Forum:Getting rid of CVU

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Getting rid of CVU
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 4 May 2008 by Earthere.

The CVU page is a great page with great intentions, but is it really needed? Tell me, if a user wants to revert vandalism, can they not just do it themselves? Perhaps we can create a page to tell users what to do in case of vandalism, or just turn the CVU page into that, and they can just tell a sysop on their talk page so that the vandal can be blocked. I'm not against the CVU, and it's a good page, but it's not entirely necessary. What are talk pages for? Perhaps instead of reporting vandalism on CVU, there'll be a page giving the names of sysops (similar to CVU) and telling users what to do when they spot vandalism. Having a whole page where people can report vandalism is kind of useless, seing as they can... 1-Revert it themselves and 2-Ask a sysop on their talk page or on RS to block the vandal. They can even leave a message on the vandal's talk page asking them to stop! I'm not entirely against the Counter Vandalism Unit, and if we decided to keep it that would be ok, but I'm just asking the community to see what they think. It would also encourage users to take action and deal with vandalism by themselves. If that happened, the amount of vandalism we get might decrease and more regular users would be trained to deal with vandalism. We wouldn't need sysops reverting/blocking IPs every hour. Again, CVU is a great page and it's worked towards helping stop vandalism for over a year and a half now, but letting users take action into their own hands and leave a message on a sysop's talk page would also be a great alternative. Please discussYellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 21:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The CVU isn't a place for sysops to find vandalism they have to revert, it's a place for users to list what vandals have to be blocked. The users, 99% of the time, DO revert the vandalism. Every sysop should, and probably do, check the CVU when they log in to see what vandals haven't been dealt with, that way the users don't have to worry about finding an ACTIVE admin, someone who is actually on at that time. The CVU tells us who to block in the case that an admin isn't around, because normal users can't block, and vandals have to be punished. Also, I don't see how posting on the CVU isn't "taking action into their own hands." It's no different than posting on a sysop's talk page. Christine 22:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Posting on a sysop's talk page does exactly the same thing, except why have a page if it isn't really needed. I think when Shadowdancer created it it was more needed than it is now. I suppose you're right and it's better for everyone to see what's happened rather than posting a message on one sysop's talk page, but I have seen instances where people have posted something on CVU and not reverted it themselves, but maybe that's just my experience, since I don't even check the CVU (but it is on my watchlist).Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 22:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it is more needed now than it was when Shadowdancer created it due to more vandals, more edits in the recent changes, and more admins that are active (and inactive). It is harder to see the vandalism in the recent changes because they move more quickly than they did then. Dtm142 20:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, it does the same thing, yet this is more likely to get noticed than some message on a sysop's page that isn't necessarily on at the time. I say it stays. Christine 22:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If you post on a sysop's talk page, 1 person notices. If you post it on the CVU, ALL the sysops notice. For example, when I'm looking at the recent changes, if I see that someone edited Ilyas's talk page, I'd probably ignore it. However, if someone edited the CVU, I'd definitely check it out. Sysop crown.svgTes FanSysop crown.svg 22:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Darn edit conflict... Anyways, I was going to say : "It seems I've been pursuaded. I do still think we should put something on how to revert vandalism for new users."Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
.....Help:Revert#Undo. Christine 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
(New indent) But a new user may not know that... All I'm saying is to add a link or something that encourages new users to revert vandalism. All efforts should be made to help stop vandalism, even if it's by .01 of a percent.Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs22:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I link to the Help:Editing page in my welcome. I assume the generic welcome template does the same (it really should if it doesn't). Christine 22:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Besides if someone leaves a message on christines page and for some odd reason she isn't there, the vandal won't be noticed until someone else gets to them. Keep the CVU. Besides its a good place for future candidate sysops to get noticed.Bandos godsword.pngJmoDragon platebody.png, 23:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that since users are encouraged to revert vandalism on their own anyway, the CVU should have it's focus changed from a page to report vandalism to a page requesting admins to block vandals, similar to the page Wikipedia has. Lexmarkmantalk  23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I mean why report it if that's all you're going to do, even though, according to Christine, 99% of users revert the vandalism they report (which they probably do, but I haven't seen that happen sometimes. Still, that's my experience, not everyone else's).Yellow partyhat.png Ilyas Talk Contribs 00:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I say we keep the cvu. But maybe just have a link to the reverting vandalism page and have instructions to revert the vandalism first. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 06:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep and add section or link on how to revert. Chrislee33 07:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
As a normal user I usually revert the vandalism then I like to report the vandal IP on the CVU. I don't want to put it on someones talk page cuz what if they are not going to be around for a while? Keep the CVU so us regular joes have a place to list the baddies.--Degenret01 08:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
If anyone wants to know what another average user does, when I see vandalism, I undo it immediately and move on to something else. I'll only post in the CVU if the vandal created a page in which case I can't "undo" anything and so I give the admins a heads up to delete the page. To get back to the original discussion, if the purpose of CVU is simply to revert vandalism, then its presence is somewhat limited since the only extra speciality that it has is the ability to warn those capable of deleteing of newly created vandalized pages; if someone is put on the CVU page for regular vandalism, it can be assumed that the person who put the vandal there already dealt with the vandalism. If however, the CVU has a secondary purpose of not only reverting vandalism but banning the vandals, then you have the problem of a overwhelming majority of people who revert vandals not reporting on the CVU page those vandals. I patrol the recent changes page and I constantly see reverts but I rarely see the CVU page showing up. Too bad there isn't a "Recent reverts page".--Diberville 03:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that perspective Diberville. I think we would agree at this point that the primary purpose of the CVU is for administrators to deal with vandal accounts. I've updated the system message that appears as you try to "undo" an edit to request that the undoer also report the vandal at RS:CVU. Hopefully this will help users understand that we would appreciate not only their help in reverting vandalism, but also in dealing with vandals. Endasil (Talk) @  04:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)