Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Archive 1

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

Process

Ok, so I think the first thing we should nail down is what, if anything, should be done to instuct/train the Instructors. Should there be a set curriculum, like "Ok, first work with your Enrollee with IDing Vandalism, then reverting, then templates..."? Does anyone know how Admin Coaching actually worked? Achowat (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ask some Admins that have have been around since 2009, since that's when it died. Dan653 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Reaching out

I've reached out to the Graphics Lab to create a logo for the Academy, as well as User:Benzband to help us with Template Creation. I'll report back the results of those, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to start thinking about what Templates we may need.
What comes to my mind are:

Done - click on [show] to display.
  1. . An attribution notice (per WP:CWW that lets everyone know that we stole and modified WP:ACOACH to serve our purposes).  Done diff Achowat (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
    Ideally this should say something about how Most of the Formatting was stolen modified from this revision of the Admin Coaching page. By the way, guys, this is like real important, as the Wikipedia license requires us to attribute our work. Right now, these pages are CopyVios. Ideally, this should be like a Talk page notice. Something to the effect of "The original revisions of this page and its subpages were taken from Revision 474844866 of Wikipedia: Admin coaching and the subpages available at that time". Achowat (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  2. . A few Userboxen (This User is an Instructor at the Counter-vandalism Academy/This User is an Enrollee at the Counter-vandalism Academy/This User is an Graduate of the Counter-vandalism Academy)
    checkY See {{User CVUA}}, and Category:Wikipedians in the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy. benzband (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  3. . Fix the Quicklinks box so that it follows the Blue-Black-Sky color scheme (to create a consistent "brand")  Done (diff) (diff)
    Whoa, hold on their slugger. It seems like you made the change to the Admin Coaching Quicklinks, not the CVUA one. Achowat (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
    Try Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Quicklinks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achowat (talk • contribs) .
    Well, you went ahead and changed all the links to the way the WP:ACOACH ones. Achowat (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
    Double (edit conflict) Oops. i just followed the [edit] button on the template. Anyway, i think that's fixed now :) benzband (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
    Those links are still to Coaching. Achowat (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
    I just went ahead and fixed the links.  Done diff. Achowat (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
    Oh right, well cheers :-) benzband (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
  4. . A sub-template of {{CVU}} to indicate Academy pages. Something like how {{WikiProject Football}} has the "Task Force" notifications. Achowat (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)  Done diff
    I have created a parameter (|academy=yes) to {{CVU}} as was done for the think tank. However i'm sure there is a better wording than "this page is related to the CVU Academy", so i'll change that if/once something else is found. benzband (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
    Also, once we get the logo it can be added to the template. benzband (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone think of anything else? Or anyone else we should reach out to for help? Achowat (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

checkY Created redirects: WP:CVUA and WP:VANDACAD. benzband (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Attribution notice: how about an {{ambox}} such as:
click on [show]
I've found {{Copied}}, which I'm going to use. Achowat (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Great! benzband (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Everything sounds and looks good Acho and Benz. Dan653 (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary division

Ok, great work Benzo...can we think of any other templates we would need to make this useful? It doesn't seem like Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Status or Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching used any templates, so it seems like we're good on the template front (those guys at the Graphics Lab need to be a bit quicker, though ). I could be wrong, though. Anything else anyone can think of use needing? Achowat (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No ideas for now… but i'll be right back if i think of one :-D benzband (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Benzo, it seems as though the "View, talk, edit" parameters of the Quicklinks page direct to the redirect Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Quicklinks as opposed to the hierarchy-preserving Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Quicklinks. Any way to fix that? Achowat (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 Fixed with this edit. That was left over from before the page move ^^ benzband (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Centralized Discussion

I've made every CVU/A subpage redirect here. We'll have one central discussion (like what WP:WPWPA does). If we need to have a more localized discussion, we can always un-redirect. Achowat (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

This would probably also require archiving (setting up archivebox + submitting this page to an archiving bot). benzband (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, right now we're generally just sandboxing and hoping that some good will come from it. This whole project could be "Marked as Historical" as early as, say October, so I'm in a "Cross that bridge when we come to it" mindset. MiszaBot is easy enough to use anyway. Achowat (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Enrollment page

Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Enroll. Ok, I was just bold with that and used a process that was simple and easy (as opposed to what Admin coaching used, which was templates in templates and appealed more to their clientele than ours). I've made it very simple with a few invisi-comments on process. I'd appreciate it if someone would review it just to make sure this is the sort of thing we want. Achowat (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Also of note, I left that Talk uncentralized, so that enrollees have a place to contact us. Achowat (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Invite/Welcome templates

Should there be templates to invite editors to enroll/join the CVU Academy, and welcome them once they have? (or should it be done manually?) If with templates then how about two sets of them:

checkY Of course these shouldn't be created until the Academy is (if ever) actually launched (that thingy to do with bridges), and also until it has been decided what "instruction" system is to be used in it. Ok, let's get to work. benzband (talk) 08:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with putting this on hold. The Academy should be ready to begin, step one, right out of the gate. When we go "live", we're going to need these Templates, and fast. And of course, is the Academy doesn't work, starting from scratch is just an MFD away. I'd say build them now! Achowat (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to help with creating the templates but i think you'd better write the invitations/welcomes because i'm not that good at that sort of thing, and more importantly you know best what the Academy's about. Also i can't wait to implement a fun little trick with the signature: ~~<includeonly>~~</includeonly><noinclude>~~</noinclude>. benzband (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's do this, you build me the template with a '''TEXT (ACHOWAT FIX THIS)''' and I'll get to work when my boss isn't over my shoulder . It might be useful, as well, to create a Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Templates to dump the Welcome temps, the Userboxen, and any other useful thing into, so we can all find them easier. Achowat (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  •  Done invite/welc templates (still need text).
  •  Done drafted templates page.
I'd like to see them "feel" a bit more like the Invite/Welcome templates for other WikiProjects. Something like what WP:WPUSA has on their templates. Centered block of a different color, image to the left (we can use the regular CVU logo until the Graphics Lab gets back to us on the Academy logo; or if I just do it myself). Feel free to plug in the below text, as well, just to test. Achowat (talk) 19:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Okey, i've just (roughly) copied them. The code itself is just that of a simple messagebox, though, so there's no need to cite 'em. BTW, *facepalm* thanks for correcting this. benzband (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome/Invite Template Sandbox

