User talk:Dr Chatterjee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Dr Chatterjee, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Firsfron of Ronchester 06:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Your edit to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Autofellatio Redirect Vandal 2 Anytime... 3 Prod tags 4 Brian Mandelbaum 5 Red Swastika School 6 Re: Barnstar 7 Email address 8 Pardon me I have a question? 9 Like walking uphill in a snowstorm 10 You deserve it more 11 Its ok 12 No Hard Feelings 13 No need to 14 Hello again 15 Hey 16 Wikipedia:Don't be a hero 17 CVU and stuff 18 Who are you? 19 Hey 20 Welcome to Esperanza! 21 Straw man 22 What the...?

Your edit to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Autofellatio Redirect Vandal

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Autofellatio Redirect Vandal (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 02:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Your bot reverted my reversion of someone else's vandalism, and then slapped me with a vandalism warning. I'd say you need to work out the kinks in your bot. Dr Chatterjee 02:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fix your freaking bot! Christ. Dr Chatterjee 03:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Did he fix it yet? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, looks like that bot automatically does that 2 times, then stops. It's owner is User:Cyde... maybe leave a message there. SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Blame Colbert - we've had it on revert as many times as damn well necessary due to the massive amounts of vandalism we've been having, i've whitelisted you that should solve the problem :) -- Tawker 15:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tawker! You rock. Dr Chatterjee 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anytime...

Good morning... you're certainly welcome (sorry for the delayed reply). I've actually become a target for our friend BB since that discussion, at least according to my page history. I'm apparently being watched by bots now, which of course helps identify the sockpuppets so all's well there :). SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Me too, sadly. Bobby seems to have it out for anyone and everyone who's ever reverted his vandalism or labeled one of his many sockpuppets. Dr Chatterjee 17:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Prod tags

Hi Doc,

It's actually not vandalism to remove a prod tag, which anyone can remove at any time for no reason. It is vandalism to remove a speedy tag without explanation, or an AFD tag at all. NawlinWiki 16:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that someone's removing tags placed on his own (advertisement) article is considered a violation of Wikipedia policy, if not outright vandalism. No? If not, then I apologise -- but it doesn't seem right, regardless. Dr Chatterjee 17:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That applies to speedy and afd tags, but the point of a prod is to allow deletion if it is uncontested -- if anyone contests it by removing the prod tag, it has to go to afd. No apology necessary. :) NawlinWiki 18:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the heads up! Dr Chatterjee 18:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Brian Mandelbaum

Dr.,

Sorry about removing the tags, I didn't know that an Editor had to remove them - I attempted to wiki the article as best as I could, and it also appears someone else contributed and added related links/references for the article. Hope it meets Wiki standards now - I wanted to contribute some information about Brian because I am a fan of the Rubble man song. Twotacos 18:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Red Swastika School

Thanks for identifying the article on Red Swastika School as a problem. I did a Google search, and discovered that there really is a school by that name, and it has nothing to do with Nazism. The school is in Singapore. Please see http://web.singnet.com/~sidneys/Swastika.htm for an article which distinguishes between the Buddhist swastika and the Nazi one. The swastika's Indian name comes from the Sanskrit word svasti, meaning good fortune, luck and well being. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 08:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thanks a lot! :) --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, man! Well deserved. Dr Chatterjee 00:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Email address

Please setup an email address so I can contact you privately. There are some things that are best not discussed in the open. --Cyde Weys 15:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be working now. And if not, just e-mail me anyway at juliuschatterjee (at) hotmail (dot) com. Dr Chatterjee 15:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me I have a question?

