Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Task Force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page was nominated for deletion on 26 November 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Let's clarify the proposal 2 Name? 3 Paging system 4 Establishing 5 Naming 6 Established? 7 Project manager 8 status table 9 IRC 10 Good Work People! 11 Help 12 What now? 13 Historical 14 Question 15 Online 16 What exactly qualifies as "high levels of vandalism"?

[edit] Let's clarify the proposal

Let's lay out clearly the proposal for this Task Force. I've heard several different facets:

• A template to determine who is online and available at the time.

Various ways to determine this, including:

• A bot (like StatusBot)

:*Clocking in by editing a page

• Having some sort of Javascript that would add a button

• A method to communicate with other on-line users.

• IRC? This seems to have been rejected.
• User talk pages? This seems easier.

* Having a limited number of people on this Task Force

• This kind of confuses me -- firstly, we don't know who'd be interested in it, and secondly, what do we have to gain from limiting it in the first place? I would think that different people would have different amounts of time to devote to the Task Force, and it wouldn't make sense for everyone to have a standardized, shift-style contribution requirement. I understand that there's a degree of experience involved in reverting vandalism, but I don't think it's necessary to put a cap on the number of participants.

Please discuss! --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 17:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am against the imposition of limits on the number of people involved in the Task Force as it currently seems to be shaping up. I don't think it's necessary, and I think it will discourage potential new users. If it turns out later for some reason I can't currently foresee that such a TF is swamped with people, the idea can be revisited. Right now, it seems excessive. --Moonriddengirl 17:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree, I cant really see why there needs to be a limtied amount of members. Everyone contributes at different times or when theyre available and there can never be enough volunteers for vandal fighting.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 17:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I can create the template. All the members must follow the directions here, preferably choosing Topaz's template instead of Goyston's (using the top example for #3) and give me the link to their Status page for this to be possible. Talk pages would be fine for communication, but only if the user is online, of course. I am against shifts, and I believe that limiting it wouldn't do a lot. The only problem with keeping it open is that if we create a template, we'd constantly be adding users to it, and it would look cluttered. If we could keep it to around 20 or 30, I think we could have at least two or so editors online at any given time. I volunteer myself to be a Project Coordinator or Co-Coordinator. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 17:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment We can definitely create a template that only displays on-line users, so if the only reason for capping it is to avoid template clutter, we won't need to limit the number of users. Plus, if we have 50 FRs on-line at once -- which I seriously doubt will happen -- all the better, then, right? --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 17:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that, I'm not sure I could do. My template would have all the members and their status. I like your idea better. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 18:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I like the idea. Clarify in one way, are we always going to have update are status personally, or is a bot going to be created to handle that task. As founder of the original idea of FRs I would also be glad to help Coordinate. Maybe in conjunction with J-stan. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 17:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I was actually going to suggest that you coordinate, but I didn't want to put you on the spot. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 18:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it would be better if you and I both co-coordinated. That way we could the position would not become to much of a power position and more of just a overseeing position. We could bounce off each other's ideas and take up the slack where I or you left off. Before we decide that we want to coordinate though I think we need to have the publics opinion. Wikipedians, your opinions? --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Overseeing is a power position in a way. I never knew Wikiprojects had coordinators. I thought power like that was frowned upon on Wikipedia as the point is to make decisions as a community. I suppose there would be a need for someone to perform administrative tasks though but not necessarily coordinate.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 19:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Coordinators sometimes are used, see here, but do you have another suggestion. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That project elects coordinators and doesnt really seem to follow Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but there doesnt seem to be any disagreements on that way of organisation there. I dont know about other people but I dont really see the need for a coordinator (which sounds bureaucratic) here, maybe a volunteer who does some housekeeping.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 19:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable enough, question is how do we decide who is the housekeeper/janitor? --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There doesnt necessarily have to be a decision. Anyonce could just do it when they want. I find from other Wikiprojects, that electing housekeepers generally lead to neglection in some areas of the project while if everyone contributes how they can, it is more efficient. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 19:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What does house keeping entail? J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 19:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point maybe the idea of housekeeping should just be do something when it needs to be done. Not having everything so structured. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Maintenance of the project's pages and processes which can really be done by anyone in my opinion. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's give Tbo's idea a shot, and we'll see how it works. Right now, I'm just anxious to get FRT live. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Question I don't know very much about templates, but is there any reason that we can't use a template and corresponding page like Category:Wikipedians_looking_for_help? --Moonriddengirl 17:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply It would probably have to be something like that or maybe something similar but easier.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 17:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Not every member online will be online to do FR tasks. So there needs to be a distinction between those who are carrying out FR tasks and those who are making other edits, which probably means user input is necessarry.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 17:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

