Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Revamp of the CVUA

Hi everyone! We previously discussed this, however the conversation dried out. In a nutshell,

The CVUA Needs a Revamp

The proposal was for a month long trial of Worm That Turned's new system, which was:

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.

In brief, this new CVUA should eliminate the bureaucracy surrounding the current project by removing the strict restrictions and guidelines surrounding the different "positions" - by allowing anyone to learn about counter-vandalism, our reach will immediately increase. By allowing anyone to instruct, the rules will dissolve, and therefore a list of arbitrary restrictions will stop being an obstacle. Removing the set coordinator rule has two distinct purposes, 1st of which is to stop important decisions from being delayed simply by time, 2nd of which is that removing the unneeded limitations on who can do what will stop others from being afraid to participate, which should not only encourage others to participate but also remove the fake "shell" of anti-"outsider" behaviors that surrounds the CVUA.

I feel that this would definitely be the next step for the CVUA, and I propose running a trial from September 1st to October 1st. (This should give us time to prepare the pages/new text/etc.) Thoughts? Theo polisme _:) 15:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Go right ahead, just sandbox it before september 1st. Dan653 (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I have started a draft, please help with it if you have a chance! Theo polisme _:) 17:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Telling them what barnstar(s) to give to the instructor sounds a bit odd. benzband (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree... I think that was just left over from the current one - no worries, I removed it. Theo polisme 18:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Great! On september 1st we'll put it up. Dan653 (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic idea; this is exactly what the project needs. The page could be clearer regarding coordinators: it suggests that anyone can become one by signing up, but then refers to "the coordinator" further on. That could do with clarifying. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to clarify something first - is the coordinator position literally something anyone can become, or does it require something else first: say, being an instructor for x in order to show you understand how the CVUA runs? Theo polisme 19:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. "Coordinator" just means someone who's willing to care about the back-end part of Vandalism training, as opposed to simply instructing. Achowat (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright - just checking. In that case, I will change the wording from "the coordinator" to "a coordinator", or something in that general concept. Theo polisme 20:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, please see this draft for the new enroll page - it removes all the ticking/"clerking" and instead is quite simple: you put your name down, and instructor comes and contacts you. Theo polisme 11:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is good that we have kept coordinator very open. It means that if, after the trial period, we find that it has caused problems, we can raise the bar (very slightly), until we find something that works. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been watching for quite a while before offering any opinion or criticism of the CVUA. I will be quite honest when I say that I feel that CVUA is a waste of time and an unnecessary over-extension of bureaucracy. I have, however, tried to keep an open mind as I spent the last week going into the background of both instructors and graduates of the academy. I have selected ten graduates of the CVUA at random, as well as ten recent change patrollers that have not been a part of the academy. All twenty of these individuals actively revert vandalism AND make reports to WP:AIV. All of them have at least two hundred vandalism reverts and at least ten vandalism noticeboard reports. There are only two metrics that are totally objective and can give a good benchmark by which to judge the competency of graduates of the academy; and that is percentage of correct vandalism reversion and percentage of correct AIV reports. My assessment of the ten self taught reverters was that they had a 94.5% record of correct reversions, (errors tended to include reversion of correct material, good faith edits labelled vandalism, etc.) and an 85% correct AIV report rate. Of the CVUA graduates, the correct revision rate was 93.0% and 90% correct AIV reports. When you figure in the margin of error and the fact that this was a relatively small sampling, the results suggest that CVUA as it stands right now is not really accomplishing much aside from having a localized hub for asking questions. Now... the questions is WHY is all this individualized one-on-one effort not really yielding any greater results that apparently come from self teaching? I see a lot of dedicated mentors here (oh... and it's nit-picky as hell, but I am going to suggest mentor sounds better than instructor... at least more personable and more to the tune of what you are trying to accomplish), but unfortunately a lot of them aren't all that much more experienced than the people they are supposed to be teaching. One idea that immediately comes to mind is creating instruction teams rather than one on one instruction. Each vandalism reverter has their own strengths and weaknesses, what one catches... others might not. Consider the possibility of instead of having one mentor cover two students, have a team of three mentors cover six students. A mentoring team would identify issues that an individual might not, not to mention being more responsive to immediate questions. Trusilver 00:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

An interesting idea. We'll definetly think about it after our first major overhaul. I think that too many changes at once will frazzle the "mentors". Dan653 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea Dan. Trusilver, there's another factor to keep in mind, which is that CVUA is bringing in fresh blood to the encyclopedia and still getting high accuracy rates (though you could be doing better guys!). Many of the editors being helped have less than 1000 edits to their name, and having a friendly go-to point is invaluable. WP:ADOPT is largely defunct at the moment... I will be sorting that eventually... and WP:Mentoring was re-written from one person's point of view by a now blocked editor (I'm going have to look at that too) - CVUA is certainly a good thing in the grand scheme of things, even if they are not accomplishing much from that point of view. What's more, the graduates are reverting vandalism, which is necessary and useful. A group system may work well at the WP:Teahouse, but the nature of this mentoring requires the instructors/mentors to look over the contributions of their proteges, and I think it might lead to editors slipping through the net. Worm^TT(talk) 08:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why wait? I have begun to initialize the new "trial" of our new system - please make changes as you see fit. Thanks! Theo polisme 11:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Instructional Methods

Having borrowed heavily from ItsZippy's content (thank you), and as someone who develops training programs for a living, I believe we should have a minimally acceptable defined outcome that must be achieved in order to consider someone 'graduated'. We do have the "Required Lesson" section on the Instruction Methods page, but there's is not (to my knowledge) any mechanism in place to actually be sure that the enrollee has achieved all those lessons. At present, there are new instructors coming into the program (some of whom graduated only the day before they become an instructor) and they're left a bit to their own devices as to how to achieve the results we seek. As noted above, there's a sense that we need more instructors, and if we get them, I think that situation will only grow. In most cases, I suspect new instructors will likely follow the techniques that were used with them, but I'm also concerned when I see comments such as that of Trusilver above stating that there's little perceived value in the Academy. Whether it's a final exam or specific tasks that every enrollee must complete successfully I believe it's in our best interests as an Academy to have specific standards of achievement in order to consider oneself "graduated".

