Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep for the following reasons :

• Original nomination was created by banned user, you can effectively call it trolling
• There is no consensus to get the article deleted.

- Mailer Diablo 00:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit

Relisting per WP:DRV Cowman109^Talk 05:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: Active participants of the discussion

• Dr Chatterjee (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Funkyzeit (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Rustag (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Mister Righteous (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 71.107.251.78 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

have been blocked for being a "BobbyBoulders" and associated sockpuppets. See the checkuser case for additional info. --Cat out 22:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)(edited by pschemp | talk 02:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC) to add additional users)

Further Note: I cannot bring any information about BobbyBoulders being a WoW sockpupet (I only saw several mentions of it) since that info was deleted in the new "lets not embolden the vandals" campaign. --Cat out 22:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There is some discussion that shows that Cyde proved that Bobby Boulders is Willy on Wheels at User talk:Cyde/Archive011#Bobby Boulders == WoW?. The proof is not here because this kind of thing apparently needs to be hidden to keep vandals from finding out how he proved that Bobby Boulders was Willy on Wheels, but he might email the proof to interested administrators. Kelly Martin apparently was convinced by the proof. Jesse Viviano 23:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Still, such knowlege (that BB is WOW) should be easily accessable w/o providing evidence... Oh and I loved User:Dr Chatterjee complaining about it. :) --Cat out 01:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification and question:Bobby Boulders (using his sockpuppet "Dr Chatterjee") is actually the instigator of the improperly closed second MFD of Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit linked here which had to be redone here due to this closure. Should I close this now by placing {{Db-banned|Willy on Wheels}} on this page per Wikipedia:Speedy keep? Jesse Viviano 01:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No. See talk page. 192.75.48.150 14:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr Chatterjee, John254: please see pschemp's comment at the end of the #General comments section. +sj + 00:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please note, this debate is not, and should not be about the deleted LOGO's, they are replaceable, and were deleted as possible misuse of copyvio on commons. If this is kept, other logos can be fabricated. A discussion of the logos is being had on the WP:CVU talk page. - xaosflux ^Talk 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  

• Delete, but sanction any admin who decides to speedy close this MFD. – Chacor 05:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  (Further comments) ^[1]

• keep but fix i think the CVU performs a useful roll, as does any other wikiproject that dedicates itself to just one aspect of wp; however, i agree with the points that argue it shouldn't glamorize vandalism, or make it fun/game-like for the vandals. We should keep, but look at limiting/eliminating the glamorising aspects (probably even a name-change), and maybe fixing a few other things --DakAD 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Not sure I understand what you mean. The deletion is about this page, not about stopping people dealing with vandalism. cleaning up vandalism is one alternative resource along similar lines, but without the cultural issues you describe. --pgk 09:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  and also without any culture. i'm arguing that the 'club', as people are calling it, should stay -- a group of people dedicated to combating vandalism with their own project page is not a bad thing -- so the organisation and project page should stay. the issues people are citing as justification for delete should be addressed and fixed. --DakAD 05:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  I agree, as a member of this group, I believe it performs a role in the upkeep of Wikipedia, and shuold not be deleted if it stops 'glamorizing' vandalism Oliver202 18:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• request to the people who want the CVU deleted: fair enough. go ahead and argue for deletion here. but, please dont enbark (intentionally or accidentally) on a war of annhiolation against the CVU, by going after its logos, user-templates etc etc etc. --DakAD 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  I think you are missing the point about why many believe this should be removed. --pgk 11:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  i think your missing my point about how this is being handled. i'm not accusing anyone of intentionally doing this, but, by nominating CVU for speedy delete, by instructing (not suggesting) a merge with CUV, CVU members for speedy delete and then rename, deleting the logos, deleting the 'member of CVU' userbox and redirecting to CUV instead, by whinging about the defcon -- in other words, going after every single aspect of the CVU -- the CVU is essentially being gang-raped from every concievable angle. not a good way to determine wether something should be deleted or not imo --DakAD 05:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This page and group have been instrumental in organizing the fight against vandalism. Scienceman123 05:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep If no other reason than the fact that a reason wasn't actually given. You're going to have to say something, especially since this is the third time it's been submitted. EVula 05:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  This is a result of a relist of DRV, that reason is given i.e. it is effectively a rerun of the second nomination. --pgk 11:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• There is a whole other wiki and infrastructure for addressing (not fighting) vandalism. CVU has militaristic trappings that many view as divisive. Delete after extracting any useful information. ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep -- It's extraordinarily unfair to disrupt the Counter-Vandalism Unit by speedily deleting its project page (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (second nomination)), then, when most of the members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit have stopped monitoring this page, to renominate it for deletion. It is unlikely, under such circumstances, that this MFD discussion can truly consider whether there is consensus for the proposed deletion. Members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit should not be largely excluded from this discussion. To the extent that numerical consensus is relevant to the discussion of the proposed deletion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (second nomination) offers the best evidence of what the numerical outcome would have been if the second nomination discussion had not been speedily closed: in the second nomination discussion, there was a strong supermajority of established users in favor of retaining this project page. Furthermore, adequate reasons for keeping this project page were provided on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit by TinMan:

  The CVU is an organization of Wikipedians that not only want to counter vandalism, but want to find better and systematic ways of catching vandals. They provide innovative discussion on the topics of vandalism and collaborate when neccessary on the best way to deal with vandalism. In a sense, it is a think tank and a watchdog group that is beneficial to Wikipedia and is different from the RCpatrol. It does not just look at recent changes, it looks at purposely added incorrect information and other more-difficult-to-find forms of vandalism. It is a team with a positive purpose with positive results and should remain as a page. The CVU does [not] interfere with Wikipedia's workings, nor does it cause cause any harm; it has many members that are dedicated to these principles. There is no logical reason for its deletion.

  Cool Cat:

  To my knowledge, Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit was never moved off wiki... As for www.countervandalism.org, I do not know who they are nor do I care. We arent going to delete startrek wikiproject simply because memory-alpha exists. Furthermore that wiki seems very inactive compared to the en.wiki counterpart. It isnt a valid argument to suggests that we were able to deal with vandalism w/o this wikiproject. Of course we were. We also had decent anime and manga related articles before that wikiproject existed. See Wikipedia:Wikiprojects to see why we have wikiprojects.

  Viridae:

  On the topic of the actual page, I believe it is useful contact for those interested in RC patrol and others. The argument that it could incite vandals also applies to every vandal warning template (like {{test3}} for instance) but it is not appropriate to remove them either because they serve a purpose among the community.

  and myself:

  The Counter-Vandalism Unit does serve the same general purpose as Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism. However, the Counter-Vandalism Unit's unique style is well-suited to the recruitment of users who would not otherwise participate in RC Patrol. Members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit clearly participate in a significant portion of the RC patrol that occurs on Wikipedia today. For this reason, it is probable that the Counter-Vandalism Unit has increased participation in RC patrol, thereby enhancing the integrity of Wikipedia.