One way communication can help is that one editor asks assistance of another editor who is on, regardless of what task he or she is performing. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 18:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Who would ask the assistance of who?Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If one FR spots a lot of vandalism, and he sees that another FR, who isn't necessarily doing things related to the FRT, the first FR could ask assistance of him. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not necessarily a good idea. I know I would be pretty annoyed if I were online, doing research for Wikipedia or something similar, just to be interrupted all the time. There needs to be a way to mark oneself as unavailable for RC patrol purposes, like in my proposal. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ye, there should be a system where you can flag yourself as available fopr doing FR tasks.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 18:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Question. Where has it been written that IRC-based communication is rejected? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Because not everyone can access IRC communications.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 18:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally think on-wiki communication is better. I don't think IRC has been ruled out, exactly. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 18:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It was written on the main CVU talk page somewhere. With on wiki communication everyone can access to it and it is more flexible. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#IRCTbo ¹⁵⁷talk 18:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Reading that, it doesn't say anywhere that it has to be either/or. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well why dont we do a survery to see which is preferred.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 19:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why? Both have advantages and disadvantages. There are ways to make one process mesh with the other one, so it is not necessary to discard IRC for on-wiki communications or vice-versa. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So youre suggesting that we use both? How exactly?Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 19:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The proposal above deals with how to use both. Essentially, you can login to the task force through the wiki, or you can login via IRC. The only difference is that in your listing, it will show you as "online on IRC" icon in case anyone wants to contact you through IRC. There are other ways the wiki and IRC can interface (such as forwarding messages left on a talk page to the IRC channel) and viceversa. For example, the {{Vandalism information}} level on the wiki can be changed directly from the #vandalism-en-wp channel, and the on-wiki level can be reported straight to that channel on request. It has been done before. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There would need to be on wiki notices for whos online as well as IRC though. As I said before, not everyone can access IRC.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 19:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a very interesting idea, and I'm sorry to be the one who questions it: but is it really necessary? I'm not sure how much more difficult coding for the IRC-wiki interface will be, but it's bound to be at least slightly more complicated. Moreover, I know that others may not be able to use IRC, or are not very comfortable with it. I'm not sure if there are significant advantages to supporting both IRC and wiki talk pages. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there. The way I understand how we are going to do this is have a person update there status either on wikipedia through a personal status page or over the IRC. A question if a person signs on the IRC will they have to update their status too. Back to my main point instead of everybody having unique status page, why not have on the First Responders Team Page a section or subpage for each user who is involved in the task force. On this section/subpage they can update their status regarding whether or not they are vandal fighting at the moment. We would still use the template idea. On this section/subpage they could also place requests for help. These requests would show up on the template so that a active vandal fighter could go by and see what the request was. This can be tweaked however you want. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, an IRC monitoring bot can update the status page on the wiki for the user. And your proposal sounds more or less what StatusBot does. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Granted, but I still am of the strong opinion that a on-wiki system need to be created. How 'bout a smarter StatusBot. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A significant portion of the vandal-fighting community is on IRC. Trying to make an on-wiki only system would reduce the incentive of them to collaborate with the task force, and having the largest amount of eyes is always a Good Thing™. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ, I believe we do need some sort of on-wiki system. How 'bout a intergrated version of my proposal and yours. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, my proposal integrates both on-wiki and IRC features... I'm not proposing a pure-IRC system. I'm afraid I don't follow here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well, it wouldn't be extraordinarily complicated. Several bots already perform some of these duties, both on-wiki and on-IRC, so it would be more than anything an issue about talking to the other. And Tbo, I'm not talking about two separate login systems: I'm talking about a combined system. You can login via IRC or via wiki, and your table entry will have the same background color. The only difference is that you'll have an additional icon next to your name, similar to having an icon to indicate that you're an admin and that you can block people if necessary. The point is making the info available to allow users of the task force to make their own decisions. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) We definitely need an on-wiki system. There are many CVU users who cannot use IRC. With regard to statuses: it seems best if we had something like this:

• If you sign on to IRC:

• A bot (or a script, or something) will mark you active on the FR template.

• If you sign on to Wikipedia:

• You will have the option (perhaps through a javascript button, like Twinkle) to become active on the FR template. If you hit the button, you will be marked as such.
• You can also just sign on to do research, work on an article, or anything else that's not CVU-related, in which case you won't hit the button, and you will not be marked active on the FR template. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 19:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ye, that sounds good.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this sound like a great idea. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I proposed... :) The only difference is that I put two different levels of "inactive": one is "busy/away", and the other one is "offline". Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's just keep it simple, either one is ready to be a FR or they are not. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Should we set up a survey to see if there is a general agreement on this idea? --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If done, make it on the main CVU talk page, where everyone can see it. More feedback = more better. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That works too, and actually makes it slightly simpler. The only reason I put the intermediate level was in case someone could help out, but just in "emergencies" only. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a poll is not needed, we have a lot of consensus here already. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Its probably better just to see if there is consensus amongst everyone in the CVU and maybe some users not in the CVU too. Otherwise the page could just end up being deleted.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 20:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to what I said above User:LessHeard vanU has made a good point at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit. There should be a consensus amongst the wider Wikipedia community before this goes ahead.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 20:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Question Should we organize what we have and Village pump it?--Moonriddengirl 20:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

ye, that would be a good way to get input from the wider community.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 20:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if no one else will I will. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I think we should scrap the idea of a "First Response Team". But I think it would be great to have a template that shows who is online, and an IRC channel to communicate with. --Mschel 13:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Indeed. I think the name is drawing quite a bit of unwanted attention; a template is actually all we're actually looking for. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 14:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. First Response Team gives the impression of some elitist group and could deter others from fighting vandalism. I'm not convinced by the idea, I don't see any real benefit from having it (can someone give me one?) Martin Porcheron ^{talk to me}_{my edits} 15:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment It might be useful to have a non-exclusive list of people who could be notified of heavy vandalism by a pager-type system Nathanww 21:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As far as communication goes, wouldn't it make more sense to have a centralized page than to use user talk pages?Seems like this would make it simpler to communicate between people, with less confusuion Nathanww 21:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to both of Nathanww's comments above: I believe that the goal of this whole effort is to create a tool that will let participating users know who else is online, actively fighting vandalism. This will be beneficial if another set of eyes is needed on a particular page. To that end, communication will be mainly between individual CVU members, rather than messages/alerts broadcast to many CVU members at one time. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 21:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For normal, day-to-day vandalism the talk-page based communication would probably be sufficient, but in some cases(like the Stephen Colbert-induced elephant vandalism or just a few particularly persistant and fast vandals), it would make more sense to have a system for efficiently alerting people that there was a problem Nathanww 00:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; I was merely responding to, wouldn't it make more sense to have a centralized page than to use user talk pages? Like I stated, User talk pages were part of the original goal, and I think it should still be a major part of this. Cheers! --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 01:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name?