I can't remember the instructor from which I got the inspiration (though I thank them!) but I also create a page where the enrollee and I can have direct conversation about their tasks, progress and standing. This is also where I ensure they can perform the tasks that are required of them and I suggest they make this available to the admins reviewing WP:PERM when they request rollback permissions as evidence of their ability. If you'd like, have a look at the academy pages I create for my enrollees here, here or here.

Does this revamp present us the opportunity to standardize the meaning (and therefore improve the credence) of actually having graduated? Just a thought... happy to help in any way I can. Thanks. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 19:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with what you're getting onto here. We've traditionally left the curriculum quite open - and making some strict(er) end requirements seems like it would make a lot of sense. I think that requiring a final exam would make sense - but if others have any other suggestions, I'm quite open. I do think this revamp provides the opportunity to solve lots of the problems that have plagued the CVUA - and that's exactly what we need to be doing! Cheers, Theo polisme 19:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Prescribing how instructors are to teach their students does seem to go a little against the move towards a more open and accessible CVUA that we are trying to develop. Having said that, having desired outcomes might help with consistency (and move towards resolving the issues Truesilver raised above. I would want to keep any prescription to a minimum, perhaps just something that says "by the end of the course, a CVUA student should be able to show that they understand/are able to...". We should allow instructors to work as they wish, and if we see instructors who perhaps need a little support themselves, we can offer that to them. I wouldn't want to see 'required lessons', nor a standardised graduation exam, but saying what we expect graduates to know and be able to do would be helpful. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I like your points. Consolidating the WP:CVUA/IM page into some concise information about what students should learn would make sense. Theo polisme 21:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with not wanting to be overly prescriptive, but I also know that there's a talent to teaching that isn't universal, and purely from an instructional design perspective (yes, I'll admit I do have that bias), you'd always want your learning objectives to be SMART - specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-bound. So, you might build an objective that says, "Upon graduation from CVUA, the student will have demonstrated their ability to consistenly differentiate good faith edits from vandalism." The question that now invites is, "How will we measure that". If you want to leave that open to each instructor (many of whom will be new), then we'll kind of take our chances with the credibility the academy brings forth and I don't think we'll do much to quiet the criticism, but I'll absolutely go along with consensus on that issue. All that said, I don't quite see how the establishment of success measures goes against being open and accessible. Those do not seem to be at odds with one another to my thinking. There's nothing in a competency-based training program that precludes a wide recruitment of candidate students. It does however, give the students a clearer understanding of exactly what they're signing up for. I've seen conversations on the enrollment page where the enrollees have to ask what CVUA is all about. I think it would actually benefit the academy to be clearer up front about what will be expected of them. This is particularly true if we're going to recruit a lot of people to the academy and make a lot of new people instructors. It will actually lead to greater ease in recruiting instructors if we provide the tools to ensure the goals of the academy can be met. I think it would be prudent to remember that there's a difference between completing a curriculum and proving you learned something. Any true academy should be able to illustrate the abilities their graduates have achieved. Thanks for the opportunity to have a dialogue here! Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 21:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What you say makes sense, Vertium; I wasn't saying that your ideas are necessarily over-bureaucratic, just that excessive bureaucracy is something we are trying to avoid and so, if we are to look at something like this, we will need to do it as un-bureaucratically as possible. Perhaps a brief overview of what we expect graduates will have learnt somewhere would be good (can tell the difference between good faith and vandalism, can give appropriate warnings, etc); perhaps someone could create a draft somewhere that we can look at (I would myself, but it's getting late). I think monitoring instructors is a related but separate issue, which we can do quite informally. Any experienced instructors who are willing are able to watch other instructors, and can give advice, or offer to informally monitor less experienced instructors. I don't think we need a process for monitoring, provided that some of us are willing to spend a bit of time watching how others are delivering their courses. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll put some content out here for discussion over the weekend. It's not so late here right now, but it's been a long week, so I'm headed for a little R&R tonight. Thanks! Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 23:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I also agree completely, but I think the solutions are not so easy as a minor change in methods. As I mentioned to Worm That Turned a couple weeks back, I feel that the biggest thing this project suffers from is a lack of credibility. I think it seriously needs to start feeling less like a social club and more like an actual project. One thing that I would like to stress is that the instructors themselves need to be practicing what they are teaching. A cursory review of the current roster of instructors shows me that a FULL 50% of instructors have not done any significant vandalism reversion in the last 10 days, despite being active on the project. more than 25% of the instructors have not done any significant vandal whacking in a month or more. I have a very hard time taking anyone seriously who pretends to be teaching antivandalism, but doesn't seem to trouble themselves with actually participating in that pursuit... especially when it's someone who is supposed to be coordinating the project. I understand completely what Itszippy is talking about in wanting an open and accessible CVUA, but I feel that it undermines the legitimacy of the project when the bar is set so low for instructor qualifications that it's a tripping hazard. I will once again make clear that I think this project has potential, but not in its current incarnation. Trusilver 02:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I have said I won't be chiming in with any more criticisms or suggestions on the CVU/CVUA talk pages (you all know why), and I won't be, but in the interests of transparency and to demonstrate that some experienced users are genuinely concerned in the very best interests of the Wikipedia as a whole, I'm linking to this thread. And CVUers, please don't take it the wrong way. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Since I'm relatively new to the academy, it's probably not relevant that I add to any conversation about how things have been done historically nor how things came to be where they are (nor do I know why Kudpung won't be "chiming in with any more criticisms or suggestions". What I've read above and in the conversation shared by Kudpung seems to indicate that overall (with exception, of course) there's a fundamental belief that the academy can be valuable to the project as a whole. What's not helping it are some concerns and doubts. As for the concern over "credibility", I'd like to understand the source of this concern. I don't find the percentage calculations of someone's recent reversions a meaningful indicator of credibility because I know that many (myself included) have a finite amount of time to donate to the project and if we're teaching others, contributing to AfDs, participating in RfAs or simply editing articles in order to improve them, we're not spending that time fighting vandalism. Signing up as an instructor for the Academy was in no way intended to convey that fighting vandalism is the only activity in which I plan to engage. Further, I'm disinclined to debate exactly what constitutes a "significant" amount of vandalism reversion as I can say for myself, I don't have to fight vandalism every day in order to know it when I see it and help others learn to fight it. People are donating their time and expertise, so let's just say "thank you" to them and look for ways to improve outcomes rather than take people to task for the past. If there are specific issues leading to a credibility concern, let's put them on the table and discuss them. Consensus is the watchword here, so my personal request is that we get specific with what needs improvement and drive to some form of consensus about achieving that improvement. I'll live with the outcome, but from what I can gather, we seem to be swirling around historical criticisms, and I'd genuinely appreciate just fixing what's broken and moving on. I can tell you this from a professional perspective: without having defined instructional objectives and a consistent approach (e.g. curriculum, rubric, etc.) to achieving them (with certain tailoring allowed and encouraged within guidelines), then having someone graduate doesn't really tell others exactly what they're capable of doing. Which means that it doesn't really mean anything. If we want an academy where its graduates have a sense of both accomplishment and recognition, there has to be some rigor. If not, we're just a loose group of people helping others learn more about fighting vandalism. If that's all we want, that's fine too... but just understand the implications. All that said, let's do what needs to be done and once consensus is achieved, let's all not chime in with further criticism... only suggestions. Thanks. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 18:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that was very helpful, and I agree with a lot of it. I do believe, as I think you do, that measuring the outcomes of the CVUA will be useful to us, and help us get better (as well as gauge whether the academy is successful). I found Truesilver's analysis above unhelpful, as he was not comparing like with like - it might be worth comparing how well students did at anti-vandalism before they entered the academy, and how well they did afterwards. That would show whether or not our efforts are working, and would also help us highlight which areas of anti-vandalism we need to improve teaching, and also which instructors need support. I think a statistical analysis like that would be a good place to start with improvements, as it would show us what needs to be improved. I would be happy to get started on this, but I don't have a great deal of time to contribute to the project. Would others be willing to help me? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Vertium - my thoughts echo much of what Zippy said. I agree that some sort of analysis would make much sense - and would be happy to do it. I think we need to nail down what specifically we're looking at/for: AIV reports? User warnings? Revert counts? Accuracy before and after? Theo polisme 20:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism reverting accuracy would be the obvious place to start. We would need to randomly select (and I mean randomly) a pool of students who have graduated; we would then look at their vandal reverting accuracy before hand (take a sample of 50 vandalism random reverts from before they joined the CVUA, say), and then do the same for 50 random reverts after they graduated, and see if they improved or not. If that starts to give us useful results, we can then begin to look at other metrics. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the main point of this whole conversation is: When a student graduates what should they know? A side point: Maybe the above could be the next VS? Dan653 (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Instructor requirement

