Forum:What is the CVU for?

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > What is the CVU for?
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 10 April 2010 by Horsehead.

I personally thought that everyone considered the CVU in the same way, as a place to report vandals that probably needed a block. Azaz just recently pointed out to me that this is not the case, some people use it just to point out to our admins users/IPs that need to be watched, so it is time to get at least one easy thing cleared up. Easy because I don't think anyone will be too emotionally invested in how this goes anyhow. There have been several RFAs where this issue alone has been a matter of some debate in how it was used, and if it isn't clear how it is used then that wasn't very fair to the candidate or to the community. So for consistencies sake we all need to be in agreement of what that use is.

Vandals that need to be blocked, or all suspicious I.Ps?

Discussion

All "suspicious" I.Ps - I was on the other side for quite some time, but I see how those unsure of what to report will be more comfortable if they don't need to fear getting their heads bitten off for reporting minor stuff.--Degenret01 04:20, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Vandals that need to be blocked - As stated on the page, "This page is here to help combat vandalism on articles.", regular users can already combat vandalism by reverting the edits themselves, however they cannot always stop the vandal from further vandalising, and that is where the CVU comes in. I believe that the CVU is a place to report vandals so as to stop them by getting an administrator to block them. I don't see exactly how the CVU would be more useful if users were reported for suspicious activity. Should they commit any vandalism or violated policies, an administrator will block them for it, it will not make a difference whether or not they are being monitored. On a side note, I myself use CVU reports as a gauge as to whether a particular user would/would not block for a vandalism offence. C.ChiamTalk 07:08, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Vandals that need to be blocked - Per reasons stated by Caleb. I myself don't actually see the need for the CVU anymore. There are so many administrators and users keeping an eye on the RC, most vandal reports are dealt with before they are even looked at. Although, if we are going to keep it, it should really be recommended that only continuous vandals who have been warned are reported. All users can warn, and after most warnings, the vandal stops. I've responded to quite a few reports by a warning, and it has usually resulted in a halt to the vandal's disruptive behaviour. In response to Degen's worry that some users may fear getting in trouble when reporting vandals, it should only be a guideline, should state that the vandal has been warned at least once and link to some kind of guide about knowing when to warn vandals, and what kind of warning to use. Chicken7 >talk 08:36, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Auto report - I think people are getting a lot less picky about who to report. With the script, all they need is to click report and it will be reported automatically instead of us inputting the ip/article ourselves. Sometimes, most of these ips do not need to be blocked and a warning would suffice. The CVU should be for vandals that need to be blocked. Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´・ω・`) 09:12, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Vandals that need to be blocked - There is no reason to report someone to the CVU because they added "[email protected]#$#@$#@", especially after already warning them on their talk page. This is something that I have stressed for as long as I've been an admin. It just wastes time because the admin won't do anything but clear the IP/username from the CVU reports list. Andrew talk 09:25, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Question - Can anyone give me a link to some information about this Auto-CVU or a short explanation? I still don't know what it is. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 09:29, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

It's the first one. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 09:32, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Vandals that need to be blocked - If every 'suspicious' IP or user is posted there, then it would be a nightmare for the admins to check them all. I don't mean that all IPs are wrong or something, but a lot of vandalism gets reverted every day and "normal" users are smart enough to think "hey, this IP did something wrong, I'll warn him, but this doesn't deserve a block". They'll warn him, and it's over. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 09:32, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Vandals that need to be blocked- I have actually never used the CVU because i though it was only for vandals that needed to be blocked an i wait until they have had a few warnings given to them. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 09:37, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Vandals that need to be blocked - I feel everything has been said that needs to be said. Unicorn horn dust.png Evil Yanks talk 11:25, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Vandals that need to be blocked, with a caveat - That's what I've always assumed the CVU was for. However, the caveat is that regular users may not always be able to judge what is vandalism and what is not, especially in the gray area between minor vandalism and disruptive edits. Personally, I never bother to report the minor stuff, but I do report the major vandals that I'm certain about, or those that I'm not sure about and would like a second opinion (although, the administrator opinion does seem to depend largely on who processes the CVU. I know that some administrators, like Degen, are more lenient, while others, like Iiii I I I, are more stringent). --LiquidTalk 11:59, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning to all vandalism - Quite a bit of the time, people report vandalism to the CVU without warning the vandal in the first place. I can't see how at least taking a look at any vandalism that comes in makes the life of the administrator looking at it any harder (it's not like an avalanche of reports comes in at any given time). On the other hand, what's the point of reporting it if you already warned and reverted the vandal/vandalism? Therefore, I think the middle ground is that if you have reverted the vandalism and warned the vandal who you do not think needs a block, there is no reason to report it, so don't bother. If you didn't know you where not supposed to warn the vandals yourself, we don't get upset when they report it to the CVU. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:09, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Vandals that need to be blocked - Administrators don't need to be notified whenever a disruptive user needs to be warned, they need to be notified when a destructive user needs to be banned. --Aburnett(Talk) 18:44, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Vandals that need to be blocked - I've always thought that this was what the CVU was for. And I think that Admins really only need to be notified on potential blocks. BerserkHackr 18:57, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Any vandalism - Having potentially new users have to try and determine whether or not someone needs to be blocked seems like its asking them for a judgement call they may not be prepared to make. The list on the sidebar says "Report vandalism" not "Request block". Plus I think people are less likely to use CVU if we make it only for people you think need to be blocked. I think its a good idea to have experienced users be more aware of potential vandalism than less aware. I'm surprised so many people want to change this. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 20:22, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

"suspicious" I.Ps - I some what agree with tollerach here. A relitive new user may not know how to warn and or even undo the vandalism per say not everything needs reported when you know what your doing sending a warning. I dont think it could hurt for an admin to look over a potential vandal as they should have some more experiance. That way I do believe that some may think twice about vandalizing as some get little to no warnings now. I think we need to get to the point where we need to ban less and getting the right warnings out may help. Dragon helm.png Team6and7 Talk Dragon boots.png 19:40, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Vandals that need to be blocked - It's not that hard for users to decide- just a bit of spam that's not a huge deal or the "**** YOU ALL!!!" type of edits.  Ranged-icon.png Zap0i TalkRune scimitar.png  01:38, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Erm, some people still think that even the "**** YOU ALL!!!" vandalism should be warned first, maybe only once, but still warned. Hello71 23:21, March 27, 2010 (UTC)
Some vandals have turned into great editors after they were warned. Sometimes it's just ignorance - they don't realise that we actually work to make this wiki a great place. Once the warning makes them realise that, they'll usually stop without us needing to block them. A block just makes them feel "these people are too serious" and leave - a warning makes them think "hey, they're right, I shouldn't mess with these articles". Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 08:37, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Any vandalism - But, add a new option on the CVU template to say exactly which revision/diff. Hello71 23:21, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

That option was recently removed, because then admins would only look at that single contribution, and not at the user's whole list of contribs. Then someone who had done more vandalism than another person, would still get the same block (while his block should be longer). Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 08:37, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is closed. Group has reached rough consensus on CVU's use for vandals who need to be blocked. Horsehead Talk 04:27, April 10, 2010 (UTC)