You have tagged the CVU a counter vandal Wikiproject for Deletion. While I understand you are doing this to try to prevent vandalism this group is NEEDED to help fight vandalism (It is a one stop shop for all thing counter vandal such as Vandal Proof, Vandal Sniper, Current Defcon ect.) I don't understand and many other will not understand why you have nomed it. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 01:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Like you, I am a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit and have fought vandals on Wikipedia tirelessly for quite some time now. And it occurred to me recently that the CVU's very existence creates and feeds a glorified vandal myth that is counter-productive to the CVU's own goals. By maintaining a fancy-sounding "Counter Vandalism Unit," we give people the idea that vandals are enormous, pervasive, and glamorous villains -- the kind who need their own CVU just to be dealt with. Myths like that perpetuate and inspire vandalism to a greater extent than the CVU's members cut down on vandalism. Dr Chatterjee 01:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to repectfully disagree with you. Vandals are also drawn to Article such as Presdent Bush, the Pope, Pokemon articles (Why they bother with them I have no idea) in general ect. This is not going to help prevent Vandalism most likey it is going to set the fight back if it is deleted. I don't think your going to get a very possive reasponse out of this from other members.

I'm not doing this for the popularity, obviously. I know that doing something like this is going to make some enemies among my fellow CVU members. But it's high time we were mature about the situation and faced up to the fact that the CVU's existence inspires vandalism. Unlike, say, the President Bush or Pokemon articles, the CVU mentions notorious vandals by name, constantly references them, and basically presents an end-goal to all would-be long term vandals: CVU recognition. The CVU's existence gives long-term vandals something to strive for. In that sense, its harm outweighs its benefits. Dr Chatterjee 02:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I still have to disagree with you. There is no harm in such a Unit. The Vandals were around before it was created and the vandals are still going to be around if it is deleted. I'm sorry but I feel trying to have it delete may be an excerise in futility Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You may be right, but its existence clearly hasn't done anything to stop vandalism. If anything, we've been getting a pretty heavy inflow of vandalism ever since it was created -- perhaps even moreso than before it was started. Dr Chatterjee 02:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Many members of the CVU fight vandalism on a regularly. And the up swing in vandalism can be attributed to the pouplarity of Wikipedia as a whole and not because of one group. We have grown ALOT since last year when I joined plus the Wiki has gotten a lot of press time since then. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Like walking uphill in a snowstorm

Too often I see people on WP (long story short, I watched for a long time before editing) get angered and resort to personal attacks when their opinion is countered. I just wanted to say, kudos for keeping your cool in the face of an unpopular idea. I hope everyone involved can learn from your style of debate. --JStalk 21:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jed. As I've told several users already who are pretty upset with me right now, "It was not the easy thing to do, and it was not the popular thing to do. But it was the right thing to do." Ultimately, someone had to step up and realize that the existence of a "Counter-Vandalism Unit" was doing more harm than good -- and that, ironically enough, deleting the CVU was the best thing that could happen to the fight against vandalism. I appreciated your well-reasoned and well-articulated support throughout the debate. Dr Chatterjee 21:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You deserve it more

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		In recognition of maintaining a cool head under intense resistance from CVU members in the CVU deletion discussion, I award Dr. Chatterjee this anti-vandalism barnstar; for his long dedication to fighting vandals and fighting for anti-vandalism as a whole even when a move is unpopular, he is to be commended! The easy thing to do is rarely the right thing to do. JStalk 22:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, man! :) Here's to keeping a level head and fighting vandalism the old-fashioned way: with a cool head and an even keel. Dr Chatterjee 22:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Its ok

I plan on attemting to get it undeleted. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

However I will wait a few and talk with a few users to see if there is even a snowballs chance it will get overturned (Don't want to waste my time.) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction to above someone has allready requested delete review. However I have requested that the vandal fighting tools be merged into the RC Patrol (Low key group) Happy Editing Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No Hard Feelings