(just sandboxing here, feel free to change things to make them better) Achowat (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Welcome-enrollee: Welcome (User name)! I noticed you signed up for the Counter-Vandalism Unit's Academy! You've taken your first step in learning the detailed steps in protecting Wikipedia from harm. Your edit-history is currently being assessed by our Clerks in an attempt to find you an Instructor who can best help you learn the ropes. If you don't get a personalized message from a Clerk or Instructor at the Academy in the next three or four days, feel free to [[WT:CVUA/Enroll#New Section|drop us a line]] so we can better assist you. Welcome aboard, and thank you for committing to protecting the Encyclopedia with Civility, Maturity, and Responsibility!
  • Invite-enrollee: You've been noticed, (User name)! The instructors at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy have seen your hard work reverting Vandalism when you see it, and we thank you. But do you want to go to the next level? Would you like to know how reverts, warnings, reports, blocks, and bans all come together to keep the Encyclopedia free from disruption? Then consider [[Appropriate link|Enrolling]] today!
  • Invite-instructor: Hello there (User name)! Your contribution reverting, warning, and reporting vandals have not gone unnoticed. Thank you, your expertise is appreciated. But have you ever wondered what will happen when you're gone? Who will Patrol for vandalism when you're gone, on a WikiBreak, or just asleep? Never fear! Because now you can help train the next wave of Counter-Vandals. Consider [[Appropriate link|Signing Up]] to be an instructor at the Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy.
 Done ~ except Welcome-instructor benzband (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know the value of a welcome-instructor template. It seems that we'd want to personally talk an Instructor through the process if they just signed up appropos nothing. I could, of course, be very wrong. Achowat (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Then i'll just leave it waiting. Your probably right :) benzband (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd {{db-userreq}} the template. It'll be easy enough to recreate if we need it, and there's no need to draw the ire of the folks down at TFD. Achowat (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, that's done too. benzband (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Instructors/Teaching

Some good progress has been made with this Academy, but we still haven't exactly answered how instructors will teach newcomers. The general idea so far seems to be a system of messages between instructor and student, in which the former tells the student what to do for a few days/gives them some advice/answers their questions. But when a student has a question, his/her instructor may not be online. And what if some instructors take long Wikibreaks? An additional level of bureaucracy/planning would be needed, under this plan, to reassign "orphaned" students.

I would fix this problem by eliminating the process of assigning an instructor to a student. The same functions would still be done, with the information made public in two features.

1) A question/answer page for questions regarding vandalism. There are few questions (as in one or two in the past 6 months) asked on the CVU's talk page. I highly doubt that new members simply don't have questions. Rather, they're too afraid to ask a "dumb question". This page would provide a friendly place for questions/advice. Newcomers will not have to wait for their individual instructor to come online, and hopefully we can have pretty quick responses.

2) A section of guides for new members, written by experienced members. These will go into more depth than the already existing sources do, showing dozens of real examples and the correct action a CVU member should take with each.

Now, these changes would make the Academy seem less like...well...an Academy, but the nature of Wikipedia prevents a sort of formal school. Some of the infrastructure has already been built around this older idea of teaching, so I'm sorry if you feel that I want to throw away progress that's been made, but I just can't see the old plan (students getting lessons from/asking advice to a specific instructor) working. Marechal Ney (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this also a good idea. The Teahouse has got that kind of Q&A system, and so far it works fine (apart from their script which has plenty of problems but we can just stick simple). How about a subpage: Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Questions (shortcut WP:CVU/A/Q)? This would make it so that editors that do not participate in the Academy but want to ask/answer CVU-related questions can do so, and it doesn't exclude that there should be a mentoring setup as well. benzband (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
My vision (which, honestly, I've never written down) would be a mixture of both direct contact with one person and a serious of Sub-pages, with examples. The Q&A page is great! I honestly love the idea. I'm not exactly sure how to implement it in such a way that new users feel welcome and open to asking "the stupid question".
What I envision from the instructor is a sort of 4-fold process. Something like "1. Hi, I'm your instructor, do you have any questions? 2. Ok, so go ahead and read WP:VAND and let me know if you have any questions. 3. Ok, great, now go ahead and do the problems on this page and let me know if you have any questions. 4. Wonderful, I think you've got that down...now let's move on to User Warning Templates". That sort of a thing. Now, the workshop idea will only work if we're able to simulate diffs, but not use them exactly (WP:BEANS and WP:DENY). Anyone have the technical capability of doing that?
But more importantly, and why I think having a one-instructor; one student paradigm is so important, is to build a relationship. When I first started reverting vandalism, I made mistakes. We all did. And when someone would notice that mistake someone I had never met would drop by and (from my perspective) yell at me to do it right. Or worse, they wouldn't tell me, a bot/editor would fix my mistake, and I'd go about making the same mistake again. With an instructor who you have a relationship with "Hey, just wanted to remind you to Substitute the Warning Templates" is always going to sound...softer, nicer, less bitey.
The Academy is my baby, my brainchild, and I'm honestly actively trying to fight ownership issues with it. It's great, Marechal, that you stopped by, because the more hands that are involved in this, the less I feel personally responsible for its success. What all this means, in the scope of your "orphaned students" question is that I wouldn't let that happen. I'd either take them on myself of find a new instructor for them. (If there comes to a point where "coordinators" are necessary, we'll cross that bridge, but as it starts, I imagine it'll be low-key and low-volume enough that a few dedicated minds will be able to keep tabs on it). Ideally the list of Instructors should include when an Instructor would be available for questions (8:00-4:30 EST for me) so that Users can be matched based on when there can be the most one-on-one instruction, which is so so important. Achowat (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
People learn by doing. The best way to teach someone these things is to point them to the rules that define what is/is not vandalism, and let them patrol for a while, then review their mistakes/errors. That's the only way they learn, and is the best way. Has worked very well for my adoptees that I've taken in previously. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 20:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all v much for this very insightful and detailed discussion. I suppose my own thoughts/views tend to generally be more akin to User:Steven Zhang, although it would be great to have instructors/instruction (or mentoring?) on a regular basis, I think in real time it wouldnt be very feasible, since many editors/users both potential instructors and novice anti-vandalism patrollers, wouldnt be able to always guarantee regular attendance/presence here. A more direct approach, letting learners learn from their edits/mistakes would be probably more practicable. And a simple and readily accessible system of instructions and anti-vandalism templates etc, would be good too. Maybe a direct special anti-vandalism 'alarm' system that links from the concerned article's talk page to an 'early response team' ? I dont know how the modalities work out, please, just sharing my basic thoughts/ideas! Regs all, Khani100 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

I Second Zhang's views. I would be interested in helping in any way shape or form. I would be interested in the training idea, but essentially, all we can do is ask questions, set up a little test of some sort for the new anti-vandal fighters to make sure they have grabbed the concept of what is and isn't vandalism. Mrlittleirish 08:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Being one of Steve's adoptees I can confirm that the only way to learn things on wikipedia is by actually doing it. It's one of the reasons his lessons appeal to me. Also, should you need some test subjects when the time comes to go through the academy process and help identify/solve any problems that are encountered, I'd be happy to help you with it. Mythio (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
So it sounds like what we're actually asking Instructors to do is briefly go over WP:VAND, be available to answer questions, and frequently review their Enrollee's vandalism reverts to talk about any issues or concerns. Do we have a consensus that that's the way we should proceed? Achowat (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)




Taking something very easy, and pretending that it is something very hard

Determining what is or is not vandalism is not complicated or difficult. It takes reading – and understanding – the first seven sentences of WP:VAND. Responding to vandalism is covered in more detail in the remainder of that document, but can be comfortably summarized with First revert the vandalism, and then report it. If you're not sure where to report it, ask politely at the Help Desk or the Administrators' Noticeboard. Rocket science it is not.

