Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Some concerns

Hey folks. I've heard rumblings about the CVUA during my travels on wikipedia, it's the sort of thing people like to discuss with me because I've got a fair amount of experience with adoption techniques on WP and CVUA is effectively a specialised form of adoption. I want to make it clear that I think this is a great idea overall and I'd like to see you succeed. If there's anything that I can do to help out (from a higher level, I'm a bit busy to get into the nitty gritty of becoming an instructor) do let me know.
Now, to the concerns that I've heard. I won't go into the sources of the concerns, because I agree with them enough to bring them up and would be willing to discuss them as if they were my ideas.

1. Heirarchy and bureaucracy

   CVUA has a very heirarchical structure, which is against the general "anyone can edit" philosophy of a wiki. Everything points to "no one is more important than anyone else" and it's something I promote as much as I can. I don't like to see any users implying they have more authority than other users, be they experienced editors, adopters, admins, bureaucrats, arbcom members or Jimbo Wales himself, I will call them out on it if I see it. I have to ask, why do you need to have such strict requirements for enrollees and instructors? Why must roles be vetted and agreed on by current members? What would be so wrong with letting people make their own judgement about whether they are ready to be an instructor?

2. Social networking

   This doesn't bother me nearly as much as it bothers other people, but there is a perception that CVUA is a place to go for a chat, and make friends. Now, there's also sorts of grumpy essays and even a policy on this (WP:NOTFACEBOOK), which basically boil down to "We're here to build an encyclopedia". Now the reason that this doesn't bother me is that we are fundamentally a community and that with that social element, we would not have collaboration. But I must warn you, be careful you don't slip too far into the chattiness, or your good work will be undermined.

3. Fasttrack to rollback

   I feel this point has been laboured enough, but I'm going to have to say it again. It's important and if there are editors amongst you who do not get it, you will all be tarred with the same brush. CVUA is not a route to Rollback. I know that rollback is tied closely with vandalism, and so is CVUA, but if you do link the two, it will lead you down a path that will end up with the project being finished. I could go on further, about how rollback gives no authority, no status and very little benefit... it's a user right that is often held in low regard as it's main purpose is to turn two button presses into one. Many admins give it out freely for just that purpose. And as for status given... see my first point.

4. Fasttrack to adminship

   I'm afraid that vandalism fighting isn't a fast route to adminship. It's hard to believe as many people only see admins blocking vandals, so logically if you can show that you can identify vandals, you should be an admin. Unfortunately, from what I've read (and I've read a lot) due to the automated nature of vandal fighting and the level of policy knowledge required to spot vandalism, a vandal-fighter is likely to need tens of thousands of good edits before becoming an admin, not just the usual thousands. More than that, due to the other concerns, membership of this academy can draw oppose !votes, as Theopolisme is discovering.

I'm sure there are more, but those are the only ones that come to mind. I've watched many of you work, reviewed the archives and generally I've been impressed. The administrators who wander in and out are ones I really respect, I even nominated one for adminship just recently! I do get what you're trying to do and I hope to help you carry on doing it! Worm^TT(talk) 14:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

WTT is right, and it's something that, if this program is going to continue existing, needs to be dealt with. Worm, since you are experienced in adoption, maybe you can help us solve the problems that led to the bureaucracy in the first place. We had a new editor, a very new editor, come up and sign on as an Instructor. The user, IIRC, had very little evidence of counter vandalism and it was pretty clear that the user just wasn't experienced enough to be trusted with a new user. How would this situation be handled under the traditional adoption paradigm, since I don't believe they have coordination-style roles there?

As for Social Networking, and the belief that CVUA must lead to Rollback and Instructing here will lead to adminship, this is an issue of culture and all of the people who frequent this page need to be weary of it. This isn't just Worm saying "hey, cut it out", this is an issue that I have seen before, and one that we should actively attempt to curtail. Achowat (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT is currently a little bit defunct, something I do hope to sit down and sort out before the year is up. Unfortunately, in that program, there isn't an easy way of noticing an inexperienced users acting as an adopter. Indeed, I've seen cases where inexperienced users teach other users the wrong thing. However, if you zoom out a little bit and look at the bigger picture... If someone makes a mistake, it can be corrected on Wikipedia - there's nothing that is unfixable. Once it's fixed, someone will notice, be it the fixer, the adopter or the adoptee... that something was taught wrong. Then through the art of conversation, everyone learns for the future. In other words, focussing on the issue and it's a big problem, look at it from a bigger point of view, it's no big deal.