		The Editor's Barnstar
		This is also known as the Deletionists' Barnstar. I fought hard to try to keep the CVU but however your Arguement won out. It not going to be a popular thing but I do see the reasons that the CVU was deleted. Hence you have earned this star. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 22:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And BTW. It was wicked fun to debate it even though I 'Lost' the arguement (Who knows maybe it will keep the Vandals at bay, which mens we all win) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 22:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Yeah, it was a pretty interesting and intense debate. You're a worthy "opponent," though I'd hesitate to call you that, considering we're technically fighting for the same thing. :) At any rate, I wish you the best of luck, and hopefully we'll both continue to do our part to keep vandalism at bay. Dr Chatterjee 00:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Yep and thanks for the Barnstar! I have joind the RC Patrol (Can do more with them anyways). Happy editing look forward to working together in the future Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 00:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No need to

No need to apologize, sir, you didn't do anything out of line. To be honest, I probably made an incivil comment, and I give you kudos for being the bigger man. No one is going to come out of this whole thing without dirt, it's too controversal for both sides. Have a great one, Yanksox 05:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again

Hello Doctor, on the Deletion review (Not complaing in anyway I'm sticking up for Drini to) your comment to Basebalbaby might add some fuel to the fire (Most are members of other project like myself (Espersnaza, AfD Closing, AMA and Mediation Cabal). while I agree that some have come just to go after the vandals most of use are Wikipedians first and Vandal fighters second (In fact in the last several wikis most of ym work has shifted to Esperanza and AMA again). Just want to get you a friendly head up thats all Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey

While I disagree completely and with passion with your decision to delete CVU (which I believe is a sin, no pun intended), I commend you for your courage. It is sometimes hard to make extremely unpopular decisions. I admire you for your courage, while disagreeing with you on CVU with every watt of my energy. I hope there will be no hard feelings, OK? Arbiteroftruth 04:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate it, and I appreciate that you are cool enough to take a step back, put strong emotions aside, and recognize that -- at the end of the day -- we're on the same side here. Just as it's not easy to recommend the CVU for deletion, it's not easy to give a shout out to the guy who's doing it. So thank you! Dr Chatterjee 18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the straw man argument earlier. Things got heated. However, I do have to point out one thing about your argument on glorifying vandalism. If we are deleting vandal pages on Wikipedia so as to not glorify vandalism, why aren't we deleting pages of convicted criminals on Wikipedia, for the sake of not glorifying crime? Surely, a murderer is much more of a threat than vandals! Arbiteroftruth 16:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Because convicted criminals aren't reading Wikipedia, and as such, can't be inspired to violence by it. Additionally, real-life criminals are going to be sensationalized/reported on by the television and print media, anyway. Avoiding mention of them would be naive. Dr Chatterjee 16:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, doctor. Avoiding mentions of vandals are also naive. Doctor, vandals are inspired by one thing and one thing only: Wikipedia. Sorry to use the straw man argument again, but deleting CVU for the sake of reducing vandalism would entail deleting Wikipedia in the future, so that vandals will have no inspiration at all. Surely now, this is not what you want, is it? Arbiteroftruth 16:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, I respect that you feel passionately about Wikipedia and counter-vandalism, but enough with the straw man arguments. They are called argumentative fallacies for a reason: their logic is fallacious, sloppy, and incorrect. In the future, don't apologize for using straw-man arguments; just don't use them. I am not going to respond to such ludicrous agruments in the future. Dr Chatterjee 16:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't be a hero

Very good advice. Well written -- Samir धर्म 06:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I felt it was high time people started remembering to consider the general needs of Wikipedia above their personal feelings and attachments. This had come up in several deletion debates, most notably the ongoing discussion over the proposed deletion of WP:CVU. At any rate, glad you enjoy the essay! Dr Chatterjee 06:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

