (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes... I was there. :D Theopolisme _TALK 13:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that the coordinator should be provide strategic vision and leadership for the project. This doesn't really mean a great deal extra 'powers', but the commitment to publicise the CVUA, work with the instructors to develop new ideas, support instructors or enrollees in need of help, etc. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sharing resources

Callanecc asked me yesterday about the resources I've been using for my CVUA trainees (the discussion is here). I have a dedicated CVUA page, as well as academy pages for each trainee of mine which I am happy for people to use and modify as they wish; however, I've been thinking that it might be useful to create a more central place where we can all share our own resources. I know that the format of my course and some of the tasks/questions I've set might be useful to other people, and I also know that other people have had good idea which I or others might want to pinch. Is it worth creating an resources area for instructors to this end? I'm happy to work on something if we feel it'd be a good idea. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea - I'd be happy to work on it with you as well. CVUA/R? :) Theopolisme _TALK 22:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Theo, if you want to create such a page it sounds great, but I have no resources to share 'cept me brains :P Dan653 (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I'll put it on my todos. Theopolisme _TALK 00:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll give in my tests and quizzes. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Rough draft: User:Theopolisme/CVUAResources Theopolisme _TALK 13:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I've moved that page to Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Resources (with Theo's permission); it's by no means complete though, so please add anything that you can. I've modified the structure a little and added a section for tasks and final tests. I was thinking that the methods section could be for broader methods of instruction, with other section for more detailed resources. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Definitely makes sense. Thanks, Zippy! -- Another note: Should we attempt to merge the instruction methods page into this one, and make some sort of "master page" for instructors? Just a thought - I don't know if that would make the page too long though... Hmmm... Theopolisme _TALK 14:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think having them separate is a good idea as keeps "this is what you need to cover" and "this is how you could do it" different thing and open for the instructor to decide what to use (just as a school's curriculum and it's teaching methods are separate. Plus the resources page might end up being quite long (as you said). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Point made. Yep. Theopolisme _TALK 15:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Graduation

One of my students will probably graduate from the CVUA soon. Do we have any nice graduation awards (barnstar-like templates), or shall I create one? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There's the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Graduate template, which you then type a message into - for mine, Acho put "Given that an Administrator has recently approved you for the Rollback Flag, it is the decision of the community that you have learned enough about Identifying, Restoring, Warning, and Reporting to be trusted with a new tool. As such, let me be the first to congratulate you for graduating from the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy. Your instructor and the whole Academy will still be around if you have any questions. Congratulations!" But.... if you have something cooler, go for it! There's nothing firm here at the CVUA. Theopolisme _TALK 20:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I also have a template one on my tasks page which I've started to write. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Deputy Coordinator

If Theo theoretically becomes coordinator, does ECF become deputy coordinator, or do we have a separate election? Leave your comments below:

• Haha. Theoretically. I like that. I think we should hold a separate election; not fair if we automatically appoint. --J (t) 04:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Theopolisme likes this. Theopolisme _TALK 15:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Ok here is another perspective and question if we have 2 coordinators do we really need a deputy coordinator. I mean this isn't a big project and even if we only have one coordinator available there still isn't all that much to do (from what I've seen). In in the very unlikely event that both coordinators are unavailable and an urgent decision needs to be made (which will probably be when they are sleeping) then surely we can trust the judgement of an instructor who is online?
  • In any case I'll ask this question, what would the role of the Deputy Coordinator be (keeping it mind that this a relatively small project). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • First of all, Theopolisme was the former deputy coordinator. He was appointed by Dan. The role is to do the coordinator's duties if they cannot respond in a timely fashion. I've dealt with most of the issues here, from the disputes between students and instructors, to students who have been blocked. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
      • So is there need for a deputy coordinator? Dealing with students who have been blocked isn't something we need a specific person to do; which clerically their instructor should do (ie removing them from the table) and removing them from the Academy should be one or both of the coordinators or the CVUA community. Any disputes between students and instructors can (and should) be dealt with by the coordinators (and if it's urgent and they are unavailable) by any instructor who is experienced. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I agree with Callanecc on this. We don't want to over-bureaucratise a relatively small project. I can see the need for coordinators to give some direction and leadership to the project; however, any role that would be had by a deputy can probably be filled by all of us (either through consensus for decision making, or through boldness for any action that needs taking. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict)I think we need a deputy coordinator because we just don't know what could happen. One coord could be sick and the other could be on vacation and a problem could come up. While I trust all of the instructors, having a leader would be helpful in the instructors efforts to deal with the problem. Dan653 (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
            • Just to make a comment - the role of "deputy coordinator" was actually somewhat of a joke at the time - Dan was on his iPod and needed me to do something... See this. Theopolisme _TALK 15:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict)Dan, I would argue that having a deputy coordinator is, in fact, a negative when it comes to the idea of the two Coords being unavailable. If there's no DC, and every Instructor is encouraged and entitled to Be Bold and act when Coords can't or don't act in a timely fashion, then they will. If there's a DC, then the Instructors know that the higher-level decisions should be done by one of three people, then they won't act (even if all 3 leaders are unavailable, which isn't tremendously more likely than two people being unavailable). Achowat (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
              • Closed/Consensus There will be no deputy coordinator I understand where you guys are coming from. Dan653 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