In your case, it's even easier, an inexperienced editor might sign up as an instructor, well, you'll know about it. This is where co-ordinators would be really good, they could chat to the new instructor, talk about their experiences, ask about the new chap's experience, offer a bit of advice and maybe even monitor them as they start out. That way, they're actually teaching the new chap without them even knowing it :) Worm^TT(talk) 14:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, and would be a good use for the Coordinators. When I served as Coord here, I always maintained a very 'hands-off' approach, never letting my "title" interfere with the good work either I, or anyone else, was doing. The coordinators "using their power" should be considered the nuclear option, used as a last resort when nothing else works. Conversation and discussion should be used, more than actual actions. Achowat (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've not really commented at the CVUA for a little while because I've been busy with other things (and am not a massive fan of long-winded conversations about process). Still, I have been thinking along the same lines as Worm recently, and believe that he has raised some important issues. The bureaucracy here is excessive and it could probably be cut down on drastically. I have always believed that the CVUA is not necessarily the best place for all new editors (some need to be adopted to learn the basics of Wikipedia, before they are ready for anti-vandalism training); nevertheless, the requirements - and, critically, the process - of enrolling here are probably superfluous. Perhaps we could have a much simplified system by which new students indicate their willingness to enrol and new instructors either accept them and begin instruction, leave them for another instructor, or gently suggest that the CVUA is not the best place for them (and propose an alternative, such as adoption). Having such stringent requirements for enrolment is probably unnecessary: I am sure that a new editor could, in theory, do well at the academy if they don't meet any of the requirements (I'll go through them all, if you want).

I see the hierarchy and bureaucracy as the main issue with the CVUA, and if we begin to deal with that, I see some of the other problems resolving themselves. I used to believe that the most important role of the coordinator would be long-term strategic planning, but I am beginning to wonder whether we need coordinators at all. Decision making is done by consensus (which we do not need a coordinator to interpret), anyone more experienced with instruction can help and monitor those less experienced, and cutting down on bureaucratic processes would make any of the coordinators' roles unnecessary. Long-term thinking is still probably necessary, but I'm not convinced that we need a role for that; Dan and Theo (and anyone else) are perfectly capable of that without a title.

Finally, I don't want this to sound overly-critical of the CVUA. There is a lot that it is doing well - it is helping newer users get better at fighting, which is the primary function. When reviewing things, I tend not to focus on the positives, because those areas don't need improvement. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying we should step down? Dan653 (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC) P.S. I'll comment some more later, but I need to put my thoughts together. I'm sure you can all understand that after 5 months of running smoothly these criticisms all of a sudden seem to come very abruptly and have me taken aback.

I'm not saying that necessarily (and please, it is nothing personal - you two have done a fantastic job); I'm just wondering if we've got to a point where coordinators have become unnecessary. I'm pretty sure that everything useful that you do could be done without the title. It seems that 'coordinatorship' is giving off the wrong messages and dissuading users from being bold (the discussion below illustrates that nicely, I think). I'm not arguing that the CVUA has not gone well; I am suggesting that (as there always should be) there is room for improvement. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Starting with WTT:

1. Everything that a coordinator does an instructor can do except for two things: determine consensus when the agree and disagrees are close (Sorta like bureaucrats at RFA) and give the tick or await when the enrollee doesn't quite meet the requirements. Based on "If you are not sure, or feel that you are close enough to begin but don't meet the exact letter of the guideline, feel encouraged to add your name anyway and we will try to work with you. They're only guidelines, after all." I disagree that these are strict guidelines at all. As Acho said when we didn't have guidelines for instructors we nearly got to dispute resolution or mediation cabal (I can't remember which one). For the sake of keeping the academy running smoothly these requirements, to be used as a guideline came about. Why are there roles you ask? Well as Zippy said to give long term views for the academy. Without coords I doubt that anyone would have restarted the CVU Vandalism Studies project or put the task force up for MFD. That's why we need coords. To give a long term vision.
2. I don't tend to think there is much if any idle chat on the CVU pages, but with that in mind I don't disagree with you, we'll try not to "slip", but also nothing would get done if we didn't talk.
3. I know. People have thick skulls because sometimes I wonder if it gets through. CVUA is not = to Rollback Rights, I get it, as I always have.
4. Yup, agreed.

To acho (and everyone):

1. Peoples cut the chatter!!! :P

To WTT:

1. I think in a small project with few issues, non recently, if anything comes up it seems bigger, then it might actually be.

To Acho:

1. I tend to think of myself as hands off too, but when there are four students not being taken by any instructors someones gotta say why don't you take this student, because if someone doesn't do it they're gonna sit there for weeks. Do I wish I could just leave it up to the instructors? Of course! but things just don't turn out that way.

To Zippy:

1. The "bureaucracy here is excessive"? There's only two of us Zippy... The requirements aren't stringent, they're guidlines.
2. A title is a title. That's all it is.
3. What is positive here? I'm honestly curious?

To Myself:

To Zippy:

1. See second point to Acho which shows why coords are not redundant.
   

Dan653 (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Dan, please don't take my comments the wrong way - I don't mean to threaten the project, nor your role in it, in any way. However, I do believe it doesn't match the "anyone can edit" philosophy of wikipedia. There are very few areas where "anyone can edit" is ignored, user right being the primary one. However the community doesn't like new userrights, it doesn't like reducing areas where "anyone can edit". For example, recently at WP:BN there was a big kerfuffle over a new set of userrights for the Wikipedia Education Program. Besides user-rights, there was the TEAHOUSE, where hosts had to meet criteria during the pilot stage. This is no longer true, questions are answered by non-hosts all the time.

As for the idea that the project has not had any problems for months... I'm sorry, but that's just not true. I've had a number of editors and admins come to me to ask what I thought of the CVUA. They all brought up similar concerns, which I've summarised above. You may not have been aware of the issues but they were there. I'm happy that my last three points don't need dealing with, as long as you are all aware of the issues and keep them in mind for the future, but I'd love to hear some thoughts on a proposed new system below. Worm^TT(talk) 09:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

WTT proposed new system

The goal of the CVUA is To train budding anti-vandals how to better deal with vandalism. This is acheived by a one to one buddy system, with more experienced vandal fighters working with those who have an interest in the area. The three roles of the system are:

• Enrollee - any editor who is interested in learning about anti-vandalism
• Instructor - any editor who has experience in anti-vandalism and is interested in helping enrollees
• Co-ordinator - an editor who is willing to take responsibility for making sure things run smoothly.

Under normal circumstances, potential enrollees post on the enrollment page with any information decided upon. From there an instructor will volunteer to take the enrollee on. If no instructor steps forward, the co-ordinator pokes the more likely possibilities but if none are willing, the co-ordinator explains to the potential enrollee that there is no current availability for them, the reasons why and gives the editors suggestions for the future.