CVU and stuff

I don't do sides. They tend to get in the way of takeing the position supported by logic. Wikipedia:Vandalism is not a game is an attack on the CVU. There is no other credible position. If there was a bigger gap in time there would at least be plausable deniabilty (which is generaly enough for wikipedia politics) but with the timeing, focus and your current attempts to get rid of the CVU that is a bit hard to establish. BTW I suggest you read:

http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-September/009643.html

Geni 17:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the intent of WP:GAME, then. The point of WP:GAME isn't to attack the CVU; it's to criticize a negative effect that pages such as, but not limited to the CVU have in common: they make a game of "cops and robbers" out of counter-vandalism. My critique of that effect is perfectly reasonable, logical, and well-argued. If you fail to see it that way, I regret that you aren't able to read it in an unbiased fashion. Yes, I'm in favor of deleting the CVU. But I'm in favor of deleting the CVU for reasons I've recently articulated in that essay. I don't see what's wrong with that. I see Organization A that exhibits Bad Practice B, and I write an essay condemning Bad Practice B (which happens to be endemic to Organization A, but also exists in other organizations). There's nothing wrong or underhanded about that. Dr Chatterjee 17:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You directly stated that "This proposal is not an "attack" on the CVU" there is a politeness in wikipedia politics. You don't make staments that are completely non credible.Geni 17:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What statements have I made that are non-credible? Like I said, it is NOT an attack on the CVU; it is a criticism of a tactic employed by the CVU. There is a subtle, but very important difference there. Dr Chatterjee 17:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As for politeness in Wikipedia politics, I'd argue that you could stand to practice what you preach. I've made every effort to be civil and polite with you, and even attempted to extend a proverbial olive branch on your talk page. And yet you insist on attacking me at every opportunity, on my talk page, on the talk pages of my essay, etc. Let's agree to disagree here, and move on already. Dr Chatterjee 17:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem; no harm done. Just passing on pschemp's comment, which was appropriate. All the best, +sj + 01:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. :P "Appropriate" in the sense that I was letting my temper get the best of me. But not necessarily "appropriate" in the sense that I a) initiated that MfD in the first place, and b) was contributing a large amount of thoughtful, cogent, and persuasive arguments on behalf of my side of the debate. It's a tad bit unfair to lump me in with the other user, whose contributions seemed to be little more than attempts to bait me into a flame war. Dr Chatterjee 01:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Who are you?

'Dr. +"Julius Chatterjee" orthopedic surgery' (from User:Dr Chatterjee) gets 0 Ghits. Little editing on medical topics. Editing history does not reflect 'daily RC patrol' in terms of activity. For an account opened 31 July, you have suprising knowledge of long term abuse and policy essays. I'm sure this will all be explained, but you are campaigning to create a policy shift with respect to handling long-term abuse, so these questions will be raised. Best if it is explained here. Reply here. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 03:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Happy to help clear up your questions. The name "Julius Chatterjee" is an alias (though my real name is fairly close to it) -- as for privacy's sake (and by virtue of the fact that I've espoused some pretty controversial opinions with regard to policy-making), I do not want to give out my real-life name or contact information over this site. Feel free to e-mail me if you're genuinely interested in contacting me, reviewing my medical certification, etc. Secondly, I have been on Wikipedia for years (probably since around 2004 or so), but until recently have not had sufficient reason to get involved or create my own account. As for my medical contributions, I've made a handful to date (see: Lidocaine, Tonsillitis, and others for reference). As I believe I stated in my user page, I created this account with the intent of contributing mostly medical information, but quickly became interested in policy and policy-making. Having gone through med school, I'm a pretty quick read and a good study. I've read up on just about every Wikipedia policy in the books. Hopefully this answers your questions, and I'd be happy to talk at length to you via e-mail or even over the phone if you wish. Dr Chatterjee 03:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Doc, I saw the decree made by pschemp, I don't think you are really disupting things that much (I have seen AfD's with far worse disuption). I was going to comment in the MfD (Not sure if I will now or not I think this one may close out on a no consenus just judging by comments made and the lenght of the discussion). I think what that MfD has been is the reason I commented on endorsing the deletion even thought I wanted it back (Kind of wish they had just left it alone, I had a feeling it was going to turn into a major issue) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't mind, and would actually be pretty grateful, if you were to say something in my defense on the CVU MfD. I feel I was unfairly targetted by someone trying to bait me into a flame war, and punished along with that user when the flame war erupted (and even in the midst of said flame war, I think I showed a pretty ridiculously high amount of restraint). The fact that I was lumped into the same boat as the guy who was harassing me still isn't sitting well with me. Up to you, of course, but if you could throw a kind word of support my way, I'd really appreciate it. Dr Chatterjee 04:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's funny you mention wishing this hadn't turned into a major issue. I'm starting to feel the same way. I'm almost wishing I'd never stuck my neck out on this one and opened the Pandora's box that putting the CVU up for deletion would open. All that's happened to me as a result is that I'm now hated by however many CVU members there are, and they seem to be turning their efforts onto making personal attacks and accusations at me. It's highly unfortunate, immature, unprofessional, and frankly, saddening. I guess I should have known going into this that the CVU is a powerful and emotional lobby on this site, and that trying to "mess" with that bull would get me the horns. Oh well. I have no regrets about having attempted to do what's best for Wikipedia. And if I had to be sacrificed to get that point across, then so be it. I want no part of an encyclopedia that is so infested by partisan politics and immaturity in the first place. :( Dr Chatterjee 04:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