TOC on WP:CVUA

Do we really need to display a table of contents on the CVUA main page? I think it's just clutter. Wow... this really is a petty issue. Just something that's bugging me a bit... Thoughts? Theopolisme _TALK 16:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• I like it because it useful when you have to refer to a specific part of it. Dan653 (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yea, sure - but all I would do is add __NOTOC__, so it hid the selector - the sections would still be there... are you saying just to copy the links to sections? Theopolisme _TALK 16:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, like: Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy#Checklist_before_Enrolling. Dan653 (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
• Heya Dan, you might be interested in this script: User:Bility/copySectionLink. benzband (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That's awesome :D Dan653 (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • After finding this script I'll take it down :D Dan653 (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
      • That's fantastic! Thanks! Theopolisme _TALK 17:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Enrollee Requirements

I think that we should make the requirement for being active here a month as opposed to 2 months. I have adopted a user who just got rollback and his account has been active for less than a month. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The current guidelines make sense, but maybe we should allow exceptions for great users. --J (t) 23:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Exceptions are already allowed, just ask a coordinator, or use your best judgement, though I wouldn't mind too much if we change it to one month. Dan653 (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

If Dan and the new coord are okay with it, my suggestion would be to change it to one month (citing User:TheIrishWarden as an example) however reinforcing the 200 edits. But still allow instructors to ask a coord for an exception or take on a student who doesn't quite meet the requirements on themselves.

Yes, I was referring to TIW. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Dan653 (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

How to Clerk

Here's a guide on clerking:

• First, check the edit count to ensure that the account has been active for at least 2 months and that the user has made at least 200 edits.
• Next, check the block log to ensure that the user has not been blocked recently.
• If all is good, place a Y after the request.
• If the user doesn't have enough edits or experience here, place an C next to the request.
• If the user has been blocked recently for vandalism, incivility, or spamming, place a N next to the request.
• After the user has been taken by an instructor, place an  Already done template so the bot can archive it.

Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The users contributions (at least the recent ones), user's talk page and the user rights log should also be checked.Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. —Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, along with wp:spi log. Dan653 (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

And I, also aren't we placing a ? if they already have rollback rights? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 10:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The system we had for already-rollbacker was with a ? and ask the user what new skills they'd like to learn. (Of course, the ? is unnecessary if they've already indicated that. Achowat (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

And, just another note, if some sort of odd situation arises and you aren't sure what to put, feel free to just don't do anything (or leave a comment ({{comment}}) with your concerns) - there are quite a few of us instructors now, and safety comes in numbers! Someone else will probably have insight. Theopolisme _TALK 13:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Or just put a comment on the enroll page. Dan653 (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

CVUA instructors need to keep themselves updated on Antivandal tools

Dear CVUA members, please note. I was welcoming a new Stiki user today when I came across this recent statement on his talk page (which is outdated due to new updates on STiki).

(In STiki) You'll find that when there are multiple edits (where only the most recent is shown), you should still go back to the diffs and have a look to make sure there's not some sneaky vandalism going on.

— A CVUA Instructor to his Trainee

• Correction in the above statement Unlike Huggle which shows the most recent diff of the article and you have to check the earlier versions as well to make sure if its vandalism. The latest version of STiki makes it easier for the vandal fighters by "combining all the recent edits" by the last editor in a single diff, so that the Vandal fighter is aware of the version to which the article will be reverted if he presses the revert button.

This is also the reason why on some occasions you may be seeing a "blank white screen" on the STiki diff window, this situation occurs when an editor makes a test edit and then self reverts himself, If you combine these two edits (the test edit and the subsequent self revert) the Net result is NULL hence the blank diff screen. In this case there is nothing more to do for the vandal fighter.

• This particular update had been included in STiki since the last 2 months, which highlights the need for the CVUA members to keep themselves updated about the latest changes in the tools so that they can help the trainees accordingly, regards--DBigXray 11:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I don't keep up with Stiki as I don't use it, but I'm sure this info would be helpful for other instructors to know. Dan653 (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

All CVUA members are invited...

...to the Rollbacker and Reviewer Cabal! Join now! --J (t) 16:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Boom! Done. Theopolisme _TALK 16:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just jumped on board as well! --Morning277 (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Objections?