While I don't have strong feelings about it, I do wonder if the name First Response Team will be off-putting for some, possibly confusing for others. People might wonder if First Response Team implies some additional authority or feel that it indicates a clique, whether its true or not. Given the nature of what we're talking about, I wonder if it would be more straightforward to simply call it something like "CVU Active Online" or "CVU Active" or some such. --Moonriddengirl 20:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"CVU Online"? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that this is exactly like the discussion of the CVU name. I don't really think it matters. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 21:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with J-stan. I mean if you really want to chose a good name try to come up with a name the implies that the Task Force is a functioning as a unit, backbone of the CVU, yet it is not elite or exclusive, and is entirely voluntary. Tell me of the name when you have come up with it. Perhaps the best name change would be to First Response Volunteers. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Or the CVU task force who nitpick about how they want a their Task force to be run :) J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 22:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the initial response on the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Thou shalt fight vandalism - fight, I say! (Bureauracy watch), I'd say there might be some cause for concern. People seem predisposed to be suspicious. --Moonriddengirl 22:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

First Response Volunteers works better for me than First Response Team. It doesn't imply exclusivity, and it has a better acronym. :) --Moonriddengirl 23:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't warmong up to the idea of belonging to the fart. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 23:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "Organized Vandalism Prevention"? J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 15:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the "Organized" part of it, but we're not really preventing vandalism, per se. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 15:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that as a sub-component of CVU, we might want to make clear that we're not forming anything separate, just incorporating a new tool into what we already have. "Organized" works for me, but I still kind of wonder if we shouldn't keep it simple. "CVU-O" or something like that. --Moonriddengirl 15:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"Organized" seems to carry the same connotations as First Responders, in a way, at least to me. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see that. What about the simple "online" you mentioned earlier? --Moonriddengirl 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I like CVU-Online. Concise and descriptive. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 18:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One problem: The original CVU is online, you silly person :) J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 18:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. 'Online' is not specific enough. How about something along the lines of "CVU-Quick Action", except without the connotation of being trigger-happy? --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 18:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Rollback-happy?

Well, I had started off with "active online". I still sort of think that works. CVU-AO. Maybe we should find a way to fit I and E in as well (sometimes Y). :) --Moonriddengirl 18:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "Task force"? It stays within the Wikipedia-accepted meaning of the term... and we can stop arguing about the name. :P Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussing, not arguing. :P Considering the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I really feel a purely descriptive name is better. I worry that "task force" carries a hint of exclusivity, lending some credence to the post Gracenotes just made on that board suggesting that the proposal looks more like "do you want to join us to fight vandalism?" than "do you want to use tools to fight vandalism?" I really feel it's best to avoid that hint. YMMV, obviously, but I would appreciate discussing the potential issues very thoroughly before we nail anything down. --Moonriddengirl 18:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We just had a discussion on the CVU talk page about whether or not it is still active. We decided that it is still active, and again, online :) I don't think we should use CVU in the name. We should thin of something that can be used independently. Moonriddengirl suggested using all the vowels, so how about CVAEIOUasY? The only problem is I didn't think of a lengthened form. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 18:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting CVU is active and online. I'm suggesting CVU members are actively online. :) Maybe the use of the adverbial form would work. --Moonriddengirl 18:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My idea:All FRT members start using StatusBot. A new category is added using a parser in the StatusBot template that places, and removes a user from a "FRT members who are online" category. If more vandalism fighters are needed, you can just look in the category. I could design a js button that links to the category quickly, if we needed it. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 22:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean that someone would be added to that category, right? Well, I like the idea... just that again, we need to figure out what to call the categories. Category:CVU users currently online would even work, not even mentioning the task force. I don't know. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd put my vote on CVU users currently online. No snazzy titles necessary, and it leaves no room for confusion about what we're all about. --Moonriddengirl 22:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Idea: I can not stand using a status indicator, I just dislike having to make an edit every time I get online or offline. So I have a different idea. How about a bot that monitors edits coming from users in the CVU category, and when it sees someone has made a revert, it will add that user to the table and mark when their last edit, and last revert was. After a certain amount of time (3 minutes might be good) if the users has not made a revert, it will remove him/her from the list. This would also have the advantage of including all CVU members, not just the ones who take all the hassle to do this status indicator thing. What do y'all think?--Mschel 00:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm on for any system that puts me in contact with others on CVU without IRC. Other than that, I leave it to those of you who can work such things to figure out what's best. :) --Moonriddengirl 00:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, Mschel, the status indicator, as described on Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Task Force/Members is updated by a bot. The only edits you have to make are if you want to tag yourself as "busy" when the bot marks you as online. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