Hello everyone. I respect everyone's opinion and would appreciate your comments. I think there should be one at least one requirement to be an instructor... Rollback. We (or at least I) want new users to learn correctly (and Trusilver's comments above show that this may be more of an issue than we thought originally), especially since mistakes are permanent. I think it is best for the student to have an instructor that has first hand experience with Rollback. Editors who have the rollback user right have shown that they can identify what is, and what is not, vandalism - and have access to all the tools a student might also want to learn about (for example, Huggle). If a student graduates and is granted rollback and has questions about rollback, Huggle, Igloo or anything else, we need instructors that are able to answer those questions instead of people who just redirect new users to guides.

Opinions, questions, objections? -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 06:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No objections. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 20:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No objections either. --Activism1234 20:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

We have just started a trial which is specifically designed to see if having no bar to becoming an instructor (including requiring rollback) will work. Do you think we could wait until the trial is over, before rushing to change it? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Editors should use their own judgement before putting themselves down as a Counter Vandalism Unit Academy instructor. Rollback; a right which converts two clicks into one, should not be a requirement. There might be some good reverters who just don't want to convert two clicks into one, and can tell the difference between what is vandalism, and what is not vandalism. In my experience, Rollback is often handed out due to about 50-100 reverts, which isn't much, considering I've done over 2,000 reverts. Therefore, I Strongly Oppose this. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Closed until the trial is over. It makes no sense to talk about requirements, especially when we just did away with all of them for the time being. Dan653 (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose There is a discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Rollback regarding that twinkle users might not need rollback.--Anderson - What's up? 01:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion has been closed for the time being. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 02:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Some things for you to ponder

As I noted above, I promised I'd take a stab at this and I thought I'd have more time, so this isn't as complete as I would like, but I don't want to slow down the conversation. In fact, I rather live by the motto of my 10th Grade English Teacher, who told me there was "no such thing as good writing, only good re-writing!", so I invite your markup (or complete re-write) on any of this. I just want to get the ball rolling and focus on the outcomes.

Introduction and Learning Objectives

(this should be on the enrollee page, so they know what is expected of them)

The Counter Vandalism Unit Academy is a structured educational program to help new vandal fighters become more knowledgeable and consistent in the battle against vandalism. While each enrollee will be assigned an instructor to guide them through the learning path of the Academy, we strive for consistency and excellence from the Academy’s graduates and therefore, we have established these objectives for your learning as part of the academy. At the conclusion of your learning within the Academy, you will be able to:

Define and describe how to identify and revert vandalism, differentiating such vandalism from good faith edits made within the wiki;
Revert vandalism using a variety of tools;
Determine and apply the correct warnings on vandal’s talk pages when you discover vandalism;
Report repetitive vandals on the appropriate admin noticeboard for blocking actions; and
Constructively communicate with other editors should they question your reversion activities.

