Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

#wikipedia-cvua on the IRC? An idea.

Dan, Ben, and I were talking on the IRC earlier about possibly making some sort of #wikipedia-cvua feed on the IRC in order for all of us to be able to communicate, chat, have "meetings", etc, etc. So... anyone have any other thoughts on the concept? Would you use this? Random rambling dying to come out? Voice them! Right here! :) Theopolisme TALK 22:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That could be possible. If anyone would like this to happen then talk to ST47 (Admin). He is the channel founder and current operator. Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 10:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to keep both of them separate. Dan653 (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Any updates? Dan653 (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Riley contacted ST47, but apparently they only go on-wiki about once a month, so I will say  On hold for now. Theopolisme TALK 21:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

On-IRC Meetings

Hey everyone! With Riley, Dan, and I completely giddy over our new IRC channel, the thought came up of potentially holding some sort of weekly (or whatever) "meetings" where we could, a) discuss issues raised that week (for example the one that Kudpung added here), as well as b) long-term stuffs (like the ones located at the "Next" page). But this would of course require some scheduling - so, what times are you available? Which days work best? Cry your heart out, and then I'll try to look through it all and find some times/days that work and we can go from there. Thanks, and keep up the great "instructing"! Theopolisme TALK 22:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Support: I agree that it would be a great idea and would also save us hundreds of edits to talk pages! Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 22:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Electric Catfish 12:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I've just figured out how to work this today and I think that it would be a good idea. During the week is probably best, as I'm only in really to answer queries on my talk or do minor tasks over the weekend, but don't base it atround me.--Chip123456 17:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Mild ambivalence - I'm always slightly sceptical about IRC, but I don't have a problem with others using it. I almost certainly won't take part; provided that everything discussed is made public and consensus is still built on-wiki, I don't mind others using IRC to discuss ideas. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Lets move on to the actual details:

1. We'll go by utc time.

2. When we pick a time keep in mind that most users are either in edt or bst User:Dan653/sandbox. So we should try to be in bewteen the two time zones which have a five hour differnce. More users live closer to edt than bst so I was thinking we should base it off UTC-2 (2 hours from edt and 3 from bst). So I was thinking a chat time of UTC 18:00 and maybe a second at UTC 00:00 .
Sound good?

All we would have left to do is pick a weekday if you guys agree.

Dan653 (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Talked to Dan and Riley on IRC and we narrowed it down to either Mondays, Tuesdays, or Wednesdays at UTC 18:00 and UTC 00:00 (if you haven't already, you may wish to add the UTC clock Dan mentioned below). Which days work with you? Please just drop a comment below. Thanks! Theopolisme TALK 00:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So to clarify, midnight UTC would be on Sundays, Mondays, and Tuesdays in the states. If that is true, I can usually meet on Sundays or Mondays MST 17:00 but not Tuesdays. UTC 18:00 is possible on each day, but less likely, depending on what time I wake up. Elizium23 (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
UTC 00:00 on Mondays would work best for me. I won't be able to do UTC 18:00 as that's 4am here. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 02:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Dan and I were being dumb. We meannnnttttttt... 18:00 20:00 UTC Monday and 00:00 UTC Tuesday (aka 4PM/EST and 8PM/EST Monday, for those with timezone issues like me xD). Does this work with you guys? Thanks for bearing with us. Theopolisme TALK 02:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Theo, neither of those will work for me. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 05:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Darn shucks. Hmm... Does Tues/Wed UTC work with you? Theopolisme TALK 05:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
We've got a couple of options here... firs of all, does, rather than 18:00, 20:00 UTC Monday or Tuesday work with any of you? Theopolisme TALK 19:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
20 monday is good for me. Dan653 (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
20:00 UTC Monday or Tuesday both work for me. Elizium23 (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Where do we go from here? Dan653 (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Next Week, 20:00 UTC MONDAY is what I shall be planning for - can you make it? Theopolisme TALK 20:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Dan653 (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 04:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • On Weekdays in the Summer, I work from 9-4. During all other times, I'm in school from 8-6. Also, I have Fire Department meetings 2 Mondays a month at 6 PM. I'm on for a while on Sundays and Fridays, but not Saturdays. Electric Catfish 22:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