O! I did not know that. So, how does the bot know if I am online? --Mschel 00:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks over your shoulder. Evil grin

No, it just checks your contributions approximately every five minutes. If you haven't edited in more than 15 minutes, it says you're offline. If you have, then it tags you as online. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a little confused. What would I do if I wanted to sign on Wiki, but not to fight vandalism -- to write or improve an article, for example -- and I don't want to be marked active by StatusBot? Would it be possible to avoid making an edit? --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 01:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It's really ingenious. You get your own little page. You type "busy" in it. It shows you as yellow. :) --Moonriddengirl 01:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is pretty cool. I'm impressed. Several questions, though:

• How does this tie into IRC, or has IRC support been dropped?
• I'm assuming you type 'busy' into User:StatusBot/Status/YOURUSERNAME. Since StatusBot updates it, though, if you continue to make non-CVU edits, wouldn't StatusBot change the page back to 'online'?
• Are we going to have a template with all StatusBot-enabled CVU members, so that we can easily see who's online and available?

Again, very cool. Cheers! --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 03:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• IRC support is currently being developed.
• No, actually, you type "Busy" at User:YOURUSERNAME/Busy, which then overrides StatusBot's online or offline status.
• Working on it too. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paging system

21655 (talk · contribs)
Adamfinmo (talk · contribs)
Arvernus (talk · contribs)
Aeon1006 (talk · contribs)
Alexfusco5 (talk · contribs)
Alexius08 (talk · contribs)
Alloranleon (talk · contribs)
Aniyochanan (talk · contribs)
ANOMALY-117 (talk · contribs)
ArielGold (talk · contribs)
Ashe613 (talk · contribs)
ASJ94 (talk · contribs)
Akira-otomo (talk · contribs)
Bfigura (talk · contribs)
BigHairRef (talk · contribs)
Billscottbob (talk · contribs)
Bkerensa (talk · contribs)
Bremerenator (talk · contribs)
Burner0718 (talk · contribs)
Bushcarrot (talk · contribs)
CanadianLinuxUser (talk · contribs)
Cap. Mitchel (talk · contribs)
Cassie Puma (talk · contribs)
Chenzw (talk · contribs)
Chetblong (talk · contribs)
chris19910 (talk · contribs)
Chris G (talk · contribs)
ClanCC (talk · contribs)
Coltrain5041 (talk · contribs)
Concrete Complex (talk · contribs)
Dadude3320 (talk · contribs)
Daedalus969 (talk · contribs)
DJFishlips (talk · contribs)
Dnik (talk · contribs)
Dspradau (talk · contribs)
Eastonlee (talk · contribs)
Ejg930 (talk · contribs)
ELO MnLynx Fan77 (talk · contribs)
EricV89 (talk · contribs)
Fattyjwoods (talk · contribs)
federationdrumer (talk · contribs)
FireDreams4 (talk · contribs)
Fornost (talk · contribs)
Gawaxay (talk · contribs)
Goodshoped35110s (talk · contribs)
Greenguy1090 (talk · contribs)
Greeves (talk · contribs)
GrooveDog (talk · contribs)
Gruznov (talk · contribs)
Gunnerdevil4 (talk · contribs)
Hammer1980 (talk · contribs)
Hellboy2hell (talk · contribs)
Hpdl (talk · contribs)
Igorberger (talk · contribs)
Into The Fray (talk · contribs)
Jamesontai (talk · contribs)
Jamessugrono (talk · contribs)
JamieS93 (talk · contribs)
Jaob (talk · contribs)
Jonny-mt (talk · contribs)
Joseff3506 (talk · contribs)
Jrod2 (talk · contribs)
J-stan (talk · contribs)
Justpassin (talk · contribs)
Kameyama (talk · contribs)
Kanonkas (talk · contribs)
KC109 (talk · contribs)
Kesh (talk · contribs)
L337 kybldmstr (talk · contribs)
Laleena (talk · contribs)
Legoktm (talk · contribs)
leujohn (talk · contribs)
Maverick Leonhart (talk · contribs)
mczack26 (talk · contribs)
MBOmega (talk · contribs)
Meristat (talk · contribs)
Michfan2123 (talk · contribs)
Mithshark (talk · contribs)
Mister Macro (talk · contribs)
Mizu onna sango15 (talk · contribs)
Mm40 (talk · contribs)
Moojoe (talk · contribs)
Mschel (talk · contribs)
Mukkakukaku (talk · contribs)
Mwilso24 (talk · contribs)