The important things to notice about this system is that there are no requirements for each role. You do not need to have X edits, rollback or made Y reports to AIV to be an instructor. Co-ordinators need not be elected, I would say anyone with an active interest in the project can fulfil the role. Editors who do not appear have sufficient experience to be an instructor should be approached by those who have more experience... it's not too hard to watchlist their pages. Worm^TT(talk) 09:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This system seems like a good solution. Addresses the concerns without really changing the way we do business, at least from the Front End. Achowat (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I like it, but I'm not sure. What sounds good in words might not go as smoothly in action. With that in mind I would like to propose that we trial run this for a week or two. No problems and we'll stick with it, minor problems we tweak, and major problems it's back to the drawing board. If that sounds good could someone remove all references to the requirements from the CVUA? Dan653 (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I just remembered this: Wikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy/Archive_2#The_Role_of_the_Coordinator. Dpes this new system change any of this? Dan653 (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me, trials are a great idea - I never thought my concept would be the be all and end all. As for the old role of a co-ordinator, it's fairly similar, without the constraints. You'd watching the page and keeping an eye on the business of the instructors, but also providing strategic vision and leadership as Zippy suggested. This might include, say, a recruitment drive for instructors (perhaps from graduating students) if you don't have enough Worm^TT(talk) 07:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, great. And trust me, we got plenty of instructors. Dan653 (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support Electric Catfish 21:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• +1 DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support but I suggest trialing it for a month (or at least until the end of this month) as, most of the time, not a lot happens during a week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  Agreed How about two weeks? A month seems kinda long. Dan653 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea. I think that giving 'coordinatorship' to anyone willing to help out will ease the burden of the two at the moment and allow anyone willing and capable to step forwards, without having to commit themselves to a whole 'role'. A trial period seems like a good idea; don't really mind how long for. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry for taking a while to chime in here, but I agree with above - a trial run sounds like the way to do it, though, just to make sure. Theopolisme _TALK 11:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

  Trial run seems good - I have no problem with a month, seems like a good length of time, but anytime is ok. The ideas are good. But, instead of dithering etc, let's get the trial started ASAP, when everything is ready. --Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 12:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion by Tito

"When someone will enrol and meets requirement we'll copy paste his name in a discussion page (to discuss who'll be instructor), there active instructors can suggest own/anyone's else's name (if they suggest anyone else's name the suggested instructor need to reply within 24 hours to get the student (this is to avoid unacceptable delay, as said). But please not in the enrolment discussion" TitoDutta

"I think this would be a good time to invoke WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. If we treat every student like an RFC it will use up a lot of time for not a lot of gain. I also believe that introducing a process like this will only add to comments like Kudpungs on Theo's RFA: 'I have commented several times that I find the CVU project has become unnecessarily bureaucratised and has introduced pseudeo hierarchies and leaderships." Callanecc

So what does everyone think? Dan653 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't need a whole discussion for who can take a student. Whoevers free can have them. Let's just keep it simple and avoid creating so many CVUA pages for enrolees.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 19:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I just made this reply on Dan's talk page. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree, and support Callan's points about WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY strongly as well. Theopolisme _TALK 20:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the disagree. Dan653 (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what is needed for projects like this is not discussions about how to do the work, but for people to get down and do it. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

There is an increasing tendency on WK for top down decision making and associated structures then get created. Its just bureaucracy-creation. Every wikipeadian (I think) should be as autonomous as possible in their actions, so picking a candidate should be down to instructors. Each instructor I assume checks out the candidates record (Dan did mine) so The instructor can make a free choice, based on what they see. Keep it simple :) Irondome (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have carefully checked recent enrolment discussions once again, the thing I feared "unsystematic approach" that is (thankfully) completely absent and after rechecking I am also satisfied with current procedure! --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, ItsZippy, I did not check (read "missed") your post in Dan's talk page! Sorry! It was just a suggestion which can be thought if we find manual picking up is creating chaos. But, since we have all good instructors now. I don't think it'll be needed! Unfortunately Regards! --Tito Dutta ✉ 11:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Important note regarding enrolment page archiving

The default template to activate automatic archiving has been changed from {{already done}} to {{resolved1}}. The new template appears as  Resolved. The change was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Academy/Enroll. Mdann52 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

So umm do I like get credit for making {{resolved1}}? I put hours of work into it ;). -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 05:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well done, Riley! Looks good - better than the old one.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 12:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

AWB help

My student at CVU has requested assistance with Auto Wiki Browser. I have little experience with it and hope that someone would be willing to assist me. You can either leave a message on my talk page or email me. I would appreciate any help that someone can offer. --Morning277 (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CVUAQ - Failed Experiment

So, I think it's time to bite the bullet and realize that our Q&A section is a failure, and likely not to be useful, y'know, ever. It's been live for exactly as long as the Academy has been, and while the latter has seen 42 students, the former has seen exactly two (2) real questions. There are three potential 'solutions' to this issue, that I can think of. Feel free to comment in regards to each solution, and add others if some other solution comes to you. Achowat (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Mark as historical - We tried, let's cut our losses and depricate its use.
2. Do some sort of marketing - Try and make it work, (though I don't know how).
3. Take out the "/Academy" - Would it be helpful to make the CVUAQ just the CVUQ? WP:CVU gets about twice the traffic that WP:CVU gets, so maybe bringing it to a wider audience would be useful.