STiki Request - Hmm

Hi all - I was just looking at WT:STiki and it appeared that Vivek Rai (who is currently under the instruction of Elizium) received a comment from Electric Catfish (linked here) implying that if you are a student in the CVUA, they will automatically grant you STiki access - is this the case? I was under the impression that an instructor must request STiki access for their student - and as Electric isn't Vivek's instructor... hmm.. Just a rather troubling point to me - or maybe just a miscommunication or misunderstanding of policy by Electric - or maybe just me misinterpreting everything... in any case, if anyone else can enlighten me that'd be great. Thanks! Theopolisme TALK 06:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys let us not appear to be agents of advertising firm. While inviting new users stress must be on help and guidance rather than telling about rollback rights or STiki advantage. regards --DBigXray 07:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Exactly as DBigXray says. Rollback and STiki are possible by-products of enrolling in the CVUA and so should not be advertised to anyone (except obviously, an instructor to their student). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 07:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Darn you edit conflict... but exactly as DBig/Callan says it - a general note to all, stress must be on help and guidance when inviting new users. Theopolisme TALK 07:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)STiki requests are granted to CVUA trainees (even without checking their understanding of WP:VANDAL) only due to an inherent assumption that their Instructors will keep a watch on the trainees understanding of WP:NOTVANDAL and will not allow a misuse of the tool. (So in a way, it makes the CVUA Instructors responsible to take care of that.) From my experience I know that nothing discourages new users (or IP users) to abandon editing on Wikipedia more than the fact that someone reverted their genuine good faith edits and called it vandalism. Please make sure that the trainees are aware of this while they test their revert skills --DBigXray 07:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok so here is a radical idea, what about if the CVUA itself sets a standard for students before instructors get STiki rights for their students? Probably not an issue right now, but it may be something to bear in mind if the need arises. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess this standard must not be told to the trainees, but the instructors should make sure that the trainees have read and understood WP:VANDAL and WP:NOTVANDAL before using automated tools. I thought this was already being done by CVUA. --DBigXray 08:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
That is quite a good idea, Callan... will definitely raise it to Dan+others. Theopolisme TALK 08:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I knew that Vivek Rai was a student all along. I wanted to inform him that if your instructor tells the people at STiki to enable it on your account, they'll do so. Also, I test my students on WP: VAND before requesting it. Electric Catfish 11:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, but it isn't something anyone but an instructor should being saying to their student. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Callanecc also I would request anyone who intends to convey this message to rephrase it in a more modest way, so that it does not appear that we are advertising WP:CVUA :) --DBigXray 13:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Electriccatfish2: "Elizium is a new instructor and he/she probably isn't aware of it.(STiki advantage) This might be a valid concern and may be one needs to do something about it. Can the CVUA make a page for summarizing important points such as these (and the one about my experience above) that every new Instructor should be aware of ?--DBigXray 13:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done on the Instruction methods page. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 13:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Callanecc I was not aware that such a page already existed. I hope the instructors will be reading it. cheers--DBigXray 14:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
DBigXray - that is really a page which should only be edited by instructors (and usually with a consensus). Other instructors (primarily coords) feel free to discuss or change as you see fit. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
sorry Boss for adding my lines on "exclusively edited by Instructors" page. But I did not see any warning telling me not to edit. Perhaps placing such a warning as well would prevent others from getting into such embarassing situation in which I am right now. thanks.--DBigXray 16:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No worries, fixed now (it was mainly just the wording). We (ie WikiProjects) all have our own ways to word things (especially when there are two parties; instructors & students and adopters & adoptees. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

DBigXray (I finally understand that username now) makes a point, should be include a note to that effect on Instructing methods and Resources? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Dan653 (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I have replied on WT:STiki, but I will summarize here: Vivek Rai is a new student of mine, and I am a new instructor. We have had one 35-minute session, in which we went over some case studies and discussed how to identify various types of vandalism. I did not yet assign him any work to make a few vandalism reverts, we have not talked about WP:NOTVAND, and we have not even covered usage of Twinkle for anti-vandalism. I think he will be ready soon, because he displays good aptitude and a positive attitude toward working with editors collegially, but I would say right now after our first session, we are not ready to progress to STiki just yet. Elizium23 (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Task Force