Rubric

(This is for the instructors, in order to grade their enrollees and certify that they've achieved the necessary qualifications to graduate. This is a FIRST DRAFT - so mark it up any way you like!)

Competency	Fail	Pass
Knowledge and Understanding of Concepts Able to correctly define and describe: How to identify vandalism The importance of assuming good faith Differentiate between vandalism and good faith edits The purpose and correct use of warning templates The best way of dealing with trolls	Cannot describe these concepts at a comprehensible level. Unable to differentiate the difference between vandalism and good faith edits Does not understand the key purpose of reverting vandalism	Can concisely and elaborately describe each of these concepts. Can describe the proper use of warning templates and how to correctly make an AIV submission.
Critical Thinking Able to review historical reversions and identify whether such reversion were correctly categorized	Correctly assessed fewer than 85% of the examples provided by their instructor.	Correctly assessed at least 85% of the examples provided by their instructor.
Communication Able to effectively communicate with other editors regarding reversions	Communicates inconsistently with editors via talk page comments or in response to editors who question or challenge their reversions.	Communicates in a polite and professional manner and avoids biting other editors and harsh comments.
Application Effectively applies the concepts and tools of vandalism fighting in a productive and proficient manner.	Cannot consistently revert vandalized pages correctly. Is inconsistent in use of warning on user talk pages or uses incorrect warning templates Has reverted fewer than 50 instances of vandalism in the two weeks prior to graduation - or – has reverted more 50 instances of vandalism with a high degree of incorrect reversions.	Demonstrates proficiency in performing reversions, either manually or with a tool (Twinkle, etc.). Consistently leaves the correct messages on vandal’s talk page explaining the reversion, and is able to further explain the vandal their reasoning behind the reversion if prompted. Has accurately reverted at least 50 instances of vandalism in the two weeks prior to graduation.

Some tools I've used

Again, I borrowed a lot from ItsZippy and have added a few things myself. I include these here only to offer these to anyone else who'd find them helpful or to come up with a superset of examples from which the instructors could borrow for each of their students. I believe that mixing-and-matching is a good thing so I'm always on the lookout for more examples.

Knowledge and Concepts Question: Please describe below the difference between a good faith edit and a vandalism edit, and how you would tell them apart.

Question: Please describe the various warning levels for vandalism and when it's appropriate to use each.

Question: How would you personally determine the difference between a good faith user asking why you reverted their edit, and a troll trying to harass you? What are the appropriate actions for each?

Question: When is it appropriate to submit an editor to AIV?

Critical Thinking The following diffs illustrate various reverts that have been done by other editors or rollbackers. Please indicate whether you agree with the revert and its categorization as either a good-faith revert or vandalism. Also, please explain your rationale for your decision. (Note to instructors - a couple of these that I selected are deliberately vague as I really wanted to know the thinking that my student was putting into their decisions. We will have to agree on the correct answers and apply this consistently. If additional diffs are added to this list, the correct answer must be provided as well so we're all being consistent.)

Reversions classified as "Good Faith edits":

Reversions classified as "Vandalism":

Communication - done primarily through audit

Application - done primarily through audit

then, this task: Please find and revert three examples of good faith but unhelpful edits, and three examples of vandalism. Please warn the editors with the correct template and give the diffs of your reverts below.

Good faith

Vandalism

Again, not trying to force this specific content, but also didn't want to suggest that we have such tools without contributing. We can adapt/change it any way you like. Thanks! Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 22:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually impressed with the Rubric. It conveys the essence of what someone should know coming out of this program. The only thing I would change is to include an expectation of 90-95% (I think it should be 95, 90 would be acceptable) correct reverts in the two weeks prior to graduation. That seems like a high bar, but I firmly believe that anyone who is misidentifying vandalism more than one out of every ten attempts probably shouldn't be doing recent change patrol to begin with. Overall, though, it's a good step in the right direction. Trusilver 23:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, a starting point. As an aside, I would always have the score be rather high to pass, but I am sensitive to the fact that we're not dealing with a Harvard or Oxford education here, so I'm quite open to the bar being set by the consensus of the group. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 01:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've got a bit more reading to do and a bit of thinking, so I can come up with a few suggestions on this, but overall, I think it's excellent. It takes out the hierarchy and bureaucracy and allows human judgement to rule. Vertium, you've done a fantastic job. Worm^TT(talk) 07:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Vertium, this is - as WTT said - quite fantastic. I have a few comments/ideas that I'll make momentarily.. Theo polisme 10:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your kind words are appreciated. I'm quite anxious to hear your comments and ideas! Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 20:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I have made annotations, comments, and changes to the rubric and to the "some tools I've used" sections.. more to be had, as I think of them. Thanks - Theo polisme 01:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff. Keep it coming! Thanks! Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 17:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Question Is this mandatory? And if mandatory, should it be followed word for word, or used as a guide? Dan653 (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

A guide, and certainly not compulsory. Leave WP:CVUA/IM how it is, but move the above to a new section on WP:CVUA/R. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Mandatory? Nothing on Wikipedia is or should be mandatory. Expected, certainly. Recommended, definitely. But Rules are not the be all and end all. Worm^TT(talk) 08:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know

I'm afraid I will be leaving the CVUA at the end of the month; I'm going to university at the end of September, so I don't want to be committed to too much. I intend to continue with my current two students until they graduate, but will not be taking any more on from now. I'm sorry to leave just as the academy is beginning to change and improve; I wish you all the best with it, and will still be around if you want to contact me. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Best of luck at university. You've done much for the academy (and WP), so I hope you'll return and contribute as time and your studies permit. All best wishes... Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 22:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Good luck at the university, all the best. Dan653 (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Inactive instructor

My instructor, Calu2000, was to begin the training on Monday, a week ago, but hasn't given any signs of life since. Should I just wait? Silvrous ^Talk 12:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

He has only made 29 edits (11 to mainspace) in the last 10 weeks. You may find by comparing this and this that there may actually be a question about which of you already has the most experience. Perhaps the academy coordinators can shed some light on the availability and suitability of instructors for you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, as you know there are no requirements for instructors (or students) so we can't vet our instructors. Anyway, if you give me 24 hours I'm sure we could find you a new instructor.

