Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Re-formatting/Discussion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is anything going on with this? its been pretty quite... Dan653 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next Step

[edit]

I shall be creating pages to help Wiki. User:Editzzz

Ok, so it looks like we have a pretty strong consensus among users who have chosen to participate; what are our next steps? Achowat (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The next step will be to create the CVU pages. But lets wait some more. I'm making some pages now though. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 20:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Academy idea is my brain-child, so I'm going to put pen-to-paper over the weekend (except Sunday; Super Bowl and whatnot) over my ideas on how I'd like the Academy set up so the Unit as a whole can have a jumping-off point in discussing it. Achowat (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys need any help writing/creating pages I'll be more than happy to help. (Go Giants)! Dan653 (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've got an idea of what I'd like to see the main topics of the Academy to be. Things like Identifying Vandalism (vs what Vandalism is not), how to use the various tools, Rollback and how to use it, etc. I don't know if this is the best place for that discussion, since it makes more sense (to me, at least) to go about selecting the Coordinators before putting any ideas into place. Since the Unit would like to see them, it's clear that they would like to have that input before more plans. Achowat (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, so maybe the next step is to starting voting on coords? Dan653 (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...or figuring out how to select the Coordinators. Achowat (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think on the page it said by a wiki-wide vote, but that doesn't make any sense because not everyone reverts vandalism. Maybe we should send something to all hugglers, iglooers, etc because they will be are most active reverters and (at least for huggle) they keep a list of users [1]. Dan653 (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have a list of all CVU members, would it be too much work to create a Bot to inform them all of the on-going selection? (this is an issue we might need to do regularly, which is why I propose a Bot) Achowat (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - Ok, here are the actionable steps that I believe need to be taken, in order:

  1. Select, by simple consensus, a Clerk to run the initial (s)election. This Clerk will be specifically barred from nominating users for Coordinator, being nominated for Coordinator, or participating in discussions about the Coordinators until the first Board is elected. Hir role will be exclusively to notify CVU members and other interested en.Wikipedians of the (s)election process and determine if consensus had been reached (in much the same way crats close RfAs.
  2. The (s)elected Coordinators should then meet (we should create Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Coordinator Noticeboard for this purpose), elect a Chairman of the Board of Coordinators (ok that wording is terrible, we should look at that, too; if this process becomes to muddly, we can do what WP:MILHIST does and just choose the highest !vote-getter as the Chair), and determine what Coordinators (or other Unit Members) should be tasked with what parts of our missions and goals.
  3. Get to work!

Does anyone have an issue with that proposed process? Achowat (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue and it is called "what on earth did you just say I'm stupid and have no idea"Glacialfox (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I think we should do, in the simplest terms, is designate one person to handle the Coordinator (s)election (I'm using that term because, well, they're being chosen, selected, by consensus not through a straight election). This person (I've deemed them 'Clerk') won't be able to nominate users for Coordinator, 'run' for Coordinator, or !vote for Coordinator. The role of this person (like a Closing Admin at AfD or a closing Crat at RfA) would be to determine who has received consensus and "announce" the results. Achowat (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I have no issues with this, I think it's a good idea. Glacialfox (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, but some people weren't on the CVU before like me. Could you at least add me to the list? Dan653 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list isn't "kept" by anyone. Be Bold and add yourself! Achowat (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So we I guess we need to elect a clerk now? Dan653 (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there seems to be some discussion about changing the roles of Coordinator (by imposing a limit on them) on the main page, I'd let that be handled first. Though it wouldn't be a bad idea to try to solicit individuals interested in the very-very low-level job of temporary CVU clerk. Achowat (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussion has come to an agreement [2], continue on now? Dan653 (talk) 17:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree; if no one has a problem with the current 4 Coordinators scheme, we should work on (s)electing them with all haste. Achowat (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then with all haste let's go forth (I kinda feel like the calvary charging, lets just hope its not the Light Brigade:P ! Dan653 (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears as though the discussion has heated up again, so it's not prudent to start (s)election right now, but I would like to volunteer/throw my name in the ring to serve as the initial Clerk for such a (s)election. If consensus says that such a (s)election is relevant and I am chosen as clerk, I would create a CVU sub-page (Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Coordinator selection/Early 2012 or something) where people could nominate or self-nominate. I'd create a sub-space Template informing editors about the on-going (s)election and then leave that on the User talk of every user in

. Yes, that's about 3,000 editors, but it shouldn't be so bad with AWB. Noms will generally be open for a fortnight after the notices go out. If consensus can't be ascertained in that time, it may be extended. If the Unit wants to limit to number of Coords (such as to four, as above) the four nominations with the strongest consensus will be chosen. It will not be a vote and if only 3 nominations receive a consensus, only 3 Coords will be (s)elected. If, say, 5 nominations receive consensus, the 4 with the strongest consensus will be (s)elected. This process is exclusively how I see it and is open for amendment. What do y'all think? Achowat (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, but I have to wonder if this discussion will ever end... Dan653 (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It will, and if there's still consensus, I'll move forward with the (s)election process (If that's the will of the group). Achowat (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Division of a question

[edit]

I think it would be a useful excercise to seperate out the Coordinators part (y'know, where all the objections come from) and focus on the revitalization efforts first. If it becomes cumbersome, then we move into the Coordinator phase, but I think setting up a Noticeboard, establishing The Academy, etc, first to show CVU's usefulness would be, frankly, a better way to go about this change. There is no opposition to anything other than the Coordinators, so let's get started on everything else, and then worry about Coordinators when it becomes necessary for Coordinators. Achowat (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Dan653 (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Re-formatting/Discussion&oldid=481077097"