If no one has any objections I would like to annouce Theo as the new coordinator. Speak now or forever hold your peas. Dan653 (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A Few Points

Moved to Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Next

 – Theopolisme _TALK 17:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that this is in no way attempting to be dictatorial, it's just a few of my thoughts on the Academy in the long term.

We have the Academy now - somewhat static, yes, but definitely doing fantastically. And then I thought, we have the Academy in a year - what then? I think we need to get some goals/etc in mind, so that as the Academy becomes more and more of a part of Wikipedia we can pace ourselves and work towards specific goals. I've placed a few on my immediate thoughts below, but please add anything else that you think the Academy should strive for in the next month, year, 5 years, 50 years - whenever. The idea is just to, quite simply, get a list of ideas that we want to make realities, and then work from there.

• Community Reach - A lot of folks on Wikipedia don't know about the Academy. We need to build up awareness, maybe by things like Wikipedia Ads, banners to new editors (I don't know exactly how this works, but it seems possible to display something to editors based on how old they are, etc), etc.

• Instructors, etc - Right now, there's a pretty nice list of instructors. But I think an agressive plan to get more instructors would definitely be a goal.

Etc, etc.. This is a ramble, and I admit it. Just my inner workings at work... If it's incoherent, please copy-edit as you see fit. Theopolisme _TALK 16:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

For both, I think new students should be the first priority. I agree that getting more instructors should be a goal, but I think we need a lot more students first. For example from the status page we have capacity for at least another 13 students (which I imagine will increase as our new instuctors get some experience).

In terms of ways to do this, I created a personal filter in Huggle which includes reverts so I've been seeing users who are reverting vandalism as well as causing it (hence why there are a number of newbies from my invites). Maybe we could also look at some advertising at WP:VAND (depending on the community's opinion of that) and related pages. But I actually think we are collecting a lot of the people interested in fighting vandalism (though there are still names at WP:PERM/R which I don't recognise) so I'm not sure how many more we will get - but it's always worth a try. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 17:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, New Students definitely belongs as priority #1. Theopolisme _TALK 17:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sounds like good idea. I think community reach would be really helpful, as that will both attract potential new instructors, and give people a place to point new anti-vandals to. I wonder if we could get something in The Signpost? I also think that giving instructors as much help as possible is important to ensure that all of our instructors give good training. The resources page looks like it will be helpful (I know I've taken some ideas from it already); expanding that and developing additional support for instructors would be good. Perhaps a system where newer instructors, if they wish, can receive closer support from the rest of us? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm think pretty positive there was a signpost article at some point... but we should definitely reach out to them and see if they want to do something like the "Followup on the CVUA"... I like the instructor support idea as well... and, actually, I'm going to create a new page with all of these on it, for our viewing enjoyment. (Please hold...) Theopolisme _TALK 17:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with all of you. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on Instructor Requirements

This is a placeholder -- used to remind me to put my thoughts here -- once I have access to a computer. Theopolisme _TALK 12:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
At a computer now. So, as far as the instructor requirements go - in the student requirements, it has something about Good editor relations. Do we want to put a similar clause in the instructor requirements? Simply because the instructors will be having quite a few "relations" with the students, if you know what I mean. Just a suggestion. Theopolisme _TALK 13:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should expect members to follow WP:CIVIL in letter and spirit. Red flags to watch would be user warnings about WP:NPA or similar, subject of threads at WP:WQA or WP:ANI, especially with poor outcomes, WP:RFC/U with the user as a subject, receiving any WP:AE ArbCom sanctions or WP:Office actions. Did I miss anything? Elizium23 (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Too much blue!!... Jk. That sounds good. But - can we blanket statement that with "Good editor relations" added to the instructor requirements? Theopolisme _TALK 13:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I was bold, added. Theopolisme _TALK 17:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I suggest adding Elizium's comments to the enrollment requirements for students and say that instructors must meet all of the requirements for student enrollment as well as the four instructor bullet points.

Perhaps also a reinforcement for both students and instructors that if they don't meet all the requirements request anyway and let the coords/community decide. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 17:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What are the general requirements of maturity for a) instructors, and b) students? I'm asking this because I do not see it mentioned, and a quick scan of some of the user pages may possibly suggest that the levels of experience and knowledge of policies may have been set too low. It might be an idea for potential instructors to opt in here too. For actual maturity, it is difficult to set clear metrics, but it might be prudent to assume that of an adult - without prejudice of course to younger users who are advanced for their years, after all, we even have some excellent admins who are under 18. That said, from special watchlists that I follow, and my own 11,000+ watchlist, vandal fighting seems to perform already quite well, whereas we have other areas of serious concern. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung: Thanks for raising that note - it's definitely something we need to talk about, and I'll be sure to bring it up at our next IRC meeting. Theopolisme _TALK 22:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll just leave this link too. The caveats it contains, particularly in the last post (and its link) by a very senior editor, may provide more food for thought. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)