The only really essential point is distinguishing between genuine bad faith editing and plain incompetence, in deciding whether or not it is appropriate to identify an editor's contributions as 'vandalism' or simply unintentionally disruptive editing. Editors who grasp that distinction promptly don't need an extended course of coaching. Editors who have trouble with that distinction need more seasoning, or should find another way to contribute Wikipedia.

The notion that an 'Academy' is useful is probably counterproductive, in that it suggests that dealing with vandalism on Wikipedia is so complex and byzantine that one needs to attend school in order to do it effectively. It smacks of the sort of problematic hat-collecting that has long plagued the various incarnations of the CVU: first "Coordinators", now "Academy Instructors". It's sad but unsurprising that the second task discussed on this talk page – and the task most rapidly completed – was the creation of userboxes and templates. The very first thread, about what 'Instructors' are actually supposed to do, has been left unanswered.

The 'moral turpitude' tests ("Aversion to Vandalism", "Good editor relations", and "Commitment to Cause") for "enrollment" in the Academy are out of step with the type of advice and guidance that this project would putatively provide. They are only relevant if a CVU Academy diploma is intended to confer some special status, credibility, or honor on the recipient, however much the description page might protest that is not the case. 'Graduates' don't get a gun and a badge, and they should be strongly discouraged from any sort of I-must-be-in-the-right-because-I-went-to-the-CVU-Academy attitude. Elaborate, extended lessons to teach what is really rather simple will unwittingly engender an elitist attitude that won't do well when it interacts with the project at large.

Instruction on the basics of handling (reverting and reporting) vandalism can be and are dealt with entirely competently by the large number of experienced editors who watchlist the WP:Help Desk. I have said this before, and I have seen nothing since to persuade me that hiving off this subset of tasks to a lower-traffic area frequented predominantly by less-experienced editors will be helpful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a small inquiry, TenOfAll (since you've been the most outspoken opponent): Are you opposed to the adoption option given to new users? Achowat (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Requirements for Instructors

Ok, so we have "requirements" for the Enrollees (in quotes because, frankly, we're not going to turn anyone away) but have yet to set the prerequisites for Instructors. There will be, of course, the subjective ones "Teaching ability, desire to improve the encyclopedia, etc." but do we want to make a "suggested minimum" number of edits or tenure (like RFA does), say 6 months and 1500 edits, of which a significant portion should be in the fighting of vandalism? Achowat (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That would suck for me. I don't actually have more than 1000 edits. I spend too much time reading processes. I think it should mainly fall into WP:CLUE with obvious anti-vandal history. Also, if we have some kind of vote, things could get dramafied pretty easily. Mrlittleirish 16:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I agree that any vote (even if it's an !vote) is far too much bureacracy. The problem that arises is that there needs to be someone Watching the Watchmen. Someone making sure that Instructors are giving the correct information. I guess as long as this stays a small band, we can all watch each others backs, as it were (As a New Englander, I like that idea), but I forsee scalability issues. But I think it'd be better to cross that bridge when we come to it. What I'm going to do is write up the requirements in a more subjective way (1500 edits will re-read as 'A history of successful counter-vandalism edits') and we'll have a sort of 'gentleman's agreement' that potential Instructors will be prohibited from taking Enrollees only in the severest of cases. Achowat (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Responsibilities of Instructors

Feel free to edit the below list, this will sort of be a sandbox for the page where we explain what we expect of Instructors. Just note the changes you've made (ideally through <s> and a comment) so that we can all understand what changes you'd like to see. Achowat (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so it's been 10 days and I don't see anyone jumping up to help us over at the Graphic Lab, so maybe someone can reach out to their wiki-networks for Graphic Designers who might able to help with this relatively simple request. Any takers? Achowat (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's Category:Wikigraphist that's full of, well, graphists (recognised Hellknowz in there) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzband (talk • contribs)
Is s/he someone you feel comfortable asking for this sort of thing? Achowat (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
If I still had the graphical software I used to have, I would have done it myself. Mrlittleirish 15:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a lot of free downloadable software such as the Gimp and Inkscape. benzband (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok, i just tried but my computer *cough* crashed during the process so i guess i'm not up to it. :P benzband (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

When do we go live?

Ok, so it looks like we're almost ready to (at least) beta-test this puppy. What should be our go-live date? Do we want to test this, can we even test this system? We are about 1 full day of work away from this being the shell of the program we want, but when do we want to launch? Achowat (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking that we should alpha-test first, meaning within are own little group we should start alphaing tommorow. We could have one of us sign-up, ask a few questions, and see how assigning a tutor goes. During this phase we can improve it, fix or add feautures, and get a "decent idea of how it will work" when it is fully online. Hopefully, that won't take too long and we can move to beta testing before the weekend. (If we can't open the beta test before Friday, I don't want to open it until Monday [less people on during the weekend]). During the beta, we should listen to enrollee feedback, get the word out, and we can still improve the site, though any major changes should be done after the beta. After the beta ends, no later than (5/11), we will call it a full release, and celebrate by giving cookies to every involved a lot for a job well done :D (Based partially off of [1]) Dan653 (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Make sure you we have a fully operating system with fully set guidelines. Try to have answers for questions anybody may have. Even set up a FAQ? 195.200.159.1 (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think step one towards setting up a FAQ is to have a forum where people can ask questions (this idea was floated before with near-unanimous approval) and then we should select the frequent ones. Achowat (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, impossible to decide what is a frequently asked question, if it hasn't been asked. Dan653 (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Status page

The Status page for instructors now has a Wikitable with (what I believe to be) the relevant information for Instructors. I know some have seemed enthusiastic about the idea as serving as Instructors, so feel free to add yourself to that table. And if anyone can think of any other Columns that would be useful to track, just go ahead and add it, or talk about it here. Achowat (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Updates for today

Done in the last day or so:

Things to-do

  1. Prose for the Status Page.
    Anyone think of anything else? Achowat (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    Sounds good. Dan653 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    Someone want to give my "Status" revisions a once-over? Achowat (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    As in Status page for the Instructors? Looks fine :) MrLittleIrish(talk) 16:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  2. Editnotice for the Q&A page (see here for more info)  Done by mabdul benzband (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  3. Discuss testing/live dates at the Think Tank, and finally get this ball rolling. MrLittleIrish(talk) 10:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  4. Advertising for enrolee's and instructors so we actually have some traffic going through here. MrLittleIrish(talk) 10:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    I've been making an entire CVU redesign (as seen at WP:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Sandbox). There's been no opposition to that new layout, but more discussion would be great. Given that the entire Project is getting a relaunch, or sorts, it might be useful to talk to The Signpost and see if that's something they want to cover. Achowat (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    I just proposed that The Signpost feature the new CVU (especially the Academy) in its WikiProject report, I'll fill y'all in on that if anything comes out of it. It might be a good idea to find a delivery-bot who would be willing to message all "listed" CVU members and inform them of this opportunity. I don't know how to go about doing that, though. Achowat (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  5. Get a shortcut created for the creation page. e.g. WP:CVUAQ MrLittleIrish(talk) 13:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Done MrLittleIrish(talk) 13:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
    Also WP:CVU/A/Q. benzband (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Instruction pages

Ok, so before Steven came in and the Academy became more and more like mentoring, a lot of "Instruction pages" were made. Five in fact (Identifying, Rollback, Warning templates, Tools & Scripts, and AIV reporting). Given our new Mentoring scheme, I'm going to request these be speedily deleted (we just don't need them). Using {{db-userreq}} is the easiest way, so I've gone ahead and Boldly done that. However, on pages where I am not the sole primary author, their consent is necessary. So, Dan: Can you please indicate your desire to see the above listed pages speedily deleted. Achowat (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey, why not merge them into one for reference so that enrollees can access them? (say, a guide page on dealing with vandalism, so the Academy has one —this is potentially useful) benzband (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I would say because the Policies, Guidelines, and Essays that we stole all the text from are a better resource and better indicative of Consensus. The only thing I could see being useful is one giant "Here are all the polcies" pages, but my redesign (that you all should totally comment on; and yes, I mean "you plural", everyone reading this) already has such a box. Achowat (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, right. benzband (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds fine, if it hasn't been done already. Dan653 (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Just listed them for speedy per CSD G7. They should be gone by...well, when an Admin gets there. Achowat (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Coordinators

I've been meaning to bring this up for, well 15 days now. WP:ACOACH used coordinators, two of them, to help match Instructors to Enrollees. Right now we've only got 3 listed Instructors (though, it should be noted, we're not even testing yet). I don't think it makes sense for such a small band to need coordination, so I'm in favor of removing that Prose. Of course, this would mean that the duty to ensure that Enrollees are taken from Sign-up to approval to being paired with an instructor in a timely fashion will be handled by all of us. I think we're up to the task, but what are others opinions on the matter? Achowat (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, if we need coordinators later on, we can cross that bridge then. noms himself for the future :P MrLittleIrish(talk) 15:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

checkYOk, I've taken out any references to the coordinators (diff). So, that's taken care of. Achowat (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Updated CVU going live

The updates I've proposed at WP:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Sandbox will go live around this time tomorrow. What, if anything, needs to be done to roll-out the Academy at, say, 9:00 AM EDT Monday morning? I think we're ready to hit the ground, but I want to cross our I's and dot our T's before the "experiment" starts. Achowat (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Soft Opening

With the redesign of the WP:CVU homepage, consider the Academy soft-opened (there is a link to the Academy on the homepage). I agree with what Dan had suggested earlier, that the real "Grand Opening" (when we start handing out templates to potential Academy enrollees) should be on Monday, but Instructors, make sure you've got the Enrollment etc. pages watchlisted (and everyone watchlist the Questions page) so we can deal with these issues as they arise.

But most of all, congratulations! About 6 months ago there was a discussion about changing how the CVU works. It was huge, unwieldy, and unlikely to work. It involved folding in practically everyone who looks at contributions into a WikiProject, which was folly. The first suggestion to use CVU for education was on 25 January. The next day was the first time anyone ever used the words "CVU Academy". The conversation about a massive overhaul died down, and so did interest in the Academy. On 2 April, I asked the group (at the Re-formatting discussion) what the most actionable thing we could do is. It was then Dan653 who said (so brilliantly) "Teaching newbs". The next day, I created WP:CVUA. 17 days, team. It took us less than 3 weeks to create this project. And each and every one of you should be proud. I know I am proud of all of you and the work we've accomplished.

But it's not over, far from it. We've built the ship, tied the rigging, weighed anchor...but now we all need to sail it. This can be a useful project, and a division of a useful CVU, we just need to make sure...we need to promise to each other, that we won't fall asleep. There is work to be done, and with so few of us, the work will be tough. It'll get easier as more people come...I promise. By this time next year, if we keep our heads down and get the work done, there'll be maybe 3 classes of Academy graduates, giving back and training more enrollees. And that'll make all this work worthwhile, I just know it.

And I honestly mean this, from the bottom of my heart, it's been a pleasure working with all of you. But more importantly, it will continue to be a pleasure as we continue to make the Academy a resource to new users. Achowat (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

*round of applause* :D benzband (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I heard Achowat just received an Oscar nomination for his soft opening thank you speach :P In all seriousness, I may have joined in late, but it has been fun working with you, and it will continue to be fun. MrLittleIrish (talk) © 15:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I'll be waiting for my WikiOscar when the Academy* finally releases the awardees. (*Pun not intended, but appreciated). Achowat (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Grand Opening

Anyone have any ideas on what we can do to alert editors of our "Grand Opening" on Monday? What makes the most sense is to start Templating old and new counter-vandals and inviting them to be either Instructors or Enrollees. Anyone else got any ideas? Achowat (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

BIG banner on the CVU project page and post on the CVU talk benzband (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Now...who to make such a banner. Hmm? Achowat (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
(looks around the room) Or maybe the main page could have an announcements panel, that users could also put on their userpage (in the form of a transcluded template), which would provide real-time updates on the CVU news? If not, i'll follow up with some banners. benzband (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
What other situations could you see the "CVU News" template being useful? Achowat (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Good point. I'm following up with some drafts. benzband (talk) 11:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
You want to revert vandalism, but don't yet know the ropes?
You want to share your experience in training the next generation of vandalism fighters?
Either way, your search stops here, at the CVU Academy!
You want to revert vandalism, but don't yet know the ropes?
You want to share your experience in training the next generation of vandalism fighters?
Either way, your search stops here, at the CVU Academy!

