So "campaign to slaughter all vandals" (CSAV) would be acceptable? :) -- Philip L. Welch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Philwelch

On 2/6/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: We could but the anti newspeak force killed of the idea of the "care bear unit". As long as the name is within wikipedia policy the people involved in the project can call it what they like. -- geni

On 2/6/06, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote: Sure but the name appears to be the one they want so I see no reason to stop them useing it. As I said no complaints to the helpdesk so they appear to be doing better than other groups. -- geni

In 2/6/06, James D. Forrester <james(a)jdforrester.org> wrote: Considering that the name comes from a declaration of war on vandals, I'd say it's pretty difficult to argue that it does not suffer from a lack of wikilove. In fact, there's rather a lack of evidence for that position.

On 2/7/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote: If we're going to have the name changed, let's at least change it to something that's not hopelessly goofy. :/ Although the thought of being a WikiSuperHero is quite intriguing... -- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.

On 2/7/06, Sherool <jamydlan(a)online.no> wrote: Not sure, but I think that the idea is that this is an offshoot designed to tackle more complicated problems, to think about long-term strategy for managing Wikipedia's growth with the regard to the good/bad edit issue. Or maybe it's just a bunch of excited RC patrollers. Not sure. Whatever the case, I think the best idea would be to enfold the "vandalism-fighting" aspect within a broader strategy of encouraging good edits and discouraging bad ones.

On 2/7/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote: -- Mark Gallagher "What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!" - Danger Mouse The difference is that RC Patrol is more of an idea, a job. CVU is a collection of people who subscribe to that idea and perform that job. That's the way I see it, anyway. -- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.

On 2/8/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: This is endemic to Wikipedia because of its massive size. No one person can do every job on the site unless they stretch themselves so thin that they do all of them poorly. Also, you appear to be part of the "Goody! I don't have to worry about it." crowd, after looking at your edits before and after what is an apparent wikibreak. The fact of the matter is that there are a LOT of people who have seen fit to ignore the vandalism fight. Some because they're simply better at other things and find it a waste of theirs and others time to devote themselves to something they're not as good at, some because they've done it for a while and are tired of it, and others because of an apparent feeling that they've been around so long that they'll let the peons do it for them. -- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.

On Feb 9, 2006, at 1:13 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: Have you seen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lupin/Anti-vandal_tool ? It offers a filtered list of RC; with the ability to view the diffs all-in-one-page, and convieient revert and rollback buttons... Is that hose high powered enough for you? Or if you're an IRC man, there are at least 4 different filters running, I think... Take your pick. ;-) Admittedly, we haven't got sprinkler systems, AFAIK (although blocks might count, I suppose), but the rest is there... Jesse Weinstein

Yeah, more users should have admin powers. On 2/9/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/10/06, Jesse W <jessw(a)netwood.net> wrote: It's a weird issue, surely it's not that difficult to implement rollback from within Lupin's tool. Pity that RfR isn't actually active. I might need to become an admin. Ok. I must be the millionth person to notice it though. Steve

On 2/8/06, Jay Converse <supermo0(a)gmail.com> wrote: Wikibreak? What is that? And what edits are you talking about? You're wrong, by the way.