  John254 05:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm only vaguely familiar with the CVU, but it was one of the first groups that I found out about when I first started editing Wikipedia. Regardless of whether or not it is an "official" WikiProject, it serves the same purpose as many other WikiProjects. People have many different roles on Wikipedia, and not all of them involve adding content to articles. As long as that person's actions still contribute to the goal of Wikipedia, it is still admirable. While removing vandalism is indeed everyone's responsibility, the CVU is a group of editors who have made removing vandalism one of their primary reasons and purposes for being involved in the project. That is relevant to the project's goals, and if they want to have a project page that helps them organize and implement their actions, I don't see a reason to prevent it. —Cswrye 06:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Extremely Speedy Keep- The powers that be who deleted CVU has set back Wikipedia's War on Vandalism several years, and this has already damaged Wikipedia. I am asking anyone with a sense of sanity to please support me in restoring CVU and stand up to those powers that be who wished for its death. Arbiteroftruth 07:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment No, actually refering to cleaning up vandalism as a "War on Vandalism" is far more damaging to Wikipedia, as it gives vandals the feeling that what they are doing has a legitimate purpose. Seriously, you sound like an anti-vandal version of Bobby Boulders.--Lorrainier 07:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Further discussion^[2]

• Speedy Delete - Redundant and pointless; only serves to romanticise vandals and vandalism. The page Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism is much more professional and appropriate, or at least more so than the damned CVU page.--Lorrainier 07:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Professional? Why would we want that seeing as we are not getting paid?Geni 12:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Who damned the CVU page? --Cat out 16:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete CVU makes vandalism an adversarial issue from what should be a maintenance issue. The DefCon thing is it's own caricature and CVU is at least partially to blame for the over-reporting issues at WP:AIV. The "war on vandalism" cult is damaging and should be moderated by deleting CVU and handling vandalism like any other maintenance task. Rx StrangeLove 09:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  You seen the backlog at other maintenance tasks lately?Geni 11:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Further discussion ^[3]

• Strong Keep - per above... --Deenoe 21:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break 1

• Delete last time around I would have probably voted weak keep, but seeing the way that discussion went and indeed the DRV went leads me to believe that it is indeed time to remove this. The focus of those discussions seemed to put some magical mystique around the CVU name and votes Tlike "don't delete US" leads me to conclude that the emphasis here is completely wrong. Per Rx StrangeLove, we are an encyclopedia nothing else, removal of vandalism is an unfortunate necessity which should be dealt with as simple janatorial task the same way as many other items are. Wikipedia is not a battleground, we don't need one group running around as policemen (CVU) whilst another runs around as criminals (ISV) --pgk 09:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Grovey. So when you say like other maintenance tasks do you mean like CAT:CSD where many speedies have to be not reported to avoid overloading the system or WP:CP where month long backlogs are not unknown?Geni 11:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  So the marking of articles for CSD is progressing quite nicely without having a CVU equivalent? That is exactly what I mean. Not having enough admins to deal with the backlog is a different issue, which I don't believe would be resolved by creating a CVU for CSD (You could in fact argue that our over emphasis on vandalism issues takes admin resource away from those areas which need it) . --pgk 11:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

^[4]

[edit] Arbitrary section break 2

• Delete, per the arguments articulated at WP:DENY and in the various discussions already held regarding this page. In short, CVU glorifies vandalism, and makes it an adversarial issue, which encourages persistent vandals. Additionally, any admin who closes this MfD early would be making a clear statement that they love DRAMA!! much more than progress. For God's sake, please don't close it early. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  and the vandals will then get thier kicks from AN/I. It should be remebered that at least some vandalism is adversarial.Geni 11:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  I fail to see how this is an argument against deleting the CVU. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Vandalism is adversarial; counter-vandalism should not be. Dr Chatterjee 16:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I don't think we really need to glorify dealing with vandalism cleanup. and heck, even CoolCat would probably like to see this go. At the very least, if we keep this, I'd say we rename it to something less glorius, like "Vandalism Cleanup" or "Admins with Mops". --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Rename unnecessary, there's already Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  [3] ~ PseudoSudo 03:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or at the very least rename. It's not different from any other WikiProject, and having an offsite equivalent does not preclude an onsite group. As for WP:CUV and such, those are fine, and could be considered part of the WikiProject, but should not become the essence of a rather large group. I don't see why having a project aiming to clean up vandalism is a horrible, nasty thing. If the military style of the page is the problem, then rename it. (How about WikiProject Vandalism or WikiProject Cleaning Up Vandalism?) Other pages are great but the group needs some way to collaborate, and offsite means do not count. --Chris (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename - the name may not be appropriate, but it seems to me that the goal of the unit is relavent and very appropriate. The current pages on "cleaning up vandalism" are just informative pages, you won't find IRC information or general vandal-cleaning related discussions there.--Konstable 12:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this page is not Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism. I think both pages are useful, but WP:CUV is more like a Portal (in fact was copied from the portal template) then anything else. W:CUV is a great place to refer people to when discussing cleaning up vandalism in general, but does not have the workability and resouce gathering affects that WP:CVU has. CVU is a de facto WikiProject, and does not claim to be a sanctioned official authority on anything, and specicifically states that on the page. If there are problems with editors being incivil, and they claim exemption from responisibilty for their incivility, then we have plenty of measurse for that, just as we do if someone edit wars over a stub-type. A vandalized page is just as bad as an incorrect page for new readers, and any association of editors working to keep pages clean should be welcomed. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep per discussions in first nomination June 23rd 2006 Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit. Restore logos and user boxes. WP:AGF, there's lots of leaping to the conclusion that this project is feeding the trolls and harming the project, but no evidence that the page Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit is causing this. Clappingsimon talk 13:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Sure there is [4], do you think Robert Boulders does his ISV thing if there's just a how-to guide on fighting vandalism? Honestly? Rx StrangeLove 13:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  On the other hand, pages like this also serve as a honeypot to attract vandalism away from the encyclopedia. But neither argument is really a good one: you may claim that the CVU just created that vandal, while others will argue that the CVU attracted that vandal away from the encyclopedia. Neither may be true. He may well have been a vandal before. And he may well have started at the CVU and will now haunt the rest of the encyclopedia. Both arguments lack objective evidence, and effectively nullify eath other. --Chris (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Further discussion ^[5]