Chip, Elizium, ECF, or floating boat ↑? Dan653 (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Last week, Calu asked me if I could adopt him. Electric Catfish 15:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So? Dan653 (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Asked Elizium23... Theo polisme 16:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes! I will take Silvrous. Elizium23 (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks Elizium. Theo polisme 17:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Or... possibly consider the fact that you don't need an instructor. I have looked over your last hundred or so vandalism reverts, and I don't feel that there's much in the "CVUA curriculum", as it were, that you don't already have a strong grasp of. Trusilver 19:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

That was the impression I had. Of greater concern following all the advice over the past few weeks: does Wikipedia actually need a Counter Vandalism Academy? Dan's comment pretty much sums it up - no responsibility is being taken for quality so all the rigmarole and social banter about creating clerks, coordinators, and instructors is, well, banter. The CVUA could be closed down and archived leaving simply the list of active editors willing to mentor those keen on countering vandalism, and a page with 'teaching' guidelines for them. One good and interesting example is that New Page Patrol, which is also often operated by very new and inexperienced users, requires a far greater degree of responsibility and experience but seems to get along just fine without an 'academy' and a whole catalog of bling, barnstars, and userboxes. The rare complaints of wrong vandalism reverts can be address the same way as we do at NPP. In short, in spite of its initial enthusiasm and my convinicing TrueSilver that it should be given a while longer (a thread well worth reading) to see how it develops, I now wholly concur with him and believe the CVUA has become redundant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "redundant" is quite the right word, but a drastic overhauling is definitely required. Vertium's rubric, a couple of threads ↑that way, gives me some positive hope for the project, by providing a clear-cut set of learning and pass/fail criteria (something that has been severely lacking up to now). Despite my initial enthusiasm for the project, I've made few contributions to these pages, largely because (as other editors, including Kudpung, have pointed out) there is a lot of excessive bureauocracy and discussion involved in what should really be a very simple and fairly informal process.

I'm therefore inclined to agree that archiving much of the project would be beneficial. Instead, I'd suggest resculpting it into something similar to the current adopt-a-user program, where editors interested in receiving specific anti-vandalism training (and I'm including stuff like Huggle and Twinkle use in that) can match themselves with willing instructors. No need for clerking and co-ordinating; just a user category which editors can add themselves to if they want to learn, and from which a group of instructors can contact them. Anti-vandalism is not rocket science, and we don't really need a complex system through which to teach it. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an incredible coincidence - I was just looking at the Adopt a User programme to see how something similar could replace the CVUA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Great minds, etc... Yunshui 雲‍水 07:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

We will call this a hat trick then. I was doing the exact same thing. Specifically, I was noticing how the adopt-a-user program is much larger than this project is, and yet somehow operates with almost no bureaucracy... no need for any "coordinator(s)" that I can see. It still doesn't solve the issue with lack of any realistic criteria for instructors. I agree that in all reality, the CVUA only serves to pretend that a very simple process is a complicated one. counter-vandalism isn't a difficult thing to do... and if you need a huge, dramatic presentation to teach you how, you probably shouldn't have been doing it to begin with. Trusilver 08:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Can we put a pin in adopt-a-user for the moment? I ask because for the last year or so, the vast majority of adoptions have been done by me, my graduating adoptees or other users using my adoption school. The project currently lists far more adoptions than are actually live, and it needs an overhaul. This is something I intend to do, and is one of my goals for this year... I really should get started on it.

The point of both programs is to give users more confidence. The idea of a website which can be editted by anyone is confusing to many, and most readers shy away from the idea of changing anything. If an editor can come along and make a difference, by say writing something or by catching some vandalism or agreeing that a new page is ready for "going live", the little zing of excitement appears. That inspires more editing, and leads to more long term editors.

