Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Anti-Vandalism Task Force


 * The following discussion is an archived proposal of the WikiProject below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or the WikiProject Council).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The resulting WikiProject was not created

Description
A task force made to revert all vandalism and assist in Operation Enduring Encyclopedia. It's more or less close to Counter-vandalism Unit, but this covers from reverting to study vandalism and covers everything in between to create a massive project. This should make vandalism more clear and help stop it quicker. Currently, the Counter-Vandalism Unit is more or less semi-active, not totally active.

It is split into many groups:

1. Army

2. Navy

3. Air Force

4. Marines

5. Defendants

6. High Command

TERM: OPERATION

The wikiproject would have "operations", which will be monitoring article(s) that have been vandalized a lot, and suggest and keep the page from being vandalized again. A typical operation would have a page for it, and an operation would cover 1-10 articles normally.

Support

 * 1) Sounds Awesome!- Who Am I Why Am I Here? (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) AWESOME!- Darkjedi10 (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Please note that Darkjedi10 is the creator of this proposal, not a disinterested supporter. →  ROUX   ₪  23:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 12:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems like a bunch of 10 year olds who actually have no idea what they are talking about. Separate patrollers, reverters and vandalism reporters? How on earth is that even supposed to work? Yoenit (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) This is one of the worst ideas I've ever seen. Even without the ridiculous titles, how do you propose this would actually work? –  iridescent  21:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) What iridescent said. The CVU is bad enough. Why on earth would we need another? → ROUX   ₪  22:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Is this intended humor?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Astonishingly, no. → ROUX   ₪  21:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Looks like it could be used as an addition to MMORPG.  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 00:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Strongly disapprove as per User:Ceyockey. -- Thomas888b (Say Hi) 12:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Iridescent strikes this on the head. --Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  02:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the project's talk page (if created) or at the WikiProject Council). No further edits should be made to this page.