Forum:War Room


 * This is not a replacement of the RfAs, AfDs or the forums itself. This is for things that won't fit any where else.

As discussions and votes on wiki-related topics can't always be found in the forums, which may result in an inaccurate result based on only some people voting, the War Room is an established page to vote on wiki things.

Forum:Anti/Counter Vandalism Unit?
Hey, I was just looking around at the Runescape Wiki and I saw their totally awesome "Report Vandalism" sidebar thing. I think we need something like this. It would be a big help and a handy tool for users who happen to see some vandalism but don't know what to do. Of course, we really don't want to copy and make ours look like theirs, so I'll need some creativity assistance. I know exactly how to implement this, and all I need is some good concepts as to WHAT we should implement. Any ideas on this, or even any other sidebar feature that would be helpful may be posted here. Or even if you think it is a bad idea. ;) All ideas are helpful!

Oppose - The Rswiki has loads more traffic then we do. We hardly ever have vandalism. They have edits like every second. That is why they have it and we don't. We just need to check the recent changes. --20:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Yet - I really support this idea, but as Rs4life said CoD Wiki doesn't pull in enough edits for this to be a major issue. Yes, we have vandalism, but it is usually found and reverted. I also think that users would know what to do if they saw vandalism (its kind of common sense, remove it), but they probably wouldn't think to tell an Admin to issue a ban/warning. If we ever did have enough traffic coming to this wiki (perhaps when CoD 6 comes out) I would be all for it, but at this time it isn't needed.


 * Righto, I just put this up because we had a flood of new users, and with it, plenty of vandalism. Actually, the wiki has been expanding really quickly, so like Ross said, it is a great idea, but maybe not yet.  By the way, I added an "Advanced Search" tool on the side, just for convenience.  Actually, when I added this discussion, I was finding a ton of vandalism just by accident, such as hitting the "random page" button.  The reason I thought this might be a good idea, was that I imagine enough new users come here, see vandalism and don't know what to do.  Besides, if you notice, on Runescape Wiki, the "Report Vandalism" option pretty much just shows a list of admins.  This would be useful for us not only because of new users, but in case someone wants to contact an admin for that purpose, and hits one of the inactive ones.  Personally, I still think it is a good idea just because I go at it with "why not", just like the "Advanced Search".

Support - Since the advent of Call of Duty: World at War and say, to a little lesser extent Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, I support this idea, since these two games have been released, some players do want a wealth of information about Call of Duty for free, and under a official or group of people besides other blogging or fan sites. Wikis are great interactive ways to see other people's point of view, seeing how many edits can be done (whether the edit is to add on or to correct spelling or grammar.) More hustle and bustle = more chances of vandalism. Though I know this Wiki is small and not a metropolis, the idea is fine by me. iplayf0rkeeps MaiPenRai 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Yet - They need it. Being an admin there too, I know what their vandalism is like. Bigm's statement that they get edits every second was hyperbolated, but they do get up to a few hundred every hour. What do we get? Fourty edits a day? They get vandalism every ten minutes or so, which is almost immediately reverted. For the fraction that isn't reverted, it gets reported to the CVU (Counter-Vandalism Unit). For the even smaller fraction that doesn't get reported, it stays there until someone comes across it.

For us, we can look in the recent changes at all of the edits in one day. That's good enough to do to watch out for vandalism. 01:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Revision to COD:R, and usergroups?
Currently at Call of Duty Wiki:Ranks, ranks are based solely on one's total editcount, and the editcounts are listed for each person, which would tend to get outdated rather quickly.

Which is why I have an idea (an unoriginal one, might I add): What if we were to open usergroups? Like Halopedia's UNSCoH, we could make our own usergroup. This could replace the ranking system, and the requirements we currently have for ranks could be turned into guidelines, and users could just request promotions, and an officer could grant or reject the promotion.

Another idea of mine is that the usergroup could either be our own made up unit, or be named after the Wiki somehow. Examples include:
 * 305th Infantry Company
 * The "305" is vaguely Leet for "COD".
 * Call of Duty Wiki Armed Forces
 * Etc.. I'm too lazy to think up of anything else.

The ranks would probably have to end up being proportional, also. Comments? Ideas? 02:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Ho-ho NOW you're talking. I think we all know that the ranks system needs a change no matter what it is, but everyone likes to have a cool, you know, something to look forward to, and update on a regular basis (No one wants a stickler wiki where fun is outlawed ^^). One question; how... is... 305 related to COD? (looks at it upside-down) xD I can see the 0, but the 3 and 5?

Anyways, I support this idea fully, and so all we need are some ideas. We should get I Ross I, he seems really into that sort of thing.

Oh, also we need some cool/hopefully official userbox templates. For examples look on I Ross I's andmy user pages. Official images for the ranks is good too.

Oppose offensive towards people who have served in a real military or force by treating titles styled after their prestigious classification titles as a cheap way to enhance atmosphere. unless the naming is things that are distinctly mercenary like such as the "CoD Wiki Strike Force" or something, i'm saying it's disrespectful Sqaddif 05:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dis...Respectful??? Did I miss something here?  Have you ever been to the official Call of Duty site, CallofDuty.com?  Or have you ever played Call of Duty 4 or Call of Duty: World at War?  They all use a ranking system, and for the same reason; fun.  I'm sorry, I REALLY don't understand what you are saying.

Incredibly strong oppose - No matter how you say it, its still showing superiortiy of some users of others which goes against All Editors Are Equal. Also you are forgetting that a promotion may simply may be shot down because someone dislikes you. Also it has been said time and time again that the ranking system on both here and halopedia have failed. Any attempts at reviving this idea, which will cause trouble on the wiki will be stopped. -- 06:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh well, I disagree, but it is no trouble to go without it... I understand perfectly when you say that ranking systems are bad, but the thing I don't agree with is where you say it disrupts the "All Editors are Equal" policy.  Are you saying no-one should have something to shoot for?  I think in many ways, a "flashy" something will attract editors, and if we have something like Chiafriend suggested where it is not an "edit count" system but rather a system that is purely based on editor quality.  Following the "someone dislikes you" logic, why have admins?  Not meaning to be impudent, but if people thought that way, wouldn't users feel inferior to admins?  If other users flaunt their rank, then the granter (admins only) can take it away.  That simple.