So, no, this project is not redundant, even if it teaches very little. One day, if I (or anyone else) can give ADOPT the kickstart it needs, perhaps it will be a legitimate alternative. But not at the moment. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually what I meant was simply adopting (pun) the page format from the adopt-a-user home page (not combining the CVUA with Worm's project at all), adapting the text, and having just two sub pages, one for the teaching syllabus (Vertium's rubrik), with perhaps also some recommended minimum experience for listed instructors, and a page for people to list themselves as wanting training. All the rest of the sub pages and socialising can be archived as historical, the action icons and superflous bling and templates sent to MfD. The main objective is to ensure that any training is done by truly active and experienced individuals. Any active 'instructors' can regularly monitor the enrollments just like we used to do at the Online Ambassors page. Perhaps sometime in the future any mentoring for NPP could be combined with the new look 'Adopt an Anti-vandal agent' project. This is all something I, and almost certainly a couple of other admins and experienced users would be happy to get actively involved in, and I would willingly draft a suitably adapted text using Worm's page as a model. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Just briefly from me... I think the adopt-a-user programme is a good model to look at, as it has done pretty well without any bureaucracy. However, as Worm says, it has suffered from a lack of direction (Worm's acted well in a coordinator-like role, which has kept the project going). Some kind of direction I think is needed (not bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy, but leadership for the sake of keeping the academy going in the right direction. That leadership might only need to be someone taking a bit of responsibility, like Worm's done at adopt-a-user.) ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, we're not just about teaching users how to report vandalism properly. One of my students has asked me for advice about an article he's working on, which he's been able do to because he knows me as an experienced user who has been willing to help him. This new editor has been given confidence, someone useful to contact for support, and help in building an encylopedia, as well as all the anti-vandal stuff we've done. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 10:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Kudpung is quite on to something with the suggestion of a merger of the adopt-a-user and CVUA programs. Doing so would, as he (and others) have said, have many benefits, including being easier for new editors to navigate (rather than two completely separate places, each with their own rules/wordings, as well as the possibility for expansion at a later date (NPP, as Kudpung said). I see no reason not to at least begin to work on a draft of the new proposed dual-operation 2-in-1, 1-in-2 program -- if we eventually decide to test that, then we'd already have it - and if not, well, what a shame. Just my . Theo polisme 11:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::There is always an overlap and its a very positive phenomenon - and one that demonstrates the need for experienced mentors. It's no coincidence that the majority of the most successful mentors are either admins or admin calibre users. They also just get on with the job they have found their niche for and don't need a whole hierarchy of committees, clerks, and coordinators behind them to organise their work. "But SPI has all that", I hear some saying, but SPI only has a handfull of entrusted CUs and a single investigation can take hours. Notwithstanding, there is also a constant stream of new and/or inexperienced user wanting to be clerks there too, while ironically, the vast majority of SPI clerks are admins... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Theo, I think you may have misunderstood. I'm not advocating a merger of the Adopt-a-User program at all. What I have suggested is a very much slimmed down CV training project, that simply uses Worm's page as a model. This will allow the CVUA enthusiasts to move on to more important work rather than wasting their time on "To the Vandalmobile, Robin!" style banter and Done, Not done templates and other baubles. The CVUA has floundered in its own bureaucracy and attracted too many users who are possibly not sufficiently available or experienced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Chuckle. But honestly, in thinking about it - why does the CVUA need to be separate project then? If Dave is okay with this, why not make it easier for new editors to not have to "determine" what they want to do, and rather give them a one stop shop - adoption - and then offer more specialized "counter-vandalism instruction" if they demonstrate an interest in that during adoption? I agree the idea needs some ironing out, but that could greatly simply matters. Of course, Dave, if you are against this suggestion I won't pressure it, but.. hmm. Just another idea to throw out there. Theo polisme 20:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Eeek, I really should dispel the myth that I have any ownership over WP:ADOPT. It's not mine, I just happen to be the only person who's really active there (along with people directly related to me). One thing I was hoping for was an alternative option to adopt which encourages new editors in a small area, something that wasn't based wholly on my ideas - to show if I'm right or wrong about how I work! If we were to go down Theo's route of a "one stop shop" the urgency of an overhaul becomes much more important. The project has a few problems already - and I think tying it to the teahouse (and perhaps this project) would be a good idea. I just need to... get on and do it. Worm^TT(talk) 07:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My fault Dave. As you are (were) the most active mentor, I naturally assumed that you were the creator of the project. I realise now that it was created a lot earlier. In order to avoid any misunderstanding again of my proposal (in no way intended to merge any existing training ormentoring projects), I have now created a basic draft for a new CV 'school'. This idea obviates any need for clerking, coordination, bureaucracies, hierarchy, and superfluous templates, userboxes, and chat, and places clear emphasis on the CVU motto. There has been far too much participation all round from socks, blocked users, rogue cabals, and general socialising, that in my opinion it is time to start over. This would put some users out of their 'jobs' but I am sure they will understand that this is in the best interests of the project. Concomitant with this, I also suggest a clean up of the CVU page towards a more conservative presentation - one that draws away from the effect that this might be a trophy collecting exercise, and instead places greater weight on what is one of the most essential tasks at Wikipedia, where Civility, Maturity, and Responsibility are quintessential to its smooth performance. See: User:Kudpung/CV mentor (draft). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I will just add that the current Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy main page is actually pretty good and a lot more conservative than even would have ventured. With just a few tweaks to the text and removing some redundant images, it may be all that is needed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I do like that draft, Kudpung, but agree that the curent WP:CVUA might suffice. If we consolidated that - and then also marked as historical (/deleted for some of them, if they're truly just random nonsense) a lot of the subpages, we could truly be getting somewhere. All we theoretically would need would be:

WP:CVUA

WP:CVUA/S - the trainers list, which could theoretically be renamed to /Trainers to be more neutral (Status is a bit of an odd term, and implies that it would have to be constantly updated with their "status" - wheras just a simple "Available!" and "Busy!" like at WP:ADOPT would suffice.

WP:CVUA/R - this page has quite a lot of CVUA resources/suggestions/etc, which I think could be useful to new trainers. Then again, it would perhaps lead to the CVUA becoming simply people copy/pasting blocks of text from there and having their students answer questions... which isn't at all what we want. Perhaps historical might be better, but... a slimmed down version? "Advice for New Trainers"? Just giving them starting points?

Thanks, Theo polisme 11:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Just throwing out an idea here... but as much as I like the most recent ideas that Kudpung has come out with, isn't even that going a little too far? I think that this project turns a fairly simple process into a complicated one. Any anti-vandalism patroller can learn all they need to know to get a foundation with just a few talk page messages back and forth. That being the case, wouldn't it be easier to just create a list of wikipedia editors willing to help new users with antivandalism, throw a nice new userbox on their page that looks something like this...