I've gone ahead and added the top Template to WP:CVU. It's live, ladies and gentlemen, so get ready. Achowat (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting the word out

So, we're mentioned in this week's Signpost, but a one-line blurb about absorbing WP:WPVS and nothing about the Academy. Hopefully some traffic will come to the CVU homepage and we'll be able to parlay that into some enrollees, with Benzo's banner. I think we should go to super-liminal advertising at this point. Patrol recent changes for anyone sub-1,000 edits who seems to be doing Vandalism reverts. I'm also going to be watchlisting WP:PERM and drop a template on anyone requesting rollback. Any other ideas? Achowat (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Before launching a major advertising campaign, have you considered approaching more experienced members of the community for feedback on what you're proposing? I know that you have all your titles, and regulations, and subpages, and templates, and badges in order, but have you really figured out how what you're doing is going to be helpful? It's troubling that you haven't visited WP:AN or WP:VP during this process to seek wider input; it's always been about an insular group sending messages to old members.
  • You haven't had any meaningful conversations on this project's talk pages – that I can find – where you get down to brass tacks and really look at where counter-vandalism education is needed. Who has taken a systematic look at Recent Changes, or AIV, or the block log, and tried to find out where (or if) newbies go wrong or need help in dealing with vandalism? Who among you has sat down and talked in detail about their experiences in mentoring other editors in vandalism-related tasks?
  • The job done by your proposed noticeboard is already being done faster and by more experienced Wikipedians at the Help Desk and WP:AN. Editors hoping for one-on-one interaction on their user talk pages can use {{helpme}}.
  • The 'Academy' doesn't have any curriculum materials (this is it, right?) beyond what could be incorporated into a single talk page template along the lines of {{Welcome}}, and maybe an FAQ at some time down the road.
  • You're planning on presenting yourselves as qualified, highly-skilled advisers, to trusting, relatively new editors who won't know better. With all your badges, you're going to come across as authority figures. You're assuming the trappings of power and responsibility, without the experience or broader community trust to back it up.
You're still taking the easy bits of dealing with vandalism (identifying vandalism, reverting, placing warning templates) and making teaching that your core mission. Those tasks aren't that complicated and don't need a whole school. The genuinely complex bits – particularly the use of some of the advanced tools and permissions – are entirely missing. This is worrying, as it's the one place where – if you have the editors with the necessary skills – the CVU might actually be able to do something useful.
In short, instead of approaching newer users and saying "Thanks for fixing some vandalism; here are some handy resources", you're saying (implicitly or explicitly) "Thanks for fixing some vandalism; if you want to do it right you need to join our group and put on our badge". You're as likely to frighten or discourage casual editors away from fighting vandalism – after all, it's being taken care of by the CVU's elite, highly-trained, and largely illusory squad – as you are to improve Wikipedia's response to vandalism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
You're main contention has always been that this is some attempt to "put hats on" and pretend we have a power or authority that we do not have. All we are is a WikiProject, that's all CVU is, regardless of what it had been. We haven't given out Titles or Fiefdoms or the trappings of power. All we've done is create a resource where, for instance, editors denyed Rollback access at WP:PERM for issues can better learn the Four Steps. But I will give you the assumption that you would like to see the project succeed (something, I hate to suggest, it feels like you have never given us). What "trappings" of authority do you see? What suggestion of power or responsibility, beyond what any WikiProject would have? What presumption that CVU education is necessary for counter-vandalism? Tell us, we'll fix them.
But if all you have is your misgivings about what CVU had been and what CVU had been proposed to be, I ask you to re-evaluate this enterprise and see that what we're trying to do is provide a resource to people who don't feel comfortable (or feel too 'experienced') for {{helpme}} or WP:Help Desk. In fact, just by Templating two users who had been denied Rollback at WP:PERM, I've received one enthusiastic response. I ask that you ignore any prejudices you have about CVU (because, I agree, it has in the past, sucked; for lack of a better term) and see if my counsel of our lone Enrollee is productive and useful.
The reason I've never brought this project up at WP:AN or WP:VP (not that you aren't entitled to, yourself) is that it neither requires administrative action nor an attempt to change the "technical issues, policies, or operations of Wikipedia" (from WP:VP.
As for advanced permissions, the only permission that seems useful in the Identify-Restore-Warn-Report scheme is Rollback, which all of the current instructors have and use. While blocking may well be an important aspect in preventing disruption, WP:NAS teaches all editors how to use that tool once it is put in their toolbox. It doesn't seem like a useful enterprise to start a program for so few users that would be redundant to what we already have. Countering vandalism is something that can, and should, be taken on by non-admins, and reporting at WP:AIV has proven an effective tool in preventing disruption. It is far more useful to teach those who patrol Recent Changes for Vandalism how (and more importantly, when) to make a report at AIV. Achowat (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) All i've done so far here is mess around with a few templates. I'm not an authority on matters. Huh. I'll comment anyway.
  • I am sporadically active at WP:HD, WP:TH and the {{Helpme}} cat. Now, i don't see how having a Q&A specifically for vandalism would create a problem (i notified the Teahouse of it and it didn't seem to cause any trouble). IMHO, active vandalism reverters may, potentially, be able to provide a more comprehensive explanation on how to deal with vandalism than say, me; a random editor that reverts from time to time but gets stuck at the difficult bits. This is not WP:ANI, either; it's not for dealing with edit-wars and so on. I don't know much about WP:AN, but apparently this project picks up a lot from WP:AC.
  • Curriculum? Well, something was drafted but i remember it being deleted after one of the other guys dropped by saying that one-to-one coaching would be better. Let's just make our minds up, no? Or just have both (instruction pages and coaching).
  • "Taking the easy bit"? So far, the Academy has taken nothing at all. I suspect that the "genuine complex bits" are also to be part of the CVUA program, once they get to that bit. i mean, the 'instructors' seem experienced with rollback, huggle and twinkle (per the instructor page) and whatever else i'm sure it won't fail to come once it's clarified a bit.
  • Badges? We ain't got no badges! We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinking badges! (The Treasure of the Sierra Madre) Well, the whole CVU is full of badges. I see userboxes with US marines and war machines in 'em. As for the pic, it's only a retouched version of the existing one.
So far, this is hardly even started. Alpha, beta; no more. A mere test. This endeavour may be criticized. Sure, it seems there is still a lot to improve. Of course, one can avoid this sort of thing. You know what? To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, and be nothing. (Elbert Hubbard). benzband (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2012‎ (UTC)
Of note that the CVU mainpage redesign has done away with the Militaristic bit and focuses far more on Reverting vandalism, rather than fighting it. We've got one enrollee, and as much as I hate to do this to Chris, it seems his will be a test-case to judge the entire project by. Achowat (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"r v v"

Has r_v_v been decided on as the way to track students revert edits? If so, I think we should post that on the instructors page or at least post it <!-- -->. Dan653 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what I use per WP:Glossary#Rvv. There's no reason my method has to be the method, however. Achowat (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I never knew about the glossary, but it sounds good, its official. Dan653 (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Beta-Testing problems

Ok, so this just hit me today as 2 or 3 of our Enrollees have applied for Rollback permission. When do we know we're done? I mean, when does an Enrollee become a Graduate? Achowat (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

When they recieve rollback ability, because when they recieve it an admin is saying that they know enough about vandalism to use it wisely. Of course, some users don't want rollback, so I was thinking they drop the academy at a max of 1000 edits. Dan653 (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I can live with that. Achowat (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Status Page

Does any agree that the status page should by time zone and not by name, as a name is a name, while it would be smart to group students with instructors in the same, or closest time zone? Dan653 (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you mean list the instructors, instead of alphabetically, list them by, what, absolute value from UTC? Achowat (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the instructor list. Maybe absolute value from UTC like this