[edit] Arbitrary section break 3

• Keep. This is nothing more than a WikiProject with a different name. Shadow1 14:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - 'tain a wikiproject - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - CVU has created a pseduo-official capacity for themselves (the defcon, etc) and uses it to lobby and interpret policy. This is inappropriate. Phil Sandifer 14:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  It is explicitly pointed out on the page that the CVU is not an official Wikimedia project and does not intend on becoming one. --AndreniW 15:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Then it should stop lobbying for its logos to be recreated, remove itself from all categories that contain policy pages, stop tagging pages as "watched" by the CVU, and delete the entire Defcon system. Phil Sandifer 16:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- It is highly inappropriate to delete the Counter-Vandalism Unit in an effort to disenfranchise its members from the policy making process. Phil Sandifer has actually encouraged members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit to leave Wikipedia altogether: "vandalism... would continue to be reverted even if the CVU were deleted and all its members left Wikipedia. I mean, thanks for your efforts, but don't mistake yourself for being necessary."[5] I reiterate that if the Counter-Vandalism Unit had not been disrupted by the speedy deletion of its project page, there would probably be four times as many established users in favor of keeping it than in favor of deleting it, as indicated by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (second nomination). John254 15:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  That is a grotesque and shameful misinterpretation of what I said. That Wikipedia would not collapse without the CVU or its members does not mean that its members should leave, and it's absurd to say that I ever suggested otherwise. Phil Sandifer 16:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep or rename, but take the honey pot away. -- FrostytheSnowman ^'sup? 15:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "take the honey pot away"? --AndreniW 15:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer Keep but rename would be acceptable. I suppose next we'll be debating the deletion of the Recent Changes patrol, or even WP:MOS or WP:NOTABLE? --AndreniW 15:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong DELETE on the grounds that the CVU is unnecessary, given that other counter-vandalism resources already exist on Wikipedia which are a) official, b) unbiased, c) non-militaristic, d) tone/value-neutral. The CVU is none of these things. It glorifies, adds notoriety to, feeds attention to, trivializes, glamorizes, and makes a game out of vandalism by doing the same things for counter-vandalism. "Vandalism is not a game" is an essay I've written recently which sums up my thoughts on this matter pretty succinctly, and I submit it as a valid argument against the existence of paramilitary-style groups such as the CVU. Also, please refer to my arguments (and those of others) made in the previous (second) MfD on the CVU for further reasoning. Dr Chatterjee 15:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Further discussion ^[6]

[edit] Arbitrary section break 4

• Keep (as per previous noms). Its a wikiproject. The deletion rationale is a strawamans argument. --Cat out 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  "The deletion rationale is a strawamans argument" How? Please enlighten me, because the deletion arguments here in no way meet the straw man criteria. Dr Chatterjee 16:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. While CVU has some good editors and is effective at combatting vandalism, it is poisonous to the community with its focus on badges, its militaristic attitude, the immaturity it tends to bring about, and its practices. Taken completely off-wiki, it may be less harmful, or it may dry up -- either way, people who want to fight vandalism should do so as wikipedia editors, not as part of a cohesive and separate group like this. --Improv 15:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  RC Patrol is a military group too. --Cat out 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  If that's the case, then we'll all deal with that issue at a separate time and occasion ("Two wrongs don't make a right," after all). But right now we're talking about the CVU. Trying to derail that discussion by bringing up the RC Patrol is straw man logic at best. Dr Chatterjee 16:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Of course it is, just like it is a streawmans argument to suggest that CVU is anything millitary. --Cat out 16:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  I am fairly certain you don't understand the definition of a straw man argument. I would advise that you follow the straw man link and read up on its definition before using it incorrectly. Dr Chatterjee 16:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  i'm fairly certain that you dont, either. "trying to derail that discussion by bringing up the RC Patrol" would be a red herring, not a strawman. cool cat's argument about the RC patrol looks more like an implied reducto ad absurdum to me. if we apply your arguments to the RC patrol, we get the same, and equally valid, argument to delete the RC patrol. showing that your arguments, applied to a different situation, are more obviously flawed is not a strawman. --DakAD 05:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A fine group, and no different than any other project on Wikipedia.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or rename/merge as a wikiproject -Doc 16:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but elevate this into a Wikiproject or merge with Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. --Howard the Duck 16:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• KeepWhat's going on?---Scott3 _{Talk Contributions Count: 950+} 16:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I joined WP at the same time I joined CVU. For me, CVU was simply a place to get my foot in the door and meet people with similar interests. Over the course of months, I have latched on to several other areas of the project and have been so productive as to have been successfully nominated and promoted to adminship. I do not attribute CVU to anything in my contributions except a large number of edits. My personal favorite areas now are WP:RFI and WP:NT. However, that has not stopped me from considering CVU useful. Had it not existed when I joined Wikipedia, I probably wouldn't be the editor and admin I am today, simply because of where my contributions through it lead me. --Zsinj^Talk 16:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or rename. It good to have a project for non-admins and admins alike to help control vandalism, but the name and themes here get over the top.Voice-of-All 17:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsense — Dan | talk 18:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete self-aggrandizing, pseudo-official, and redundant group. What's next, fake tin badges and homemade uniforms? This is janitorial work, not a chance to exercise your Jack Bauer fantasies. --Calton | Talk 18:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- Personal attacks on members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit do not constitute a valid reason for deletion. John254 19:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hypersensitivity and misuse of the term "personal attacks" don't impress me, nor do desperate attempts to denigrate my opinion. Try harder. --Calton | Talk 06:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Adam Bishop 18:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't exactly a vote. Could you give reasoning, please? Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 19:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't know, one of the other delete comments will do. Adam Bishop 19:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break 5