Is there any purpose, because I would like to put it up for deletion Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Task_Force. Dan653 (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really that knowledgable about it but I think the traffic stats [1] tell a story. I think an MFD would provide some interesting results (although I would probably chuck something on the talk page to gauge interest first. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, great tool. Dan653 (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
These two are also helpful: [2] and [3]. Although I don't remember how I enabled them. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Cool, and just an FYI the talkpage of the task force has already been deleted as a G6 (not the song :P). Dan653 (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
any good purpose ? (I'd support deletion)--DBigXray 16:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll be bold and put it up for deletion. Dan653 (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Can somone help with the mfd? I think I screwed something up! Dan653 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 Done Fixed the MfD. Now, to wait.. Theopolisme TALK 21:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Think Tank

I think we should move Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy/Next to the think tank. Dan653 (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we already have a think tank page somewhere or are you suggesting changing it's name (I'm probably just being stupid and it's very clear in what you wrote). This made me think though I'm not sure if I thanked you for the cookie re my comments on the coord closure, in any case thanks ;). Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Think_tank, and you're welcome. Dan653 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I think on this one keeping the Academy and the Unit seperate is a good idea, although perhaps a see also link at the top of both of them? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 16:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Dan653 (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 Done with {{hatnote}}. Theopolisme TALK 21:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Another Idea

What does everyone feel about potentially adding a link to the CVUA under the "Resources and Assistance" section of the Wikipedia vandalism template? Just suddenly came to as I was browsing a page.. there may be a good reason not to do this though, so please let me know. Thanks! Theopolisme TALK 11:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - it'll be interesting to see if the CVUA page gets any more traffic from it. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I haven't checked the traffic reports lately, but that would be an interesting "study" for sure.. if no one has any objections I will add it shortly. Thanks Theopolisme TALK 15:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 Done I was bold and went ahead and added it - assuming someone doesn't object and remove it, we should watch the traffic stats. :) Theopolisme TALK 15:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Could all instructors please go to "My preferences" --> "gadgets" --> "appearance" --> "add a clock..." so we can inteligently schedule our irc chat meetings. Thanks Dan653 (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done for me. Theopolisme TALK 00:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 Done--Morning277 (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 02:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 Done Krenair (talk • contribs) 11:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 Done Electric Catfish 13:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 Done Elizium23 (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 Not done :)--Chip123456 09:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: IRC Meeting Today!

Hi everyone! Just a quick remember - don't forget that our first ever "official" IRC Meeting happens today at 20:00 UTC (4pm/EDT)! Be sure not to miss it! However, if you can't attend - or you'd just rather not come - we'll put all the meeting minutes up on-wiki soon after the meeting. Hope to see you there! :) Theopolisme TALK 12:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

MEETING IS IN SESSION. :) Theopolisme TALK 20:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

IRC

Hi folks. I was asked to make sure that people who didn't attend the IRC knew what we discussed, so here I go. I hope that instructors that were not there can join in the next one, if time was an issue, please contact a coord or myself. If you need clarification on anything, give Theo or myself a nudge and we can assist. If I've missed anything out, tell me! Discussed:

  • The instructor methods - just a quick reminder that these are useful when instructing. Tasks for you to give to your students can be found there.
  • IP's - an interesting one. We discussed that we should allow anons to train in the academy, as long as they meet the chosen requirements. Please remember that unregistered users may be under a shared IP, so regarding things like past blocks or vandalism, please just AGF. Also, remember they are not allowed to receive rollback privileges.
  • PERM - An idea was to have a page notice at the RFR page, advising users to sign up to the academy before applying for the rights. Please give us your ideas on this so we can gain consensus at WT:PERM. We would have to get Zippy or Yushuni to do this, as this can be done by Sysops only.
  • What's next for the academy - as you may be aware, student numbers are at an all time low. Any ideas for community reach would be appreciated. Please also voice your opinions on how we, as a whole, can improve the academy
  • For peeps who watch this page, you would've realised that one of my students expresses a desire not to have rollback. If this is the case, before graduation, please give them a short test to ensure they now know the big four steps, identify, revert, warn and report
  • Feedback - it would be good that after every student you have trained, you ask them for feedback on how they have felt whilst in the academy. W haven't of yet got a feedback page, but that's something to look for in the future

For another copy, please see WP:CVUA/IRC.