 ;) sure why not lol a member of Esperanza doesn't turn down a stressed Wikipedian in need, I will make a general comment on it (Going to stay out of the keep/debate/relist debate). And hey if the blood pressure gets back just call on this Weather Guesser (I'm a Meterologist) and I will step in and help calm things down. And I'm a member of the AMA if you need an advocate to represent you ask me and I will. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. There is a real lesson to be learned in studying your maturity and good example, which I think many CVU members would do well to try. Dr Chatterjee 04:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets just say I know a paramilitary orginization when I see it, being in the military myself. (I'm sure you noticed the PO2 Rank insigina and US Navy Flag on my page) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL, good point. :) Dr Chatterjee 04:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And another good point is My overriding concern at least with Wikipedia is to assist it in anyway I can so if it mens putting the CVU (which I still like, even though some of its members are shall we say Fiesty. OH you should see the new logo the vandals would just LOVE that one I think but it is kind of cute.) on the choping block then lets do it (I did fight for it, had fun even debating it but I do have other things to do (like right now help esperanza redsign there project page and helping the AMA out as its new deputy)). Ok anyways I'm making a comment that you were acting in good faith on that MfD. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza seems like an interesting and valuable group, by the way. I've just added myself to the membership roster, and would love to get involved there in any way needed. Dr Chatterjee 04:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Then I would recomend joining the Barnstar Brig. and helping out with both Stressbusters and the Front Page Redo. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I made the comment on the MfD and both you and Drini were acting in good faith (But I do believe that Drini should have waited at least one more day before closing, could have prevent this). Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I feel bad for Drini, as well. Both he and I failed to emerge unscatched from this whole thing. :) Oh well. Thanks again for your kind words and support. Dr Chatterjee 04:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem oh BTW I noticed you wanted a Page Redo. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, if you or anyone else feels up to it, by all means, you have my blessing. Lord knows I've given it the old college try and have come up pretty short. :) Dr Chatterjee 04:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool I will try to dig up a few GDFL Medical images. Any color you like? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm partial to blues or greens, but whatever you think looks good. As you can tell, my user page design instincts leave a lot to be desired! Dr Chatterjee 04:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I can understand I'm not the best writer so I contribute what I can to the Wiki (In this case graphics, support, RC Patroling, DR help ect). Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to my lab coat and greens. And my reflex hammers, as I do no neurology. And here's a stethoscope (when does a gastroenterologist use one of those?). Doubt you'd want some endoscopic images, but here's the category Category:Endoscopic images -- Samir धर्म 05:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I think your guess is correct -- I will be leaving the endoscopic images out of my user page for the time being. :) But thank you for granting use of the other images. Dr Chatterjee 06:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Esperanza!