• Delete. Its all been said - we do not need an organization glorifying what should be quiet maintenance. By refusing vandals any acknowledgement, we defuse many of their motives. Cooperation is good, magnification isn't. Shell ^babelfish 18:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment -- If we don't glorify the maintenance, there will be fewer users willing to do it. Really, how many users want to engage in an activity that will cause their user page to be repeatedly vandalized [6] [7] [8], even after it has been semi-protected? John254 19:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Not to mention the mess that will be made of an RC Patroller's talk page [9] [10] [11] [12]. John254 19:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  I don't see copyvios, images without sources or images without tags being glamourized and yet lo, they get handled and even occasionally handled on time. How about the folks that answer the scads of email Wikipedia gets (m:OTRS)? No glamour there and yet still, it gets done. I'm not certain that people who are only in it for the recognition are the right ones for the job, but regardless that's not really an argument for keeping a page that isn't working. Shell ^babelfish 20:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment -- The page is working, and my argument above was that RC patrol was a far less pleasant task than, say, dealing with copyright violations. The users who upload copyright violations are unlikely to vandalize the user pages of the administrators who delete the copyright violations -- however, vandals frequently attack the user pages of editors who revert them. John254 20:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  I would argue that dealing with copyright violations is by far the less pleasant task. Not only is it thankless (how many "Defender of the Copyrights" barnstars have you seen out there?), but it is infinitely more tedious and mundane. And yet, it still gets done very effectively by dedicated Wikipedians. The same is done on a daily basis by Wikipedians quietly and unceremoniously reverting vandalism. Making vandalism mundane hurts the vandals (who are after attention) moreso than it hurts the vandal-fighters (who, ostensibly, should not be in this for the attention). Dr Chatterjee 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment -- Vandals are not invariably seeking attention. They are sometimes testing, and quite often deliberately attempting to destroy Wikipedia. Furthermore, the "attention" (if any) that the vandals are seeking is the reaction of the editors reverting them (which cannot be avoided, since the vandalism needs to be reverted). I highly doubt that vandals seek attention in the form of a project abstractly devoted to Counter-Vandalism efforts generally. Furthermore, the contributions of editors fighting vandalism need to be recognized. John254 21:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - Create a wikiproject focusing on ways to prevent vandalism, as most other WikiProjects have for other policies. The VCN has already replaced most functions of CVU, and the VCN themeselves know how to be quiet when it comes to issues like that. Shouting to the community that there's a group who watches for vandalism, only gives the vandals a way to entertain themselves by creating an "us" verses "them" attitude. One of the only problems I see with closing CVU is that it will definetly hurt Wikipedia in the long run, when people don't know there are people who are actually interested in having WP not littered with crap. --LBMixPro ^{<Speak|on|it!>} 20:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  As I stated to an above delete vote, could you give some reasoning to this, please? This is not a vote, and any addition to the discussion would be helpful. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 20:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, of course (and restore the images etc.). Some refactoring of the project to make it less attention-seeking might be in order (per WP:DENY), but to delete it would be to pour out the baby with the bathwater. - Mike Rosoft 20:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to a strong (and preferably speedy) keep as an obvious and blatant bad-faith nomination. - Mike Rosoft 22:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete I gave my reasoning ad nauseum at DRV. pschemp | talk 20:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  For the record, pschemp's reasoning in the DRV was as follows: "Merge relevent info to Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism and delete. - The CVU has its own wiki. It doesn't need this page. However, the CVU page was a lot more up to date about what tools are avaliable etc. and how to fight vandalism. The information on the CVU page should be used to update Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism (minus the pseudo military crap of course) rather than just be deleted into oblivion. Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism is a nice neutral page that could benefit from having more accurate info. pschemp | talk 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)" Dr Chatterjee 20:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment -- "The CVU has its own wiki. It doesn't need this page." is not a justification for exiling the Counter-Vandalism Unit from the very encyclopedia that members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit are working to protect. John254 20:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Yes it is. I am a member of the CVU. We don't need this page. Aall the relevent info has been merged. Its useless. pschemp | talk 21:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Response Actually, it was one of the main reasons why the closing admin in the previous MfD decided to delete the CVU. Ultimately his decision was overturned and the MfD was relisted -- but not on account of his reasoning for deletion, but because he closed the MfD too early. Dr Chatterjee 21:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break 6

• Recommendation: 1) Merge any useful and value-neutral links, information, or vandal-fighting tools from the CVU page into existing, official Wikipedia vandalism pages (such as, but not limited to, WP:CUV and WP:Vandalism. 2) Delete the CVU page on the grounds stated in this MfD, and additionally on the grounds that it is a blatant violation of such Wikipedia policies like WP:NPOV (official), WP:BEANS (unofficial, but highly regarded), and WP:DENY (also unofficial, but has formed the basis for previous administrative decisions, such as the deletion of the Willy on Wheels and Bobby Boulders LTA pages). Dr Chatterjee 21:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment -- The neutral point of view policy does not apply to project pages. To quote from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

  Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent all significant views fairly and without bias.

  Furthermore, WP:DENY, even if accepted, does not justify the elimination of all counter-vandalism resources. I fail to see the relevance of WP:BEANS. John254 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  WP:DENY does not call for the deletion of all counter-vandalism resources, but then again, I am not calling for the deletion of "all counter-vandalism resources." Just the ones whose militarism, "cops and robbers" gamelike nature, and glamorization of vandalism do as much harm as good by giving recognition and incentive to vandals. As for your point on WP:NPOV, fair enough. I'll withdraw that particular objection. Dr Chatterjee 21:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  The relevence of WP:BEANS has been spelled out very clearly in the CVU's last MfD discussion, and rather than rehash the entire thing here, I'll just sum it up: Visiting the CVU has given plenty of vandals ideas about vandalism that they wouldn't have had if they hadn't been to the CVU page. Cases in point: Bobby Boulders (his "ISV" materialized only AFTER his edit histories show he had come into contact with the CVU), The Airport Vandal (saw Bobby Boulders' listing on the CVU, saw the CVU's logo, and then designed a logo for Bobby's "ISV" group), and others. Dr Chatterjee 21:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Yet another instance of WP:BEANS in action: User:Bobby Boulders is a poor vandal. This was a non-Bobby vandal who saw how much attention Bobby was garnering on the CVU, grew competitive, and got the idea to vandalize the CVU (and Wikipedia at large) with anti-Bobby Boulders and anti-CVU messages in an attempt to become more famous or feared than Bobby. Dr Chatterjee 21:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment -- Allowing the vandals to cause the Counter-Vandalism Unit to be deleted will be handing them an immense, wholly undeserved, emboldening victory. I think that we're going to see a lot more vandalism if the vandals get away with destroying the Counter-Vandalism Unit. The fact that vandals have mocked the Counter-Vandalism Unit is a good reason NOT to delete it, to avoid rewarding this sort of behavior. John254 21:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete. The point that a militaristic response to vandalism is unhelpful needs to be made. It will probably be more effectively made at places like WP:RFA, however. Once the point is made, the CVU is quite likely to die off of its own accord, or substantially alter itself to adopt an attitude more befitting a group that purports to be a wikiproject. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  (more on WP:GAME)'^[7]