0 1 2 3 4 5

or

we could do

-2 -1 0 1 2
What do think? Dan653 (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

My only concern is that that's difficult for new instructors to list themselves. Achowat (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Here are some templates: {{time}} and {{time box}}. benzband (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Archives

Anyone wanna Mizabot this, or just do it manually, 'cause I would do that (I'm kinda bored right now...) Dan653 (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done currently set for 10 days. benzband (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Instructors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I'm just closing this discussion; no good can come out of it}. Achowat (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the rude demeanor of the instructors for CVU/A. -One.tenth (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

How have we disturbed you? (Honestly, I'm curious... plus, it's 100% Not Cool for us Not to be Cool... teehee...) Seriously. Elaborate, and take this collective sorry for anyone who was rude. Theopolisme TALK 04:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I responded much too quickly. I've taken a look at our "rude" comments, and am hereby striking through my sorry. Because.... they weren't rude. Theopolisme TALK 04:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I am referring primarily to the comments made on the talk page of User:Achowat, where the user questioned my motives - arguing that I was "hat collecting". Why would I want to collect hats? I seek no reward in my participation in CVU. Also, I take offence to the comments made by Electriccatfish2 who argued that I "obviously had no clue" about vandalism. That last comment is a bit rich considering that Electriccatfish2 has multiple messages in his talk archive referring to incorrect reports to AIV and incorrect use of STiki on Radioresepsjonen. Also, I consider it rude that members of CVUA didn't have the common courtesy to wait for my response before taking action. These comments and actions are uncalled for, and reflects poorly on the attitude of the instructors on CVU/A. -One.tenth (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Achowat made it clear that he hoped you are "enthusiastic and [want] to help", and he was not assuming you were "hat collecting", but mentioned that it was possible that, contrary to his hopes and expectations, you could be. If you found that unacceptably "rude" then your skin is probably far too thin to cope with collaborative working on Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
And why is there a need to "hope" that I wanted to help? Did I ever give the impression that suggested otherwise? The fact that this was even mentioned is ridiculous. I wanted participate in CVU/A and yet these instructors somehow got the idea that I 'may' have other intents but "hoped" that I didn't. And yes, it is rude, just pointing it out. But as I stated earlier, it's more a poor reflection of the attitude of these instructors - that they would be suspicious about my involvement when there was no cause for concern. -One.tenth (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
There is always caution with a new user. Is it fair, is it right? No. But there is caution. Collaborative working is how users demonstrate that they are worthy of the Community's trust. When countering vandalism, there is a clear and obvious way to demonstrate that the community en masse trust that you can identify and properly revert Vandalism. Namely, the Rollback bit. Frankly, as you're accusing Instructors (including myself) as Assuming Bad Faith, let me just point out that you acted in a way that suggests you don't particularly want to work collaboratively (which, of course, is what Mentorship and the Academy are all about). Instead of dropping a line on any Talk Page, anywhere, you simply added yourself to the Instructors list and immediately thereafter (6 minutes later) approved two Enrollees, one of which would not be well-served by Academy instruction. I can totally see why you would take offense to how quickly things happened (It must have seemed like you just logged back in one second and everything was undone. If that's the case, I would like to apologize for all of us here. But to just pretend you don't understand why we'd be cautious about a new user personally signing up to help instruct...well, the more seasoned ones of us have seen behaviour like this in the past. Usually it's at WP:PERM or WP:RFA, but brand-new users seeking some Title or Status (not that Instructorhood is, but I could see why a New User might think that) is not a new problem. I hope this clears up any issues (and I propose this be moved to WT:CVUA, as it's not really a help-desk question. Achowat (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I should reiterate that your concern was about "hat collecting" - that I was participating in it to gain some sort of reward and so my motives are not constructive. Please explain how my actions i.e. not notifying other people before entering CVU/A is in anyway connected to the idea of 'hat collecting'. (hint: the answer is, there is no connection). I should also point out that nowhere on the instructor information page does it state that I am required to notify existing instructors. -One.tenth (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You may think it's semantics, but I didn't say I was concerned that you were hat-collecting, but that you may be hat collecting. And all of those conversations that you've read were based on literally knowing nothing about you. Literally, not a thing. Not only was your "sign up" the first time you had made any edits to CVU, it was also your second ever WP: namespace edit (and we're still waiting for the first WT: namespace edit). There was a concern because all we had was a new user with little to no edits (in the grand scheme) without Rollback, with no history of working with CVU just dropping their name down, approving candidates (again, including one that I personally would not have {{tick}}'d), putting them on his Status page, and disappearing without even dropping a template on hir "new students" talk pages. No one has said you are doing something bad, but you're daft if you think that kind of action wouldn't raise suspicion literally anywhere. Achowat (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I see no connection between not following an unstated procedure, and the idea that I "may be" hat collecting. But let's entertain the idea, just for arguments sake. Say I did want to gain some sort of reward or title. What exactly would this be? That I am instructing people in how to stop vandalism? Is that even something to boast about? Is anyone that lame? Perhaps you are suspicious, but the conclusion that you draw is preposterous -One.tenth (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I drew no conclusions. I mean, seriously read the comments I made. You were never once, not even a little, not even an iota, accused of hat collecting. And now all you seem to be accomplishing is arguing your case so that you can 'win'. Adminship isn't a reward or title either. It's not something worth boasting about. But yes, there are people who are that "lame". There's a whole essay (WP:NOTNOW) based on how best to deal with new-ish users for request the advanced bit.
But none of that really matters. What does is The Academy. The Academy works by taking experienced, trusted anti-vandals and asking them to instruct new anti-vandals in the hopes that countering vandalism could be made easier, more efficient, and more consistent. There is a procedure for determining who the community trusts to counter vandalism (The Rollback bit) and there's a pretty clear procedure for acquiring that bit. Essentially, come back when the Community has put its trust in you that you can Identify, Revert, Warn, and Report. Then we'd be happy to have you. Achowat (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And to reiterate yet again, your concern was solely about "hat collecting". You can argue that you believe my edit history is insufficient for the 'requirements' of CVU/A. That's fine. But to question my motives with these unfounded accusations/presumptions/suspicions (whatever you want to call it), is not. -One.tenth (talk) 14:50, 12 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.