Best, --Chip123456 15:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Anon (talk · contribs)

Hi folks. My above student has expressed that he doesn't wish to have rollback privilleges assigned to his account. Whilst I don't mind this, I'm just wondering how do I graduate this student, as usually we graduate students who have received rollback privilleges. Thanks, Danke, Merci.--Chip123456 11:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Rollback rights are just a by-product of going through the Academy. Do a final test to make sure he understands all the things he should understand WP:CVUA/IM. Also maybe talk to him about getting STiki rights, which can be done with a request from you (see WP:CVUA/IM. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I thought rb rights were needed for STiki?--Chip123456 12:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)--Chip123456 12:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x3 If they don't want rollback it is no big deal - in that case, just graduate them when you feel that they know and are comfortable with the big four steps - or whatever we're calling them this week. :) // Also, you can ask if they're interested in learning to use a certain tool... however it seems like Michael is more interested with the "nitty-gritty" and not so much the button-pushing, which isn't at all a bad thing! Keep up the great work - I'm very much impressed both with him and with your teaching! Theopolisme TALK 12:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
They can make an exception for the CVUA, you just need to request it on the WT:STiki page - you specifically. Theopolisme TALK 12:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Regarding STiki, see Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Instruction methods#Requesting tool access. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I never thought that rollback rights were intrinsically linked to graduation, anyway. Of course, we would hope that everyone who graduates would be granted the rights, but we are not tied to them as a standard. Also, one of my trainees already has rollback rights, and I intend just to give him some sort of award and congratulate him when he passes; I guess we'd do the same for users who do not want rollback. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
As Zippy says - if you'd like to give them an award as well, that'd be quite nice - usually with some sort of personal message. Theopolisme TALK 17:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
It was always my impression that we used rollback as a convenient benchmark for graduation because it provided a pre-existing set of criteria for good anti-vandal work. If a trainee doesn't want rollback, but would be granted it if they applied, that for me is sufficient evidence of competence, and qualifies them to graduate. We still don't seem to have a clear universal standard for graduation; I'm not saying that we necessarily need one, but it may be worth tossing around a few ideas. For my part, I consider 50+ correct examples of IRWR to be sufficient (a tally that anyone can hit in about 3 hours of careful RC monitoring, especially with Twinkle); others prefer a short exam or rollback permissions.
I also posited the idea a while back that it might be worth have a "postgrad" CVUA course, for using Stiki, Igloo, Huggle and so forth. CVUA at present gets trainees to the point where they are qualified for these tools, but instruction in them is somewhat ad hoc after that. Any thoughts? Yunshui 雲‍水 07:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Callanecc, a Unified CVUA Category?

Since we've now got quite a few pages bearing the CVUA name - from instructor pages to policy pages to talk pages etc., etc., Callanecc suggested to me a little while ago that we may want to create a special category for all CVUA related pages - thoughts? Theopolisme TALK 13:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... Achowat, hey! But okay, doing now. Theopolisme TALK 20:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've also added it to the CVUA pages in my userspace. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Deputy Coordinator

See also: Wikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy/Archive_2 § Deputy_Coordinator