[edit] Arbitrary section break 7

• Keep. I commented in the first MFD but I'll expand here. As a new Wikipedian, I began thinking in a clean-up-vandalism mode sooner, and became serious about it sooner, than I think I would have were it not for the CVU. The CVU gives editors a sense of being part of a community, and the psychological importance of that is being drastically underestimated. Many editors find it unnecessary in their strident vandalism-cleaning efforts, but they should not denigrate the fact that many other editors find it a tremendously helpful boost to morale. This effect is positive and, in my opinion, outweighs the risk of encouraging a few vandals to intensify their efforts. In other words, I believe the CVU creates more vandalism cleaning than vandalism, for a net effect of less vandalism. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but take the CVU to the ArbCom if it goes bad. See my new vote, which has changed. Different people respond differently to different styles of stimuli. Some like the military theme of the CVU. Others like the minimalist approach of the VCN. We need a WikiProject to shut down vandals because vandalism is a major problem, just as we need police departments to try their best to shut down gangs, serial killers, and other creeps we do not need running on the streets. As long as a group does nothing harmful to society, the authorities should not try to shut it down. Of course, they could put a mole in if there is suspicion that the group is up to no good, though. If the group is up to no good, then the authorities should shut them down. The authorities we have here would be the ArbCom or Jimbo Wales, but he should only be bothered to deal with the situation if the whole ArbCom has a conflict of interest, like the case that got The Recycling Troll banned, as in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/David Gerard, Neutrality, Cyrius. The ArbCom would be needed to do this because one administrator trying to do the job would get overrulled by another administrator who likes the CVU, causing a wheel war, which will wind up before the ArbCom as a bigger case, because they would have to deal with not only the CVU, but the wheel war as well, as in the pedophilia userbox wheel war. Anyways, this page serves as a good honeypot for vandals, because they generate enemies among the vandals, and they wind up vandalizing this page, which is much better than vandalizing the article Joseph Stalin, for example, because the newbie would not have any idea what the CVU is, and would not try to seek it out, but might be doing a report on Stalin's crimes against humanity. However, the logos should stay deleted as copyvios. Jesse Viviano 22:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a fascinating idea. --Improv 23:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • An interesting theory, but I politely disagree re: the "honeypot" hypothesis. As I've stated elsewhere on this MfD, "honeypot" theories just don't play themselves out when we look at the historical record. Look at the contribution histories of well over 99% of the vandals who attacked the CVU web page. They all went on to attack other Wikipedia pages, as well. Sure, they all targetted the CVU at least once during their sprees. But the CVU was little more than a quick stop on the "tour of duty," as it were: the first stop on the vandalism train ride. So while we can demonstrate that vandals draw ideas and attention from the CVU, I have a hard time buying that the CVU slows them down or keeps their attentions diverted from other vandalism in the long run (or even in the short run). Dr Chatterjee 23:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The honeypot actually works by allowing an RC patroller to issue a {{Blatantvandal-n|Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit}} message or a similar TestX-n message, removing one of the chances that must be given before the vandal is reported to WP:AIV. Jesse Viviano 19:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

At which point the vandal just makes another sock and continues... Mister Righteous 20:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep --Ixfd64 23:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Hi, there. Could I ask for what reason? It's been made clear already that this won't be speedy deleted or kept again as there is clearly quite a bit of controversy, so some explanation would be helpful. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 23:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Per my reasons above and because this was my first contact with countervandalism and I am now a dedicated RC patroller. It provides a very good community face for those interested in helping out. As stated above there are plenty of other things that goad vandals within this project - why else is the George W. Bush article almost permanently semi protected. If you removed all the major parts of the encyclopedia that caused vandals to vandalise you wouldnt be left with much. Viridae^Talk 23:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• *changes mind* Delete- per WP:GAME. Useless, WP:CUV has everything that is in the CVU page, except the CVU sounds like some sort of "War on Vandalism" (which encourages more vandals to "declare war" on "vandal fighters".) -- FrostytheSnowman ^'sup? 23:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break 8

• Delete - I believe this group has outlived its usefulness and now serves to glorify vandalism more than it does to prevent or discourage it. Vandalism isn't some kind of elaborate, sophisticated crime, and it certainly doesn't need the FBI to take care of it. People dealing with vandalism are acting a lot more like beat cops patrolling the streets. This sort of level of organization is unnecessary and gives vandalism more credit than it deserves. Just use the simple RBI process: Revert, Block, and Ignore. --Cyde Weys 00:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and mock every single person who made it go to MFD /once/, let alone a second time. (Drini speedy-deleted, if memory recalls) --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 00:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep For my reasoning, see Xaosflux's comment, which is essentially the same comment I would have made. :) — The Future 01:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A useful project which causes no harm. --24fan24 02:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Vandalism is somewhat annoying, and in principle there's nothing wrong with getting together to clean up vandalism. But there is no War On Vandalism, and I think this attitude is harmful. So in practice I think at this time I lean towards delete. 72.137.20.109 03:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in principle, but pursue a general discussion on the best name for the project. Cleaning up/reverting/fighting/etc. vandalism is, for the most part, a profoundly tedious activity which rapidly becomes boring—particularly for newer editors who may lack many of the more sophisticated tools—in the absence of an esprit de corps among those doing it. The idea of acting as a cohesive group is one espoused, to some extent, by just about every (successful) WikiProject; conversely, the unsuccessful WikiProjects overwhelmingly make little provision for the idea of "membership" and do not allow those participating in them to identify with a well-defined group of contributors sharing the same goal. This is the primary difference, in my opinion, between the WP:CVU and WP:CUV; morale is important (particularly insofar as we wish to have newer Wikipedians working on RC patrol and such), and neither the torpid portal lookalike that is WP:CUV nor the overall policy pages are in a position to provide it. Kirill Lokshin 04:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per a million reasons above. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 05:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep or Make a WikiProject. Let me remind everyone that it's not CVU's badges and organization that is under question here, it is the existence of the CVU. Those issues can be debated elsewhere. The CVU itself should remain. The CVU is an organization of Wikipedians that not only want to counter vandalism, but want to find better and systematic ways of catching vandals. They provide innovative discussion on the topics of vandalism and collaborate when neccessary on the best way to deal with vandalism. In a sense, it is a think tank and a watchdog group that is beneficial to Wikipedia and is different from the RCpatrol. It does not just look at recent changes, it looks at purposely added incorrect information and other more-difficult-to-find forms of vandalism. It is a team with a positive purpose with positive results and should remain as a page. The CVU does interfere with Wikipedia's workings, nor does it cause cause any harm; it has many members that are dedicated to these principles. There is no logical reason for its deletion. If you disagree with its methods, then disagree with its methods, don't go on a crusade to delete the entire page. That would be like getting rid of the NSA on the accusation of illegal wiretaps. --TinMan 05:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Vandalism is a dirty business. Anyone who spends significant time on it should be commended. If the anti-vandals want to organize in multiple formats, more power to them. It devalues their work to try and lump all vandal fighters into one pot. --StuffOfInterest 11:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleting this would seriously tear down the number of people dealing with vandalism.NetRolller 3D
• Keep as per so, so many of the comments above. I do, however, believe that its Wiki staus is similar to the Kindness campaign, WP:Typo, and other such "task forces" in WIkipedia. Whether that means that it should or should not be a WikiProject, I don't know. Also, I wonder, since it was created from a portal, if WP:CUV might be useful as a poral to the CVU (rather than the other way around.). - Jc37 14:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Are we just going to let vandals ruin Wikipedia? The Gerg 17:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Does police glorify criminals? Do garbagemen "glamorise" garbage? Do vandals not concentrate their efforts on the CVU, distracting them from the rest of Wikipedia? Do you give a damn what I do with my own free time?--Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 18:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The police don't hold public meetings, with criminals present, complaining about them and describing all their tricks. The police just respond, investigate, and arrest or fine; that is, they rather quietly just revert and block. Garbagemen don't glamorize garbage, though there is a reasonable possibility that a family that doesn't have to deal with disposing of its garbage would generate more garbage. I don't see how CVU would distract vandals from the rest of Wikipedia, it doesn't have hypnotic images or anything; more reasonably they would just vandalize CVU as one of their many favorite pages, and it would also be possible they would be attracted to the fun of watching exasperated vandal-fighters talking about it on the discussion pages. You are welcome to fight vandalism, I don't see why you would need a separate Wikipedia page to do it. If you want community, there are IRC channels, and there are other things to do on Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 05:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • First you say "I don't see how CVU would distract vandals from the rest of Wikipedia". Then you say "vandals...would just vandalize CVU...would be attracted to the fun of watching exasperated vandal-fighters talking about it..." Choose one: vandals either hang around CVU, vandalizing and trolling, or they ignore it completely, concentrating on WP. If it's the latter, I don't see the harm in CVU. If it's the former, then vandals are distracted from real articles. As we can see from the incidents of sockpuppeting on this page, vandals care about the CVU a great deal. Wouldn't you rather have them trolling around here than vandalizing WP? As for "other things to do on WP"... Well, feel free to go ahead and do them. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 16:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I've read this entire page, and don't see a single reason given why we should delete a club/project/whatever of anti-vandals that outweighs its benefit of encouraging others to actively seek out and destroy vandals. It the members are actually fighting vandalism effectively, then they should be promoted, not deleted. If it weren't for the fact that some people actually seem to be agreeing with deletion, I would have assumed that this nom WAS vandalism. --tjstrf 18:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the CVU doesn't actually "seek out and destroy" vandals. At least not officially. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 19:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above.--1568 19:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see how CVU adds to the quality of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. I support vandal fighting as I participate once in a while, but I see no reason for this club/project. Why do we need a badge saying you fight vandalism. If anything, this club just gives people a reason to feel more "powerful". The page has some useful info but nothing that CUV doesn't have.--Joe Jklin (T C) 19:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - With all the calls to delete, it is obvious doing something right --Jcw69 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope it's not necessary to point out how entirely fallacious that reasoning is. Surely a more balanced view would be that, with all the calls to delete, and all the opposing calls to keep, with intelligent and experienced Wikipedians on both sides, it should be obvious that there are serious questions here worth considering, and that no one-liner is going to summarize the issue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. It is useless. Ashibaka tock 21:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • useless? it appears to handle about a quater of our anti vandalism work.Geni 01:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • How do you know that? —Centrx→talk • 05:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Because Iread the talk pape of this MFD.Geni 10:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
        • You mean the statistics of people who are already inclined to revert vandalism, regardless of any CVU? —Centrx→talk • 22:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
          • roughly 25% of vandalism reverts by a group that contains, presumably, significantly less than 25% of wikipedian editors. --DakAD 22:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
            • And you honestly believe those users would stop reverting vandalism if the CVU page went away? Highly doubtful. Maybe one or two of them at most, but not enough to make a serious dent on vandalism reversion stats. The kind of person who joins a group like the CVU will revert vandalism regardless of membership in a club. And those that won't fight vandalism without the recognition don't get the point of Wikipedia in the first place, and are indicative of the problems with the CVU to begin with. Rustag 00:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge relevent info to Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism then Delete the rest. They have an off-site wiki at http://www.countervandalism.org and their own IRC channels. As such, their presence on-wiki is no longer needed. Eliminating vandalism is a chore we should all be involved in, and a militaristic group that goes around violating both the letter and the spirit behind WP:BITE and then celebrating with backslaps and barnstars like they just single-handedly saved humanity the future and got Scooby-Doo brought back for more episodes is no longer, nor ever was, needed on here. -M^ask 23:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Big accusations. Care to back them up.?Geni 01:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect AKMask. At the countervandalism.org website it clearly states in its intro: "Note that the Countervandalism network is not associated with Wikipedia's Counter Vandalism Unit." --TinMan 05:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break 9