Mww113 (talk · contribs)
Nathanww (talk · contribs)
Nburden (talk · contribs)
Neranei (talk · contribs)
NickMartin (talk · contribs)
Niksoni (talk · contribs)		)
Noah Salzman (talk · contribs)
Nol888 (talk · contribs)		.
Npop (talk · contribs)
Oliver202 (talk · contribs)
Olly150 (talk · contribs)
Onebravemonkey (talk · contribs)
OverlordQ (talk · contribs)
Perfect Proposal (talk · contribs)
Pb30 (talk · contribs)
Pewwer42 (talk · contribs)
PookeyMaster (talk · contribs)
Prom3th3an (talk · contribs)
Quadrius (talk · contribs)
Qui1che (talk · contribs)
Ratiocinate (talk · contribs)
Razorflame (talk · contribs)
Rearete (talk · contribs)
redlock (talk · contribs)
Remilo (talk · contribs)
Rgoodermote (talk · contribs)
Riversider2008 (talk · contribs)
Rohit_klar (talk · contribs)
RyanLupin (talk · contribs)
Sandy of the CSARs (talk · contribs)
Sbarkeri (talk · contribs)
Shadowblade (talk · contribs)
Sljaxon (talk · contribs)
Smokizzy (talk · contribs)
Smsarmad (talk · contribs)
S0me l0ser (talk · contribs)
Somebody9973 (talk · contribs)
Souseiseki42 (talk · contribs)
ST47 (talk · contribs)
Steve Crossin (talk · contribs)
StonedChipmunk (talk · contribs)
Stormtracker94 (talk · contribs)
Staffwaterboy (talk · contribs)
Stavlor (talk · contribs)
Tanvir_che (talk · contribs)
Tbo 157 (talk · contribs)
Terra Xin (talk · contribs)
TheBressman (talk · contribs)
Thehelpfulone (talk · contribs)
The man in the mask (talk · contribs)
TheProf07 (talk · contribs)
The Random Editor (talk · contribs)
Titoxd (talk · contribs)
Tresiden (talk · contribs)
tuffcutshears (talk · contribs)
T (talk · contribs)
TylerPuetz (talk · contribs)
Tyler Warren (talk · contribs)
UzEE (talk · contribs)
Vintei (talk · contribs)
Wildthing61476 (talk · contribs)
Wisdom89 (talk · contribs)
Wolfpawz (talk · contribs)
WxHalo (talk · contribs)

What about a paging system that could automatically contact people listed on the task force if vandalism reached a certain level. This could be done automatically, or by some manual method. Nathanww 16:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Easy to implement via IRC, annoying to do via the wiki, unless a javascript god can set us up a page which a script will look at and, depending on the content, display a notice or some sort of notification. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that essentially {{Vandalism information}}? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What I'm envisioning is a bot or something that could contact people on their talk page activley, as opposed to the wikidefcon, wich is passive(but it could be based on wikidefcon) Nathanww 20:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: it would probably be a good idea not to page offline users. By the time they get online, the crisis would (most likely) have passed. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 21:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not thinking about offline users, but rather users who were online but doing something else Nathanww 00:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have a semi-automatic pager set up here. It's a little bi of a hassle to use, but I don't really have the time or skills to make a bot that could do this instead. Nathanww 16:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should move the paging system to Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Task Force/Communication. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 19:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Question are we going to make the template for the status of users or is it just going to be a wikitable. By the way the paging system is cool. Maybe we should list it alphabetically for convience. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought we already made a template. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 21:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I know we have a individual status thing run through the bot, but is there a table made yet? If so could I get a link? --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 00:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