After discussions with Chip and per CCC I feel that we should reevaluate our position. Leave your comments below. Dan653 (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask the same question - why? What would the role of the deputy coordinator be and why does this need to be a specific position? Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 11:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The aim of the new dep coord was to provide extra support for the current onesd. Whist instructors are also excpected to do this as an act of WP:BOLD, a reason for implementing this new position was to help with time zones. We discussed that because our current coords are from around the same place, having a new coord/dep would assist at times when the current coords are inactive. Theo suggested that (x) should start off as a dep and then gradually come up to to the coord panel. Also, we realsied that due to specific time zones people can't make certain IRC meeting. We discussed that there could be seperate meetings where a seperate coord is in attendance, to make sure that notes could be taken for coords to sort out at a seperate meeting. The position is to ease some of the load of the current coords, especially now with the IRC meetings and the new vandalism studies etc.Chip123456 13:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
As far as the dep --> co'ord goes, that was just a suggestion - I think it depends on truly what needs to be done. However, with the new Vandalism Studies project - which Dan and I are both going to be actively involved in - as well as day to day management of the Academy (think new instructors, enrollees as we scale up our operation), I think that it would be beneficial to Dan and I both to have someone else to assist with two specific tasks --> attend another IRC meeting for those "across the pond" and farther away (cough cough Callanecc ), as well as, as Chip put it (complete with the little typo - hehe) "provide extra support for the current onesd." Thanks - Theopolisme TALK 13:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
No need to over-bureaucratise. I'd like to see roles kept to the bare minimum necessary, and to encourage bold editing. If there are IRC meetings without a coordinator present, that's not really a problem; I'm sure someone else could chair/run it in that instance (and having other people organise meetings would help decentralise everything too). No reason for a deputy, so let's avoid it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Per Zippy, I have struck my comments - oppose. Theopolisme TALK 14:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I concur about adding another 'title' to the mix. But, that doesn't mean to say that (x) could just simply be a coord, like Dan and Theo. Taking the irc and new vandalism studies into account, I'm going to say support.--Chip123456 18:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Zippy that we are over-bureaucratizing this project. A certain experienced vandal-fighter pointed out to me that we are too bureaucratic. The instructors should focus on providing the best instruction possible for their students, and the coordinators themselves will deal with any issues that may arise. Electric Catfish 18:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support due to thinking "across the pond" about IRC meetings and the lazarithian task of resurecting vandal studies. Dan653
  • Oppose as before, per my, ItsZippy's and Achowat's comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • (moving !vote here)Support per Dans and my comments, as well as Theos former comments.--Chip123456 16:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Being Bold, I'm going to say we should let this go (at least for now - if a viable point comes up in the future, we should of course re-evaluate). Theopolisme TALK 17:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism!

I've coincidentially 'reverted' a vandal's attempt to vandalize History of WWE from what it looks like on the page's edit history. The vandal uses an anonymous ip username. --Jayemd (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocks

I propose that we should make rules about how long potential instructors must wait before becoming instructors if they have been previously blocked. I propose the following:

  • Edit Warring Blocks These blocks, IMHO, aren't so serious, and I recently found out that a very well-respected instructor here has been blocked twice for this, but it shows a lack of ability to get a consensus and work things out with others, so users should wait 3 months.
  • Disruptive Editing Blocks These show a severe lack of ability to get along with others and should therefore wait 6 months.
  • Personal Attack/Incivility Blocks Many of the users who come here are newbies and it's very important that we are welcoming to them and aren't rude to them, so users who are blocked for this reason should wait 9 months.
  • Vandalism Blocks This is the worst possible block, IMHO. We are a counter-vandalism academy after all, and it sets a terrible example for our students if their instructor has been blocked for vandalism in the past. We are also teaching our students how to report vandals. However, mistakes happen, so potential instructors should wait 1 year before joining us.

Please note that I didn't include sockpuppetry blocks, which are usually indefinite. Sockpupperty isn't just operating multiple accounts, it's using them for abusive purposes. These blocks should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by the coordinators. Electric Catfish 00:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, see I disagree that wes should have set times. I think it should be up to the instructor, we should base users on what they are doing now to comparing them from an error. I tend to concur that we should wait a while for vandalism blocks, but I think a year is too long. --Chip123456 07:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I think, like Chip, that we should decide this on a case by case basis. Everyone is different - and I think we need to recognize this and do it on an individual instructor by instructor basis. Thanks! Theopolisme TALK 13:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Concur no two blocked editor cases are the same. Dan653 (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Concur per previous comments, that's why we pay the coords the big bucks. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above (that we should not have set times), and would also suggest that vandalism blocks should not be seen as harshly as has been suggested. Though vandalising is certainly against what we stand for at the CVUA, it is also the most easy to turn from. An editor repeatedly blocked for edit warring or incivility has probably got a bad attitude which they may never shake; an editor who was once immature and vandalised out of bored may not be a hard-core vandal, and will probably not do it again, especially if they have this kind of role. Seems like a case for WP:COMMONSENSE. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