• Keep Flying Canuck 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per arguments made by Cyde Weys. The best way to deal with vandalisim is the Revert, Block and Ignore the vandals. Anything more than that is pointless. Making a "war" out of fighting vandalism, as the CVU does, is just going to give the vandals a reason to fight back. Ignoring vandals is the best way to go. Rustag 04:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: Above comment was made by a sock puppet of WoW/B. Boulders Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 23:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: No one has actually explained how this is useful. I asked on the Talk page and didn't get an answer. I read through this discussion and I see a lot of overblown, and some ridiculous, statements like "instrumental in the fight against vandalism", "it is a think tank and a watch dog", its deletion has "set back Wikipedia's War on Vandalism several years", claims of persecution and being "disenfranchised", vandals using its deletion as a victory slogan. The honey pot argument is bogus: it takes someone one second to vandalize the CVU page before they move on, they don't focus on vandalizing only that and get stuck there; if they want to vandalize they vandalize regardless, and it is reasonable that this club-SWAT-team-war notion encourages or makes vandalism more fun. "If you removed all the major parts of the encyclopedia that caused vandals to vandalise you wouldnt be left with much.": This isn't part of the encyclopedia, and encyclopedia editors don't claim to be a club purposed exclusively to fight vandalism. They just edit the articles, because this project is for making an encyclopedia, and if there is a vandalism problem they don't go running to the CVU, they just post it on AIV or RFPP and it gets dealt with as a matter of course. The introducing new users argument isn't bad, but these new users should really be encouraged to write, and there are other vandalism instruction pages and vandalism gets reverted pretty well without this Myspace group. —Centrx→talk • 05:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't help if you don't like any of the reasons we've given, but I should make a few things clear. I do not think the CVU encourages more vandalism. I believe one of the prime reasons why people vandalize or add incorrect information is so they can laugh about it and show it to their friends. I know friends that have done this for these reasons. The quicker the vandalized article is reverted and the more a vandal is pursued, the less likely that vandal will attempt to do it again, since it won't last long enough to show to friends, etc. Plus, if it continues, we can, through our collaborated efforts, eventually (if necessary) block those users. We want Wikipedia to be a place of correct information, not a bunch of hogwash that nobody trusts. The fact that anyone can edit deminishes the integrity of this place enough... without evidence of vandalism everywhere. We need this so-called "police force" to work together instead of divided individuals making individual "arrests" if you want to call them that for reference sake. Plus, if you want to call it a "club", then it is a club that encourages Wikipedians to combat vandalism. Otherwise, I can almost guarantee, vandalism will increase without the CVU. That doesn't help any of us. --TinMan 06:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The CVU obviously doesn't encourage common vandalism—they don't even know about—but it, or at least the attitude sometimes associated with it, does seem to encourage the sort of repeat, serious vandal that is more probematic than any casual show-off, and casual show-off vandalism has no need whatsoever for any special group to deal with it, it is obvious and reverted quickly. All the things you and others mention here as a function of the CVU are just as well done without having a "Counter-Vandalism Unit" page. People are doing this effectively without any connection to the CVU. People are doing it who only have the userbox on their page, but have no other involvement with the CVU. What are you collaborating on? I don't see why the normal processes with AIV, etc. and also real-time IRC wouldn't be more effective than this page. —Centrx→talk • 06:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a project page with historical interset, but since it's redundant with a number of other anti-vandal pages, tag it as {{historical}} and end the activity on the page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Silly! -- For one thing, people seem to be talking about WP:DENY as if it's a policy, when it's actually a proposal. Aside from helping to organise anti-vandalism actions, CVU is an excellent community-building tool, and I have seen more than a few new editors become involved there, and get a feel for how wikipedia works as they're working to defend it from silly vandals. People want to help build an encyclopedia, and this project gives them an oppurtunity to lend a hand, connect with the community, and get some recognition for doing good things. Since when do wikiprojects need to be sanctioned by "the powers that be"? This was built the wiki way, from the ground up. Are we going to start mandating things like this? Will the next new user be forced to work only on articles the "higher ups" think they need to work on? Is the objection that CVU members are "mere" volunteers, rather than elected admins? If so, perhaps we should try to remember that admins are just users with tools, not elected representatives to a government -- I'm an admin on 2 other wikimedia projects... does that mean my "vote" on this issue has greater weight? -- and if CVU seems to be pushing for policy, that's just wikipedians getting involved like they're supposed to get involved. This proposal a violation of WP:POINT (and possibly WP:BITE), and in general is just non-sensical. I don't participate there so much any more, but it was a good place to cut my teeth on how things work on WP, and the project should be kept to help cut the teeth of present and future new users as well. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, for reasons listed in general comments on talk page. --Omaryak 10:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Why do some people always need to create such ridiculous wiki-dramas? Folks, let's move on and do something useful. --Ligulem 11:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Isn't that an argument for deletion? —Centrx→talk • 15:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
    • No. What is the problem with this wikiproject page? Asking for deletion is just asking for trouble within the community. This is something that some people seem to be interested in. Why can't you just ignore it and move on? I don't see any harm by this page. That's why I say keep. --Ligulem 16:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, for reasons listed in general comments on talk page. --Deenoe 16:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment On en.wikibooks, we have recently created our own version of the CVU, although it was mostly designed as a "community building" excercise. We created the CVU to try and get more users involved in the operations of en.wikibooks, and get more people involved and empowered to fight vandalism. However, our CVU is far different from the CVU here. For instance, it is wikibooks policy to delete the user pages and usertalk pages of known vandals outright, not to mark them with {{sockpuppet}} templates. In fact, we have deleted all categories and templates that dealt with known vandals: No sense erecting a permanent memorial to these people, when they should have all trace of them removed from the project. Our CVU essentially is an instruction manual on "how you can help fight vandalism", nothing larger or more glamorous then that. That's the kind of thing that I think wikipedia should have also: A group of people who are dedicated to fighting vandalism and building community, but at the same time not glorifying or remembering the vandals. --User:Wknight8111 (WB:Whiteknight) 20:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The orginal Nominator (of the second MfD) was none other than Bobby Boulders himself(check his user page and list of sock puppets) making a bad faith nom. In light of this consider my prior comments struck. This MfD is nothing more than a clever attempt to disrupt Wikipedia Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 17:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Holy crap! That sure explains a lot of things... :). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought this smacked of a vandal when I first saw it... glad to have that cleared up. --tjstrf 19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• KeepMrFish^{Go Fish} 19:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as bad-faith attempt by Bobby Boulders to eliminate CVU, see Dr Chatterjee's last edit to his talk page before I protected it: this. NawlinWiki 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, and prosecute Willy on Wheels, the instigator of the bad-faith nomination. The second nomination was made by User:Dr Chatterjee, who has been exposed as User:Bobby Boulders, and because User:Cyde recently proved that Bobby was really User:Willy on Wheels, the second nomination was therefore initiated by Willy on Wheels! Since the second nomination was improperly closed early, this third nomination was started. Since this chain was started by WoW, this debate must be closed with the result of speedy keep. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr Chatterjee for proof. It looks like some prison time may be what is needed to stop Willy on Wheels permanently. Jesse Viviano 19:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as this looks like a bad faith nomination, per above. feydey 20:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • While the original nomination may have been in bad faith, the fact that this has gone through a previous deletion and DRV as well as the fact that a lot of people are voting delete would indicate to me that a speedy close of this nomination (either as keep or delete) is a bad idea. JYolkowski // talk 21:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • A vandal gaming the system is not a good start for a discussion. I'll stay with speedy keep. feydey 22:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• KeepNeutral Screw willy. Though there's already progress being made on denying recognition to vandals in better ways than satisifying their childish games. Kevin_b_er 21:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC) Kevin_b_er 20:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and REFORM. After being fairly inactive for a while, it’s disheartening to see what was and is a good idea been jumped on in a similar manner to Gaius Julius Caesar being murdered in the Senate House on the sole basis of tyrant arguments. What I mean is that it does play a significant role (More than probably realized) in doing well, but seems to be blighted by Rhetorical propaganda on it being "militaristic".