Straw man

With all due respect (this is intended as constructive critisism) i would suggest that you brush up on your logical fallicies. in the CVU MfD, i've seen you class red herrings and slippery slope fallicies as straw men (which kind of defeats the point of the fallicies, ie short and easy ways to identify and rebuke incorrect logic -- doesnt work if you incorrectly identify the fallicy), and you have repeatedly dismissed reductio ad absurdums as strawmen.

Reductio ad absurdum is not falicious, and is infact a perfectly valid and quite effective way of demonstrating flaws in someones reasoning.

again, this is intended as constructive critisism, but incorrectly dismissing someones argument as a fallicy is, in itself, falicious --DakAD 06:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that there was maybe one instance (re: the RC Patrol red herring) where I hastily and incorrectly identified someone's argument as a straw man, when in fact another type of fallacy (red herring, in this instance) would have fit the bill more closely. However, many different specious arguments which DO fit the straw man criteria were used against me in the CVU MfD, most notably by User:John254. John made a consistent habit of a) taking my arguments, b) distorting or grossly misrepresenting them, and c) attacking/refuting those distortions, rather than my original points. Those are the hallmarks of a straw man argument, and imply fallacies in his logic, not my own. Dr Chatterjee 06:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

An example (closely paraphrased, not directly quoted) of a straw man argument used against me by John in the MfD went something along these lines:

Dr. Chatterjee: We must strive not to use language that glorifies or gives undue mention to vandals or their work.

John254: So you don't want us to mention vandalism at all? What a foolish idea! If we cower from vandals, they will win!

That's a classic straw man right there. It may also fit the bill for other fallacies, but it can certainly be classified as a straw man, and is certainly fallacious reasoning on his part. In this case we see that John has a) distorted my position, b) refuted the distortion, rather than my actual position, and c) claimed to have effectively refuted my position. You might argue -- and perhaps rightfully so -- that John's fallacy also contains some slippery slope logic (in his "if we do X, then Y will result" format), but the crux of his fallacy lies in his misrepresentation of my argument -- and hence, the straw man. Dr Chatterjee 06:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that is indeed outright strawmanning; however, you did also, imo, incorrectly dismiss many reducto ad absurdums as strawmen, where your arguments were pretty much taken and applied to the RC patrol to suggest that it be deleted, with the intent of proving by contradiction that your arguments were invalid.

of cource, if you felt that your arguments were exaggerated and then reductio ad absurdum'd, then a call of strawman would be justified. lets say that, from my point of view, they weren't obviously strawmen as opposed to legitimate reductio ad absurdums (and i saw at least one other person make the same point), so maybe a little more clarification of your argument (and how it differed from the representation of your argument) at this point might have been advisable ;-)

off topic: i noticed your email adress above. i'd advise removing it, or breaking it up (blah -at- blah -dot- com) so the email-harvister-bots don't find it) --DakAD 07:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip re: the e-mail address. :) Correction made. As for the reductio ad absurdam arguments, I felt they qualified as straw men, as you said, given that my positions were never really addressed properly. Whether applied to the RC Patrol or attacked in other means, my arguments were always grossly distorted before being "refuted." As for clarifying my argument, I'm not sure how much clearer I could have made it. :P My argument, in a nutshell, was this: "The CVU glorifies vandalism by making a military-themed game out of fighting it. We should, therefore, delete the CVU (and other other such groups) whose very existence causes more harm than good by glorifying vandalism in such a way, encouraging vandalism by giving attention to known vandals, and inflaming vandals by virtue of its adversarial, "cops and robbers" theme." Amazingly, I found virtually no one in the MfD who argued against any of those points. Everyone chose to misinterpret, misrepresent, or distort my points before responding to them. The frustration of having to keep clarifying my point and being drawn into defending myself against so many straw men drove me pretty nuts after awhile. :\ As you can imagine -- you can only defend against 10 or 12 of the exact same straw man critiques before you start to lose your composure. Dr Chatterjee 17:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