If you really need another template, I could create it, but it would be a hassle for everyone, as it requires all members to install some javascript. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Really, the current system(except for the bot being down right now) works fine. I don't see why we would need another template. Oh, and yeah, there's a table here(but not currently working due to bot problems Nathanww 16:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not what I meant J-stan. I was refering to the table. I was just asking if it should be made into a template. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I think that's a good idea. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I can create that, actually. I just think we should get some more consensus. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to create a separate table. Just use <noinclude> and <includeonly> and you can use that page directly as a template. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That works. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 03:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Question: How does that work? J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• (reset indent) You type {{Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Task Force}}, which produces the table I added above. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Establishing

Hello there people. Okay two questions are we ever going to create a template that shows users status's. Granted we have often created wikitable's but up to now no actual template has been created. Are we still using that method or have we changed direction. Second have decided on a name or has the concept of a task force been abandoned in favor of just a category. Let's try to get something done here. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The bot is currently undergoing a BRFA for the IRC portion of the task: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/StatusBot 2. After that, we can just modify the existing templates slightly, and have a bot copy all the members of a category to a different template. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So regarding a TF are we still going to use it or has it essentially changed form? --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

Hey there. Okay are we ever going to change the name or is "Task Force" the name? --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 19:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, this really is a drawing board. We need to hammer out details. As an official name, I suggest Anti-Vandalism Early Response, or AVER. It pretty much covers what we're about, and it has a cool acronym. Names with cool acronyms seem to gain more favor from those interested in this project. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How 'bout Reverters Currently Online (RCO)? I think the acronym is pretty cool an there is no elitest implications. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 03:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, it seems like the name was created around the acronym (which is pretty cool). J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that maybe "Task Force" is actually our best bet--some people seem to have an issue with our name already Nathanww 15:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that does not sound to Exclusive? --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 15:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Task Force" is just a generic term for a subdivision of a wikiproject--lots of other wikiprojects use them, and I've never heard about any complaints of exclusivity Nathanww 15:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess task force it is. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Established?

Has this task force been fully established yet as Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Task Force suggests that it is still in the proposal stage.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 23:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is more of a drawing board for now. We all know that we want something like this, but we are still hammering out the details. After we get the bots and templates in a stable condition, we can get this off of the ground. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 01:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Question what details are left to draw out? --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 03:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm actually not quite sure. It seems a bunch of proposals are getting tossed around. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Really, I think we're pretty well-established--we have all of the elements listed on the proposal, at least, and people are signing up and starting to actually use it Nathanww 15:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project manager

Even though we have basically decided against Coordinators, I think in this early stage of the project, we should at least have a "Project Manager" who oversees the creation process. Again, I would be willing to volunteer, and maybe T.R.E. would want to help out here too. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a need to? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that currently, we keep tossing around proposals for names, features, and the like with little action being taken. A Project manager would make sure things get taken care of. It's not necessary, but I think it would speed up the process of getting the TF up and running. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 02:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally if we do that I believe this task force is going to become to exclusive and maybe to power based. Maybe the best thing to do is to do what we have been doing and just establish it. We use the activity template and we list ourselves as using it. We can communicate more effectively as has been seen. Moonriddengirl was able to get a quick response to a question because she could see who was active. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 03:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looking back, I don't think we're in the development stage anymore. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 03:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need a project manager, per se. I think we need somebody to be bold. :) No titles necessary, since a title would mean that nobody else might dare be bold. And, yes, last night the system performed perfectly for me. I ran into a canvassing situation, which I've never seen, and wanted input on the best way to handle it. The Random Editor was able to help me out. --Moonriddengirl 11:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be no coordinators. It is perfectly possible to coordinate projects as a community, establishing consensus. However this requires everyone to help out in implementing what has reached consensus. So everyone should be bold. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 12:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with moon-ridden girl. We should all just be bold instead. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 15:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good now that is settled. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 15:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] status table