  Yes it can be claimed to be slightly militaristic because it has the words "Counter" (As related to Counter-Terrorism) and "Unit" in the name, but then that's not a great argument for its deletion.

  "Cops and Robbers" seems to be another branded title, but it’s merely another extension of the rhetoric. Admins or reversers will pursue and check up on vandals or continual vandals, whether they have a "CVU" badge on their user page or not. With names like "Vandal Fighter" around, even without the CVU, there is still that small basic "military/police feel".

  However this pursuit has become excessive in some regards (Sometimes to the extent it breaks WP:BITE), not because of the Counter-Vandalism Unit but because simple newbie tests and new users are getting hit straight away with templates from WP:VAND, which are poorly defined: i.e. {{subst:blatantvandal}}. The warning is seemingly used more often than "test" these days, when it can be difficult to tell the difference between simple vandalism and newbies. The effect is that new users get the impression that this isn't a nice place to be, that the people aren't been friendly to them and aren't looking to help them help the project and gives an oppressive militaristic impression, which has rubbed off on the CVU.

  What needs to be done is that the CVU needs to be reformed to harness what good points it has, along with a general rethought on the application of anti-vandalism in general. I have a few suggestions and ideas I have on changes that could help. Let’s face it, its going to fail this deletion anyway, so we might as well all try and find a middle ground.

  When the "Unit" was founded, it was a community involving exercise. People who needed help applying WP:VAND or with not-so black-and-white vandals could get help without searching through numerous noticeboards and project pages to find the correct place to get help. example . The new CUV board sets things out in a way that suggests all vandalism is the same and must be dealt with in the same way. If there is a problem or vandalism varies in some way, who do people, mainly new community anti-vandalism helpers turn to? The great omnipresent members of the...errr...dealing with vandalism board? Getting help from friends and people in the same position in a "unit" is much better in a human-approachable way than some lifeless project page, which users needing help are less likely to ask for and where experienced Wikipedia Users are going to visit less frequently (Due to it being mostly common knowledge for them).