This user happily assists new recent change patrollers

...and then call it good? No bureaucracy... a very, very minimum of maintenance. And all the interested parties need to do is ask for help from one of the many active volunteers. Trusilver 04:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've done some more work on my draft idea at User:Kudpung/CV mentor (draft). Everything is now on one simple page. The effort is to ensure that only truly experienced, available, and mature editors make themselves available as trainers. The responsibility for watching the project is placed squarely on the listed trainers themselves, and all forms of bureaucracy, hiertarchy, chat à la "Wack! Boom! Splat! To the vandalmobile, Robin!" and its icons, has been completely dispensed with. I hope this is a compromise between TrueSilver's idea that the whole CVUA concept should be scrapped (an idea that I originally supported), and the need to ensure that counter-vandalism is carried out by people who know what they are doing, and whose work can be easily monitored. Inevitably, maintenance areas will always be a magnet for new users whose immediate intentions are not always contributing new content; the carrot for the counter-vandalists of course are the Rollbacker and Reviewer 'rights'. All that remains to be done is to clean up the CVU home page into a slightly more conservative graphic concept - cut out all the unnecessary bling, userboxes, and alternative project icons, which convey the impression that counter-vandalism is a trophy winning contest, and smarten up the text. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I like the way this is headed; the draft looks good. Just for information's sake, there's a possibility that the Adopt-a-user pages on which this is based may get overhauled in the near future (Worm and I have started discussing how best to go about it), so if the goal is to create a similar "brand" then the current version may not remain current for very long. The visual design is, however, secondary to the restructuring of the CVUA, and I think some great progress has been made in this direction as a result of Kudpung and Vertium's work. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I will reiterate just once more that there is no attempt to emulate the Adopt-a-User programme. I've only used its format because I liked the clean, mature lines rather than waste time designing anything else. There is not (or should not be) anything that is transcluded from the Adoption page now. Ryan has made a grand effort of going through my draft and copyediting it. The main objective is to dispense with all the banter and useless noticeboard-style 'clerking' and shift the focus of the CVUA management on to the trainers themselves, and ensure that all future trainers are appropriately qualified and experienced. All they need to do is watch the pages, and respond promptly to any student requests they receive on their talk pages. If they are unable to do this, they should move themselves to the 'inactive' list without waiting to be told, or having it done for them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I like the most recent draft. Good work Kudpung. I would be totally in support of this. Trusilver 13:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Implementing

Thanks everyone for the CE, anchors, and general fixes to my draft. I see that in spite of persistent advice, the 'Go get 'em, boy!' style banter is still taking place right up to a few moments ago including all the unnecessary 'clerking' type baubles (apart from which, in my opinion, accepting students who only have 5 mainspace edits is not appropriate). I think something really has to be done now so I suggest that my draft is ready to go. The best way to do this in order to preserve editing histories and talk page contents would probably be to move Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy and all its sub-pages (automatic) to Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy (old), move my draft to Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy, which would then keep all redirects|shortcuts active. Then move the Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy (old) to Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy which should move all the talk page contents with it. Let me know what you think because it's really time to do something now. Any cosmetics, which should be as conservative as possible, can be done later. Borrowing and in the interests of sobriety, this message should be as free of decoration as possible. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I agree with your draft and can't wait for this reforming to end (my eyes can only read so much of the same thing!) Regarding the clerking baubles, I only put {{resolved1}} on the enroll page due to the fact that it archives enroll request. I also agree with you on the fact about 5 mainspace edits not being appropriate but, with no requirements, we are almost forced to accept the student. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 04:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Riley, you've slightly missed the point of "no requirements" which is that formalisation should be removed. Not that you have to accept the student. You can say to them that they should get a bit more experience before coming back, or if someone wants to take one a student with that number of edits, they can. Think of RfA - there is no minimum requirement, but that doesn't mean we're forced to give the bit to anyone. Worm^TT(talk) 07:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I fully endorse this course of action. There will be adjustments and addition needed once it's in place, naturally, but one of the things that has hogtied the CVUA project in the past is the tendency to discuss things to oblivion - let's get the new format in place now, and tweak it once it's up and running. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that many of the problems I raised have been addressed, and this current trial has not thrown up any issues as yet. I tried to not impose too many of my own ideas on the CVUA - it's their project, and not really causing issues. For example, accepting student with so few edits is unwise, but the best way to gain that wisdom is to do it and discover why. Wisdom comes from experience, not teaching. I would prefer to give the CVUA time to prove themselves. Worm^TT(talk) 07:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, this is especially highlighted with comments about cosmetics. Wikipedia does not need to be free of decoration, it does not need to be sober. It should be down to the project and the individuals to brand themselves how they see fit, and if it offends us old fogeys then we have the right to not look at it. Worm^TT(talk) 07:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I feel that moving the draft now is the best way to, a) stop wasting time discussing it (while discussion is good, we're on the verge of excessive), and b) make it visible to the CVU community at large (namely those who just watchlist WP:CVUA, for example, and get their feedback and thoughts. Theo polisme 11:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an old fogey (as Dave knows only too well!), but I do feel that Wikipedia needs to present itself with a look that at least imparts some impression that it is run by reasonably mature people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As the consensus seemed to be to get on and do it, I've got on and done it - I moved the pages as Kudpung suggested above. I chose not to move the subpages of the CVUA talk page (which included the talk pages of all the old redundant pages) back, except for the archives. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. Should we not move back the {{talkheader}} header as well? (I shall slim it down some first, though). Theo polisme 20:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment about the new page

I have no real problems, but would it be easier to move the "active instructors" bit to a new page, and then just transclude it onto here (to make editing it easier)?. Mdann52 (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

One of the biggest headaches I had when creating the new page (which of course I did not do from scratch) was wading through the dozens of transcluded elements - some of which are just sub pages with half a dozen words or less. In all my time on Wikipedia I've never come across what I feel to be an extreme over use of transclusion. I know I use it a lot on my own user page, but that is deliberately to deter vandalism - and it it works. The inactive list is of historical use only, but it's handy to have it around for research purposes. The new page with most of its elements on that page is fast to load and easy to update, and with the focus on project management placed squarely on the instructors themselves, they should not find occasional updating of their data to be particularly onerous. That said, although I might be doing some training myself in the future, I'm not particularly concerned either way. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Category for prospective enrollees?