The status table exists on 3 separate pages and anyone wishing to add their name to it has to do it 3 times separately. Can we move the table to a central location where it will display on every page that it needs to so that a new user only has to put their name on 1 table. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 17:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I have managed to do it myself. Thanks.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 17:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC

Which IRC channel does this project use? Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 18:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know we had one. Titoxd appears to be the only one on IRC. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 19:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. We're still working on that. I am on IRC, but not on a CVU channel. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I'm now on IRC (nick:J-stan), and I think we should revisit creating a channel for the task force. This would get us more active than we currently are. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Work People!

I just want to congratulate all who helped get this project running, now that is in fact running. I know we still have to get a few more tools working, such as our channel, but at least it's working. Let's put it to good use! J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 20:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Now get more people to join it, and it should be ok. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What else can we do apart from putting it on the WP:CVU page. Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 20:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

We can also suggest joining to newer editors on the talk page for the CVU. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's already been useful to me. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nathanww (talk · contribs) made a smart move by adding us as a new project at the Wikipedia:Community portal. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that it has been a pleasure working with all of you. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 23:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And you. :) And thanks to this new system, it will be easier to work together in the future. --Moonriddengirl 12:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ye, great work everyone:). Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 15:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Hi, not very good at reverting changes - Royal New Zealand Air Force has had a series of obvious vandalism/POV political commentary added in the last 4 edits - would someone more expert than I please help revert it? Winstonwolfe 04:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC) 04:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been reverted. In future the place to advise of vandalism is either WP:ANI, the Administrators Noticeboard - Incidents, or (if you know who the vandal is) WP:AIV, Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. While all help is appreciated it isn't worth worrying unduly about vandalism - it usually gets sorted out sooner rather than later. Thanks for the head-up anyway. LessHeard vanU 16:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What now?

Does anyone actually use the paging system? What is the mission of this project? If no one finds this useful, why do we have it? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This task force has become quite inactive. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So, what should we do? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 03:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

We need to question the aims of this project and whether this project is actually necessary. There are plenty of users who look out for vandalism etc using various methods and most of what we do can be done by WP:CVU. There doesn't seem to be a need for a paging system as no one uses it. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 11:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's put all this up for MfD. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 22:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 17:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A multi-nom including the members page and the communication page might be appropriate. I don't know how to list multiple pages for MfD though. Could you help with that? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 23:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical

One suggestion from the MfD was that we use a {{historical}} tag on this page. Thoughts? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The consensus of the MfD was keep, so I believe we should just leave it as it is. I note that yet another person added themselves to the list yesterday, which would indicate that interest in it persists. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess. It just seemed that no one seemed to be using the paging system. The activity board is quite useful, I've found. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Excuse me for sounding a bit thick, but why is my name highlighted in red? I checked the StatusBot page and I didn't show up. Does this take a while to start up? Two One Six Five Five (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC) It does. Call me Captain Smart. Two One Six Five Five (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No shame there. I didn't answer, because I didn't know, and I've been using this from the get-go. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, because it needs a bit of time (a few minutes) to detect that somebody has just signed up. In the meantime, the entry on the table looks red. After the bot picks up that you signed up, it turns gray/green/yellow. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Online

um..i'm online but the staus bar says im not help please.ANOMALY-117 (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It only detects that you are online when you are actually making edits. Also it generally takes a few minutes for it to detect that you are online. I hope this helps. --Mark (Mschel) 18:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What exactly qualifies as "high levels of vandalism"?

Could someone explain this to me please?--Urban Rose 20:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)