New userboxes available

I've just created a couple of userboxes for the project, feel free to make use of them. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well so there is; I missed that. No need to have duplicates knocking about, I will {{db-user}} the above. Thanks for the info. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Graduation

Further to this conversation, should we perhaps have a set of criteria for graduation? Permission for rollback is a good indication of community trust, and shows that an enrollee has understood basic anti-vandalism, but some users may want additional help with, say, Twinkle or Huggle use (I'd been using rollback for several months before taking the plunge into Twinkle) so may not want to graduate early. Do we even need a "graduation" process at all (Adopt-a-user, the nearest equivalent project I know of, doesn't have any official passing-out ceremony)? What about a specialised tool-use classroom, beyond the fundamentals of Identify, Revert, Warn, Report, for "post-graduates"? Any thoughts? Yunshui 雲‍水 07:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to recognize that two different kinds of students. We have students that need to learn IRWR, in which case Rollback is a fine indication. But when it comes to getting an MS in Huggle/Igloo/etc, it's harder to figure that out. Most of our students have, traditionally, come from folks who have failed to get Rollback at WP:PERM, but those have all been those looking for BAs in Counter-Vandalism. A new paradigm may be in order. Achowat (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it should all be based on how comfortable the student feels, and if e feels e needs more instruction. Dan653 (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Support Dan Feelings matter. :) Theopolisme TALK 10:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


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

Instructor requirements

1/10th does bring up a good point, namely that we have no real "requirements" for Instructors like we do for Enrollees. An oversight, definitely, and we should have seen a situation like 1/10th coming. So judging by the discussion about, it seems that "Rollback" (or adminship or cratship etc; Rollback the button if not Rollback the bit) is a requirement for adding oneself to the Status page. What other requirements would we expect? Also, where should this new information be presented, since there's no "Instructor sign-up" page like we have for Enrollment? Achowat (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Rollback rights (or extra rights which carry the rollback 'package')
  • Discussion is key. On the status talk, an editor should indicate they wish to become an instructor. Anyone can comment whether they believe they are going to be useful, eg, editor has no vandalism edits 'oppose' that sort of thing. I don't think adding yourself when you feel like is good (as we may have learnt in the recent events)
  • Apprentice editor - 3 months service 1,000 edits
There's just a few.......--Chip123456 (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with bullets one and three, not two, because when people like Electric asked if they could be an instructor I told them to wp:bebold and just add themselves. If you pass the requirements than I see no reason to have a discussion. To summarize here's what it should say:
Would You Like to be an Instructor?
If so make sure you are qualified with:

  • Rollback Rights &
  • Aprentice editor (3 months and 1,000 edits [≈40% to articles])

Qualified?
Than be bold and yourself to the list (link to status page) Dan653 (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I Support those requirements. --Chip123456 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Those requirements would exclude Mr Little Irish, who was so important and useful to us starting out. There should be some system for non-yet-Apprentice editors to, for instance, look for a discussion of their merits, methinks. Achowat (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Support I think we should have Dan or Achowat approve them to be an instructor, just like students must be approved. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Support But I agree with Achowat's idea that there should be a way for someone to submit a request if they don't meet the requirements... possibly just a sort of "If you don't meet these requirements but still feel that you'd be a good instructor, drop us a line on the INSERT PAGE HERE." Theopolisme TALK 23:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
--> Note: I just checked my friendly edit counter (right hur) - I only have 37% to articles.... worried meow. Theopolisme TALK 00:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Support with the addition that me and Acho will not approve users unless they are close to the requirements, but not there. This is the only situation which will require our approval. If Acho supports (which I think he does [we will have majority]).
People who meet the requirements can just put their name on the status page and people who don't can post the request on the talk page of the status page. I recomend that you guys watchlist the page as the page has been separated from the centralized discussion as a place for instructors to chat and also read my note about numbering. Cheers. Dan653 (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Support – But perhaps reword the last bullet as "Apprentice editor – 3 months of service, 1,000 edits (at least 400 of which are mainspace edits)" Mojoworker (talk) 03:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment Agree with Mojoworker. Or possibly even, "Apprentice editor – 3 months of service, 1,000 edits (at least 400 of which are mainspace edits reverting vandalism)" - that way, the instructor has to honestly have some "skills," or whatever the cool kids call it (XD), reverting vandalism - since they will, hey, be the ones teaching how to revert it. Theopolisme TALK 04:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment I know many users with less than 40% to articles, including admins.--Chip123456 (talk) 06:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
How about rather than 40%, we just say 400+ vandalism-reversion edits? Here's my rendition of what we've got so far:
Apply to be an instructor!
Experienced counter-vandalism user? Want to help teach young vandal-fighters the ropes?
Start teaching - Just be sure you meet the requirements:
  • Rollback Rights
  • At least 1,000 edits
  • 400+ Counter Vandalism edits
If you meet the requirements, join the crew today!
If you aren't quite there yet but still feel you'd be a good instructor, leave a message here.
Theopolisme TALK 08:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment It's going to be near-impossible to check if a User has 400+ CV Edits. Achowat (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment Yes, it would. Why don't we do a 'fire question' round at them about vandalism + RB rights + 3 months of service + around 1,000 edits. --Chip123456 (talk · contribs) 16:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment Fire question round? Achowat (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment Ignore that and focus on the last 3. --Chip123456 (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment Requirements as they stand are rbk, 3 months, 1000 edits (≈40% to article mainspace as it is impossible to judge 400 CV edits). If you meet the requirements put name on status page. If not status talk. (Bangs gavel) Done, Acho put the requirements where ever you think they should go. Dan653 (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

With the current wording of "At least 1,000 edits and 3 months active on Wikipedia, ≈40% of edits to articles", I'm guessing it was not the intent to disqualify a hypothetical editor with the (somewhat unlikely) metrics of 2500 edits and only 500 to mainspace. Such a scenario could be possible with an editor concentrating on reverting vandalism along with work in categories, templates and/or files. I would vote for the explicit wording of "400 edits to articles" instead of 40%. Mojoworker (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As I work in the WP namespace (and on User talk, specifically with my work in The Academy itself) my Article-space edits are going down. (This is especially true since a CVU-style Counter-Vandal should follow ever 1 edit to the article, the Revert, with an edit to User talk, the Warn. Throw in a potential WP-space edit at either WP:AIV or WP:CVUAQ and it's easy to drop below 40%). I propose making the standard ">400 mainspace edits, a significant portion of which demonstrate an understanding of Counter-Vandalism processes and policies". Achowat (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, it's not too hard to check for 400 anti-vandal edits - you just do an edit summary search for strings like "vandal", "rev" or "rv". Set the counter at 400; if the "Next 400 results" link is available, they have performed 400+ edits with those summaries. Obviously it's worth checking a random sample to ensure that the user hasn't made a massive cock-up of anti-vandal work, but checking the edit count isn't a problem, as long as the prospective instructor uses edit summaries correctly (and if they don't, there might be issues raised about their suitability anyway!) Yunshui 雲‍水 12:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. Achowat (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
We should probably resolve this before everyone forgets about it. Mojoworker (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary(-ish) break and Leadership