And this may be somewhere they go when they are looking to reform their behaviour. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 15:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Dan, thank you...I almost got it :P Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 16:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Quals for Aacad candidates

Hi everyone! I don't usually chime in here, but as you all know, I'm watching with enthusiasm for all the work you guys are doing, because I'm looking for potential solutions for the backlogs at NPP. I do feel that perhaps 200+ edits for your students should ideally be stated as edits to main space. Except perhaps with Wiki mark up, user space and talk page formatting don't generally demonstrate much experience with policies. I'm saying this because one of your students is claiming to have made 22 GAs with a total of only 209 article edits. Thoughts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea - thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Aren't they here to be taught about relevant policies? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
They're here to be taught about vandal patrolling, which requires a basic understanding of how Wikipedia works. We are not here to adopt brand new users, but to train new users who have a basic understanding of Wikipedia and want to become better at patrolling vandalism. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Might it be a good idea to set out the academy's goal's somewhere? I've seen a few contradictory ideas on what the academy is trying to do for users, some of which wouldn't stand up to community consensus. WormTT(talk) 13:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I think it's probably also inadvisable to be encouraging them to apply for user rights before they've completed the course or when they've only just started it. It only makes work for the admins who have to decline them, and rejected requests aren't good for the candidates' morale. Oh, and 'clerking' the page at PERM only doubles the work too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Kudpung - if you'd like to bring that up with the individuals (on their talks) who do that or at WT:PERM, feel free to do so - I'd just like to note that the CVUA is not by any means telling people to clerk PERM/etc. As far as WTT said about an academy goal, I think that makes a lot of sense and agree that we should talk about that as an academy (see section below). As far as changing it to 200+ mainspace edits... I agree, but I think we should wait for others to chime in with their points before changing it. Theopolisme TALK 20:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Great point worm! Kudpung... I find it inadvisable to bring up clerking the Perm page on the CVUA page. I think we all remeber the drama that ensued last time clerking the PERM page was brought up at ANI. If you have specific users in mind , as Theo said, their talk page would be a better outlet. Dan653 (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
That is in fact precisely why I mentioned it here - good things start at home base ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I always found my homebase to be my talkpage. Not a "counter-vandalism" homebase. Dan653 (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Dan on this one. Theopolisme TALK 11:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The Academy's Goal

WTT mentioned above that the academy does not have a clear goal - which I think is an important discussion we need to have... what is the goal of the CVUA? Theopolisme TALK 20:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

To train budding anti-vandals how to better deal with vandalism? Dan653 (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I like that. Theopolisme TALK 23:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. WormTT(talk) 10:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Me too. I think that we should have 2 programs here. One for new vandal-fighters to learn the basics of anti-vandalism and one for vandal-fighters to learn how to use special tools (such as Huggle, STiki, Igloo, etc.). Electric Catfish 20:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Would it make sense to add this to the top of WP:CVUA? Theopolisme TALK 21:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Add what? The two programs or the goal? Dan653 (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I like the idea of the simple goal Dan set out. It's simple. Additional tools for current rolbackers (I.e. Huggle) can be taught by our current experienced team in using those tools.--Chip123456 06:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the goal should be put on the main page somewhere, in nice big letters :) As for Catfish's idea for a second program, it's an interesting idea, but what sort of training do you think you need on the special tools that isn't included on their documentation? Maybe a quickstart guide for each might be good, but I don't see that a buddy system is needed for something like that. WormTT(talk) 09:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with worm. Dan653 (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Also agree w/ Worm. Theopolisme TALK 20:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
As do I, I think working with the student through to using the tools and giving them an intro to them is the best way to do it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the goal see User:Callanecc/sandbox, questions, comments...? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Callanecc, I think that's an excellent blurb for the front page, good job! WormTT(talk) 07:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I've changed the template so it's live. Big checkY for anyone who noticed (Riley you don't count). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
checkY Dan653 (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy/Archive_3&oldid=1136423854"