We have so many pages - I don't understand why we just can't have questions asked on this page to a) reduce clutter and b) more users view this page than the other one, so answers will be quicker. A question page for the CVU in general may make sense, but seen as the CVU/A is a smaller sub-project, let's keep the amount of pages to a minimum. I agree the Q page hasn't received much attention.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 19:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, ideally WT:CVUA should be about discussing the way we work. Achowat (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad you figured it out, Morse. Ideally it should be, but, if no one gives attention to the Q page (admittedly, I very rarely look at it) is there a point? Maybe I'm just being a bit odd, but just the way I view it :)--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 19:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the issue isn't "We're not responding to questions", because no one checks Q or whatever, the problem is that no one is asking any questions. Achowat (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well that might mean that folks are using other ways to get answers, or perhaps our main page is clear enough that they do not need to ask any questions. If I was signing up and didn't know how to enrol, I'd go to the enrol talk, or ask an instructor. Failing that I'd come here. The thing is, maybe there are just other, convenient ways which are being used.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 19:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, the original purpose wasn't to ask questions about the Academy, but to allow Instructors to answer small-ish questions about Counter-Vandalism from users. Achowat (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, then if it's about Counter-Vandalism in general, it should be CVUQ, without the magical A.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 20:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think changing it to WP:CVUQ is the way to do it - and use it as another counter-vandalism resource for people with questions. I'll be happy to do the rewriting/logo changing/whatever if no one has any objections... Theopolisme _TALK 20:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Best wait until others give the 'ok' , but when that happens, move it to WP:CVUQ, remove the academy logo and replace with CVU one and reword where needed.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 20:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And, if this is the way we want to go, find a nice place to put it at WP:CVU. Achowat (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

"Ok" :P Just be bold and do it. Dan653 (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... Theopolisme _:) 22:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Wow, that was a lot of stuff. xD I also put something on the WP:CVU page - take a look? Dinner now - back later! Theopolisme _:) 23:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Like Dan653 (talk) 23:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys, you forgot to update and move this: Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Questions. ;) benzband (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I am in support of using here as few talk pages as possible. Remember that people here are mostly new users, lets not confuse them. :) --DBigXray 09:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You have just utterly confused me. benzband (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

As you have done to me, DBig. Care to rephrase that? Also, @Ben - we need an admin to move it. Theopolisme _:) 11:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you asked an admin yet Theo? If not I'll ask Zippy. Dan653 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you please? Thanks - Theopolisme _:) 20:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Dan653 (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! (also note this is from my "public" account -- just clarifying ) Theopolisme _(public) 00:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

For new potential CVUA trainees

Is any of the instructor keeping an eye on WP:RFP/R on the accepted and rejected users there ? In my opinion editors from both these categories are can be invited to WP:CVUA (provided they do not have a troublesome history). I guess in past Catfish used to do it, but no ones doing it now. just thought to let you know, regards--DBigXray 23:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I still continue to template people who's requests are rejected (No, I do not clerk there!), as those users are generally interested in anti-vandalism but aren't deemed experienced enough to get the rollback flag. Electric Catfish 23:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In many cases, the closing admin - who will of course have made all the necessary checks - will make such a recommendation in his/or closure if necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you catfish good to see you are up and kicking, I was talking about the invitation part (not the clerking ;-). Good to see that admin User:Kudpung is also taking care of this above but I am not very sure that all the admins at WP:RFP/R are aware of WP:CVUA program for newbies. If they are aware then that would be good.--DBigXray 09:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Some time on my hands...