So, the idea was just floated that Dan and I should handle the upkeep of the Status page. I can see the argument for Leadership: It makes it clear who has the power of the {{tick}}, it allows Instructors and Enrollees (and anyone else) the ability to have one or two point-people to speak for The Academy en masse, and it keeps the way we reacted in regards to 1/10th from happening again (I think it would be a good thing if we all, more or less, recognize that we failed splendidly while dealing with that user). If it is the will of the Academy to give Dan and I some named power, I think we need to put some sort of limits and restrictions on that. Namely, a committment that all possible CVUA correspondance happen at one publicly-accessible on-Wiki place, some system in place to replace us, and a clearly defined list of what we can and can't do. I heard no objection to the Pisquine-Electro-Feline's idea, so let's break that apart. I have my own objections, but if I'm called on to serve in this new role, I definitely won't say no.
So, I guess I'll put this to the whole Academy: is the idea of named Leadership (such as the Coordinators used by WP:MILHIST and WP:GOCE necessary to keep CVUA managable? Achowat (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the upkeep going 'down hill', then?! --Chip123456 (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem keeping up with the status and enroll page as I already do, but that doesn't mean that you cant {{tick}} someone if they qualify to be a student. Acho I don't think we need a Constitution for our powers, unless the other instructors do. Our word to not overstep our bounds would suffice, I think. I would accept your recomendation for me to be a coord, and thank you all for not being aegist towards me. Lets get a few supports and leave your comments below. Dan653 (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't be ageist, since I have no idea how old you are, and I don't particularly care. Your edits are solid, and that's all that matters. The big "new power" the proposed system would give us would be the approval of borderline Instructors. What I would suggest, instead, would be a discussion at WT:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Status where Dan or I would be empowered to determine what the Consensus of all is, instead of the two of us deciding by biarchal fiat. Achowat (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure you do me. Sounds good, but what if we disagree? Who would be the third vote, or if we disgree would we put it to a vote of all the instructors to vote on. Dan653 (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That's why it shouldn't be up to You and I to decide the issues, but to determine if consensus exists or not. If it seems like You and I can't handle the workload ourselves (or we end up stalemates and grow to resent and hate each other) then we can re-examine this scheme. Achowat (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but are we talking about students signing up or instructors signing up? --Chip123456 (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
My understanding was Instructors, but it wouldn't be a bad system for Enrollees, as well. Achowat (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay, determining consensus sounds fine, and no, I will not go along with any plan that requires consensus to tick a student. All the instructors are smart enough to see if the student meets the requirements or not and if they're close they usually ask us anyway.Dan653 (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Exactly what I was going to say. You can chose chose the instructors but not the students as any editor can Mark against the requirements.--Chip123456 (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think we're all in agreement that anyone who passes the Enrollee standards or the Instructor Standards (to be written) can be {{tick}}'d by any Instructor or self-added to the page. I'm talking about the borderline cases that might be more difficult to judge than Edit Count and Time Served. What if there really was a reformed Vandal. Well, not a Vandal at all but someone blocked for Vandalism because s/he was POV-pushing and it was decided that it was disruptive enough to warrant a 72 hour block. The standard is "significant effort must be made" to demonstrate reform. Or incivility. Those are all judgment calls and there should be a better system in place than just convincing the first Instructor who checks hir watchlist. Achowat (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If they are borderline or an instructor wants a second opinion they can ask on the enroll talk page. Dan653 (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree, that's the point of the Enroll Talk page. We seem to be agreeing, I think. For both Enrollees and Instructors, if you meet the standards, great! If you're close, discuss. If the discussion is close, you or I come and and determine consensus. Sounds fair? Achowat (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I know of an admin who has been blocked for being uncivil and that has been forgiven. So in theory, an editor who is now very up to date with WP:AGF shouldn't be treated any differently. --Chip123456 (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Would that be a waste of your time? If not, fine, I will support what you said Acho, but another idea could be, the instructor who started the discussion (the one who's not applying but noticed the comment saying that the other editor doesn't believe they meet the requirements) collects the !votes and then determines the consensus. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
We only will coordinate on on the edge enrolls and instructors who do not have consensus. Dan653 (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
(Bangs gavel... again! [this is fun :) ])
  1. Lets get some support below for me and Acho to be coords.
  2. Put the instructor requirements somewhere Acho, please.
  3. All instructors should watchlist the enroll/status pages and talk pages.
Dan653 (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  1. Mediumish Support ... I still don't know about the sudden "all-power" deal. I see the need based on 1/10th's case, etc... but, hmm.... Ah, I don't know. Just don't abuse that power. Determining consensus seems fine, though. Theopolisme TALK 19:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  2. Mediumish Support Agree Theo. I see the need with 1/10 but the Scott situation has slightly put me off because Dan said he wasn't always sure that Scott would be good, but didn't voice it, which got us to WP:AN. They wouldn't abuse it, though.--Chip123456 (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment Just, for the record, the Scott issue isn't one that, frankly, would have come to us. Scott passed each and every guideline for enrollment with flying colors. Any one of us would have Tick'd him. Achowat (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  3. Clarification The only power we would have is determining consensus on questionable enrolls and instructors. Also Chip, you were the one who convinced me not to drop Scott: User_talk:Achowat/Archive_11#User:Scott_Delaney. See sixth paragraph where I was ready to drop him (yes, I voiced it), and then you told me to "ignore" and it became dragged out another day. Not blaming you for anything, but I don't know what your point is above. Dan653 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment And we'd take a more active role in finding Instructors for Students. Achowat (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    Agreed. Dan653 (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment' Oh yes, most definitely. Of course I wouldn't want my first student to be 'booted' out from the academy and given an indefinite block! Likewise, Dan I wasn't blaming you, I was just saying, if your going to have the 'power' (which I don't fully object to) I thought you would of taken into account the comment which warned about Scotts past and Dennis' comments into full consideration and informed me that I was in for a 'bumoy' ride! --Chip123456 (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  4. Support Just to clarify, I support this as long as we still retain the right to checkY, ClockC, and ☒N editors. You guys have the final say on the questionable instructors and students. Also, non-instructors do not have the right to checkY, ClockC, or ☒N any enrollees. Also, I think that maybe we should vote whether a user user is allowed to be an instructor. You guys will have the right to close it as you wish. After someone has been approved by one of us, we will either decide to take them (and put it under our students), or let one of you guys know if we're not interested in taking up that student. Also, I think that you guys should have a higher rank (like coordinator) than the other instructors. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment Well, it wouldn't be a "Rank", just another set of responsibilities. Achowat (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment Another chore.....Sir! --Chip123456 (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment Agreed Electric. No rank, but if you want to think up a name for us I'm down with that :P
  5. Comment (Bangs gavel) checkY Support achieved. Discussion closed except for title :P Keep up with the enroll and status page guys. Dan653 (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment - Clearly Danny is letting his new-found power (and accompanying gavel) go to his head. Achowat (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment Yup I pulled it out of my ass, nah just kidding, but actually I just finished reading another John Grisham book. Dan653 (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    Comment Ooooh, which one? He's one of my all-time favorite authors. Theopolisme TALK 23:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy/Archive_1&oldid=1136061899"