However you want to look at it, I consider this MfD to have been "my Vietnam." By nominating the CVU for deletion, I was dragging myself into a war I really had no hope of winning cleanly, even from the get-go. No matter how salient my points were, and no matter how often I refuted someone's invalid critiques of my points, there was always some other CVU member ready to step up and make the same invalid critiques all over again. In a way, the CVU members used their far superior numbers to drive me insane and bog me down, preventing me from continuing in my rational line of argument, and forcing me to constantly respond to their straw men / red herrings / etc. If they end up "winning" this MfD debate, it will not be because they made the better arguments, but because they effectively drove the most ardent and eloquent pro-deletionist off the MfD by badgering him to death. Not to give myself TOO much credit, but at the time I was forced out of the debate for losing my temper, I was definitely the most eloquent and vocal supporter of deletion in the mix. The CVU lobby knew this, targetted me, and had at it. (They even went so far as to send two or three members to report me to various administrators, trying to question my credentials and credibility). I consider these guys a dangerous group of people, given that a) their numbers are pretty strong, b) their agenda is driven purely by emotion and not by logical concerns, and c) they seem to be extremely effective at organizing smear campaigns. I'd almost consider them a true political lobby (and a powerful, insidious one at that) on Wikipedia. Dr Chatterjee 17:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not to say that I consider all CVU members bad. I've had great experiences with quite a few CVU members, and if you are a CVU member, I consider you quite reasonable, reserved, and intelligent, and I applaud you for it. Hell, I myself was an active CVU member prior to the MfD. But there is definitely a bad element controlling the CVU, and I think it's the whole mob mentality / Groupthink. Dr Chatterjee 17:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

yes i am in the CVU, and thank you very much :-)

tbh, i think both sides of this debate -- nay, the entire debacle itself -- has been bad. as much as you think (maybe correctly, maybe not) that the 'CVU lobby targetted you', it also seems that there was an anti-CVU 'lobby' using underhand tactics to anniholate the CVU. i dont actually think this was intentional, but by going after every single aspect of the CVU (project page, icons, members of, user template, defcon, et al) and by rushing the delete through, it certainly seems as if theres an attempt to get rid of the CVU at all costs.

meh. reguardless: i think the CVU will survive this MfD, but if its any consolation, i think your arguments have been taken on board, and i suspect there'll be a wave of discussions re: deglamorising the CVU. i'll certainly suggest it (in fact, i've allready made a less glamourous defcon and suggested it as default). maybe you should rejoin and suggest some changes if the MfD fails? --DakAD 19:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We'll see what happens, I guess. It's out of my hands at this point, anyhow. I suspect you're right; the CVU will probably outlive this MfD -- just as it did the last deletion, by virtue of its loud, large, and extremely vocal majority of voters. Even if it gets deleted again, they'll just have someone else attack the closing admin's credibility (as they did with Drini last time), or lobby to have the deletion overturned again. But I doubt it will even get there. With me out of the debate, and none of the previous pro-deletionists appearing to show up for this round (and after seeing what happened to me, can you really blame them?), there's a very slim chance this MfD will swing in favor of deletion.

As for an anti-CVU lobby, I disagree with the idea that one exists. But I do think there are a handful of admins who've wanted the CVU gone for quite some time now, and who were waiting around for a non-admin to raise the issue in the first place. I wouldn't go so far as to call them a lobby, or even an organized action group, but some of them have been itching for this to happen.

Regardless of the outcome of this debate, I feel sufficiently burned by the CVU's membership to the point where I probably won't rejoin if the page lives through this MfD. Or at least not for quite awhile, until cooler heads have had the chance to prevail. There's just too much ill will and hostility towards me among the CVU's rank and file members for me to prosper in such an organization now. Dr Chatterjee 20:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

What the...?

Can I ask why my account was blocked with the designation "Vandal Operator"? Dr Chatterjee 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Because of this. DS 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)