So I did this. Might save someone a few seconds sometime. :) Theopolisme _:) 05:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Advice needed

One of my students hasn't replied to any of my post on his talk page. It seems that he is not much interested. What to do? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd look at the User's contributions. If it seems the s/he has moved on to another project, leave a nice little "Hey, it seems like you've taken to {Editing articles about American professional jugglers (or whatever)}. That's wonderful, and it seems like you're doing good work. If you have any other questions or would like to pick up where we left off with your Academy work, see my talk page." Achowat (talk) 13:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/ Acho - if after this they reply and say, "yeah - not very interested right now" or whatever, don't forget to go ahead and remove them from the status page. :) Theopolisme _:) 19:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Morning277

I have removed Morning277 (talk · contribs) from the status page as he has been indeffed following his SPI. Electric Catfish 23:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Theopolisme _:) 00:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What about his students? Dan653 (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Did not except this. His students can be given to people who have no students or are requesting more.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 09:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I've added jmajeremy to the enroll page with Swister's two students. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please take GoShow (talk · contribs)? Electric Catfish 13:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

 Already done Dan653 (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yunshui

He hasn't edited in over two weeks and his student seems to have been left behind. I think we should move him to inactive and someone should take his student, but does anyone else have a different idea? Dan653 (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment - from memory he'll be back in about a week. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 16:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We can call it a "Wikibreak", then - does his student know? Theopolisme _:) 21:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No. Dan653 (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-Ads

I know the idea has been floated around, but does anyone have or want to start working on something solid, so we can nail down getting a wiki-ad. Dan653 (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried to make one two weeks ago but I failed.. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 02:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Was it something technical that made it fail or was it something else? Is there anyway we can help? Dan653 (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

editnotice

Previous discussion here.

Out of interest, what happened in the end? benzband (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Died out. Probably as a result of taking the advice of Worm (and a few other experienced users) to significantly reduce the bureaucracy here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've moved, edited and tagged the resulting redirect for deletion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Might as well finish the job, then have bits leftover. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Callan, it's very much appreciated. Dan653 (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Riley

His student, Activism, has not graduated. Could someone please take him? Dan653 (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I spoke to Riley over IRC earlier, and he said that they had graduated - so this may not be an issue Mdann52 (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Activism is also now an instructor, Theopolisme 11:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Stiki

I'm just pointing out that the use of Stiki requires either 1,000 edits to mainspace, or rollback rights. Rollback rights are accorded on admin discretion after fully examining the request and will generally require significant proven experience of manual counter-vandalism. A successful pass at the 'Academy' may, or may not, be taken into consideration. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Academy was given an excemption by the developers at STiki. At an instructor's discretion, a student may be given STiki access, as it's assumed that the instructor will be looking over the edits of the student. Achowat (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of ensuring everyone knows what's going on and where, might be worth also having a look at WT:STiki#CVUA Student Access Request, WT:PERM#Stiki is a great tool, User talk:Dan653#access request for STIKI. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

We are, of course, happy to change this in the face of wider community consensus. This was agreed between the Academy and the developers of STiki - there was consensus amongst us, but the community might think differently (then again, they might not). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've commented at Dan's page (linked by Callanecc), but I don't see a huge problem with CVUA bypassing the default requirements for STiki. I do think that at the level of editing in this incident, a little more experience would have been a good thing, but it's down to the developers in lieu of wider community consensus. Perhaps a suggestion to CVUA instructors that the enrollee has shown some evidence of being able to handle STiki, a certain number of reverts or a few lessons taught?Worm^TT(talk) 14:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

DBigXRay suggested that the student should have read and understand WP: VAND. Electric Catfish 15:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe in its current form, where it's open to such interpretation, that is insufficient, I'm willing to assume good faith - but I would prefer to see some evidence that the policy had been understood. For example, in my adoption course, I require editors to show a few examples of vandalism that they could find. Worm^TT(talk) 15:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:CVUA/IM#Requesting tool access. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 17:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)