Just spitballing here... I know we aren't trying to emulate WP:ADOPT with this, it's just that I'm currently doing a fair amount of work on that project and so it's at the forefront of my mind. One of the useful things Adopt-a-user has is the {{Adopt me}} userbox template, which automatically files editors in Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user - effectively the enrollment page for the program. As WTT and I have discovered recently, it's a category that requires occasional patrolling to remove inactive or already-adopted editors, but as a system for finding potential enrollees it seems to work pretty well. What are people's thoughts on creating a similar CVUA category/userbox set to help administer the project? I'm on the fence, but thought I'd throw it out there in case anyone thinks it's an especially good/bad idea. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm on the fence too , but what's the difference between that and potential students just contacting the trainer of their choice? If they don't know how to do that, they are probably not really ready to do anything much except general content work - although a lot of them seem to be able to find their way to PERM and ask for rights they're not ready for. When they arrive there I usually recommend they go to the CVUA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, question

The Counter-Vandalism Academy has been drastically revamped, and is looking for experienced editors to help serve as trainers.
— Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-01/WikiProject report

Just figured I would send this in. On another note, I'm curious as to how new student enrollment has been since the changes were made. Decreased? Increased? It appears to be as to have decreased, but I'm asking anyhow. Theo polisme 21:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that some overseers might see a decreased rate of enrolment as a natural consequence of something that needed to happen, and not a bad thing overall. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

How many students have joined since the revamp, or is there no way to know, which would leave open accountability issues. Dan653 (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

It may be in our best interests to send out a message to the trainers asking them to answer a question or two, namely,

Activity in the frontend CVUA -- # of students, students since the reform, students before

We could assemble some sort of form (i.e. modify the one used at WP:DR) to collect this data -- I can whip something together in a little while: of course, only if we see the need. I believe it would be helpful in order to gauge usage of the program. Another thing to ponder: does not having a central enroll page make it too difficult to enroll? It does, of course, raise the bar (the student has to take the initiative to write a message, etc) -- but does it make sense in the long run? Just some 'big ideas' for us to think about. Theo polisme 20:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow... that was impressive. You made it a whole fourteen days without attempting to shovel some bureaucracy into this. Here's an idea... why not continue doing what you did before... and that includes giving helpful notes to people who are in a position where they might benefit from association with this project WITHOUT feeling the need to 'administrate' it. Trusilver 21:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Posting inaccurate claims on the Signpost, and being obsessed with the gathering of stats are ultimately going to be counter-productive at this time. Instructors will be listing their students on the table, and students are being recruited through other, less aggressive means. I would suggest whipping up some time to do some active vandalism patrolling instead. The very reason the central enrollment page was disbanded and the project 'drastically' revamped was to close down all the unnecessary bureaucracy, banter, hierarchy, inappropriate cabals, socialising, template messages going back and forth, and general good faith but immature experiments in project organisation. If anything should change it should be changed by experienced mature users who understand the true meaning of accountability , otherwise all that will be achieved is a return by stages to the mess the CVU had become. Not even a newsletter is required at this stage. What is needed is a period of relative calm - there will be plenty of call from hat-collectors for training when the PC goes live, and by then we may even have some experienced trainers to replace or at least augment the ones who are listed. For the time being, this is a project that can run itself, no active recruiting of students is required, because in addition, the former 'management' team and its trainers had clearly demonstrated that it neither had the capacity, nor the skills or experience required to cope with the students who had enrolled. No 'bar' is required for students because the role of any teacher is first to assess whether a candidate for training already has sufficient knowledge of basic editing, and maturity for the task. There are plenty of experienced users and admins watching the 'trainer' page, and will offer any required advice to any editors who add themselves to that list. The message has to be made quite clear that Wikipedia maintenance ares are not for raw beginners, but any who have clearly demonstrated that they possess the wherewithal to counter vandalism and/or train people to do it are more than welcome to convince those of us who are keeping a remote but steady eye on the project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) _{reply to Trusilver} I'm not trying to shove bureaucracy into this; rather, I'm trying to ask questions about how this system is working and (if it isn't) how it can. If that warrants a page that simply says "put your name here if you're looking for mentoring" - or maybe a userbox, as WP:ADOPT has, then I see no reason why that shouldn't be done. This wouldn't incorporate the dreaded "clerking" or anything -- rather, it would be a way for editors to find the best instructors for them... not just having to ask someone only to find that they're inactive, aren't really interested, etc. Theo polisme 21:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I think TrueSiver and I have adequately explained the current situation. There is an obsession on Wikipedia for gathering stats, and such work is often neither necessary nor worth abandoning other pressing tasks for. The main concern however, is the maturity and/or experience of the former organisers, and certainly some of the trainers themselves too. There were clear instances therefore, that the CVUA was not in a position to service its aggressive campaigns for trainers and students. There were also comments by some of the former organisers that they did not appear to feel themselves accountable for the operations that they were nevertheless 'leading'. I'm sure you'll understand Theo, that it's time to give this a rest for a while - like at least 3 months - and see how things develop. As mentioned, there are now enough experienced eyes on the project, and there are plenty of other ways of detecting vandalism patrollers who may not be getting things quite right, and directing them to the CVUA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There are two questions that need to be answered: (1) Should we continue to support this project, and (2), if so, I think it makes sense to figure out which system trained more students accurateley. If we support this project we will of course want to train as many students as we can as acurateley as possible, so we should see which system works/worked the best. Of course we will not be able to discern this for a few months (3-6), but just some food for thought. Dan653 (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It depends largely who you mean by 'we'. There is plenty of 'support' going on out here that you may not be aware of. While some projects may have lists of 'members', like all spaces on Wikipedia, no one 'owns' them, and anyone is free to participate or offer their support. That said, the best organisation and training are provided by users who are adequately experienced and who approach the tasks with an appropriate level of maturity. I'll reiterate again that until those criteria are fulfilled, there is little to be gained by starting another aggressive drive to find students and trainers. For the time being, the active trainers are, or should be, perfectly able to manage things themselves; all they need to do is keep their status entry in the table up to date, be available, be prepared to respond fairly promptly, and conduct the syllabus in a pro-active, student orientated manner. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Dan, I believe it would in both our and the CVUA's best interests to, as Kundpung, Trusilver, and numerous others have suggested/prompted, to simply lay off for a while. Honestly, I don't really know how else to put it -- let time take its course. Theo polisme 10:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)