  • Perhaps the CVU could be renamed to a less militaristic name like the "Anti-Vandalism Team" or the "Community Vandalism Prevention", with a bigger onerous on experienced Vandal "fighters" helping to assist with any "Counter-Vandalism" problems by new volunteers.
  • Perhaps a more in depth defcon/brief on things likely to be targeted in the short-term (Current Affairs being the obvious, linked to pages is another, up and coming events...etc). Coordination on such targets is often lacking in some circumstances, leading to things having to be locked and things not been dealt with quickly enough. "Vandals" will think twice about bothering if they see an organised team or community response, which makes their destruction a little more difficult to carry out effectively.
  • The CVU drew people to the cause and problems of vandalism on the project and have undoubtedly brought numerous volunteers to such good causes by catching the eye of people. A simple logo not based on some US Federal agency, but based on community and people working together will help prevent any sort of "it’s the military lol" arguments. Agent Blightsoot 23:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I have yet to see an argument for deletion that is other than pure speculation or just general dislike for the idea of this unit. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep per feydey, Zoe, and many others. 1ne 23:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (edit conflict) the value of having an organized directory of vandalism patterns, so we can adapt to vandals, outwieghs the BEANS and DENY problems.-- danntm ^T _C 00:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep What could be better evidence of the necessity for CVU than an attempt by a vandal to get rid of it? Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 02:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Well Known and perused page.Unitedroad 14:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Why are people such complete sticklers? Tfine80 15:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong/Speedy Keep for two reasons:

• Bad-faith nom by Bobby/Willy/whoever.
• It is unproductive to stick your head in the sand and deny that vandals exist.

This is a collaborative encyclopedia, based on freely-editable Mediawiki software. Wikipedia will always suffer from vandalism. The CVU represents the collaborative effort to fight this blight. CVU ain't perfect, but its pros far outweigh the cons. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 18:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Recent displays of vandalism by Bobby reveal what an incitement to vandalism this group really is. No CVU = no flagrant vandalism. Dubba Dubba 18:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd rather have more flagrant vandalism than more subtle vandalism. Flagrant vandalism is obvious and is easier to remove. The real question is whether the CVU cleans up more of the subtle variety; flagrant vandalism is irrelevant to anything. --Chris (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Dubba Dubba is a vandal who got indefinitely blocked. All but two edits are pure vandalism. This vote should be disregarded. Jesse Viviano 04:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and go back to writing articles. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 19:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Crap happens. With or without the unit, there'll still be lots of vandalism. Vandals are not going to ruin us, and I find the Counter-Vandalism Unit quite productive. Even if there is Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism, Wikipedians should have the freedom of decision between what vandal-patrol they want to join. --Gray Porpoise 19:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I find Chatterjee's arguments persuasive. We already have tools and processes for dealing with vandals, and this page does appear to have inspired vandalism that may not otherwise have occurred. —ptk✰fgs 20:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Huh? You must have skipped out on the part where Dr Chatterjee was discovered to be Bobby Boulders/Willy on Wheels. Jesse Viviano 02:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • He may be Willy on Wheels, but he still brought up a good point, in my opinion :). Cowman109^Talk 02:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I see. "We should delete the project, because its existence has encouraged me to vandalize Wikipedia" is a really persuasive argument ... - Mike Rosoft 17:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, especially since his entire goal seems to be trying to screw with our heads. --tjstrf 18:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I strangely feel that my arguments may be pre-ignored, I always found the CVU a kind of community pride... It doesn't just give users committed to nitty-gritty maintenance something to put on their userpage; it gives them a feeling of spirited dedication, of vigorous dignity in their actions. And that is at the very heart of this question - that it is a project that imparts a wikipedia-identity that is as much feeling as purpose, driving users to valiant action rather than tired monotony. Aren't these venerable reasons to support the project, and those who choose to associate to it. The red X on my userpage is like a stain now, and perhaps it is a childish part of me that felt some boastful association with the CVU - but I feel that if a community is to thrive, then those that pride themselves in its defense should not become its victims. Themindset 21:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Is this the proper place? Heavens, what a mess. I don't feel very strongly over the matter, but I'm alarmed by the recognition which CVU bestows on vandals. They're attracted to it as moths to a lamp. I also nail the occasional vandal who's hidden himself within its embrace. We don't need paramilitary vandal-fighting groups, unless I'm made a field marshal and given a baton. Thank you no. Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Mackensen. I'm very happy that so many people want to fight vandals, and I hope they all continue to do so. But we shouldn't have a paramilitary organization to do it. Nandesuka 02:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep this whole thing is absurd! wether or not this group is active the PAGES AND THEIR HISTORIES SHOULD BE KEPT You can't use MfD to stop a WikiProject, XfDs are used to delete data from Wikipedia. I'm not going to comment on the group's actives or what should or should not be done to fight vandalism, but for what is most likely our most notable WikiProject, the past discussions and pages formed there should be kept at the very least for historical records. This whole thing is out of process and needs to be brought to Arbitration and NOT MfD. This is not how we resolve disputes of this nature. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep a) basically I think the WP:DENY arguments are weak and this does not in anyway promote vandalism (why would Boulders socks be trying to get rid of it?) and b) anything that encourages users to get into RC patrolling is a good thing. The response to this MfD should tell us something?! - Glen 11:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, highly active project. I think that having a "paramilitary organization" as User:Nandesuka calls it can only be a good thing. Fighting vandalism is something that needs organization. Removing it because of WP:DENY won't lessen the vandalism and only makes fixing it harder. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - don't join it if you don't like it. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - I guess all the WP:DENY arguments, rather ironically, support the keeping of this article since it was a nomination by a notorious vandal who showed up again today. MER-C 13:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. And might I say, the old unit patch was better. Rogue 9 02:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While I am still opposed to the CVU per my arguments during Nom2 and the DRV, I do not particularly care for being played by a sock. I dislike the CVU (and other similar groups/organizations at WP), but I'm willing to accept it (and them) as a necessary evil. Please do change the first patch, but I recommend against the old one, as there were potential terms-of-use issues with it. Perhaps a can of spray paint with a crosshair superimposed? --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. First off, this turns out to have been a bad-faith nom in the first place, which would've meant a speedy keep in most other cases. Secondly, vandalism is always going to occur on Wikipedia by the very nature of "anyone can edit." While there are parts of the proposed WP:DENY I agree with, I do not see how deleting CVU is going to reduce vandalism any noticeable amount. Perhaps CVU needs some reform, but not outright deletion. BryanG^(talk) 04:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:DENY, Keep WP:CVU. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 06:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I won't even attempt to understand all the drama and sockpuppetry here, but even though this project has a bit of a silly feel to it, I fail to see any persuasive deletion rationale here. Arguments in the vein of the proposed WP:DENY, with which I tend o agree in principle, are grounds for collegial disagreement, not deletion under the deletion policy. Sandstein 10:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unuseful cabal. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note the CVU is not a cabal there are no cabals on wikipedia. (Unless you count the Mediation Cabal which is in name only Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 18:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; CVU is like Esperanza in that it is a community-building tool, and it gets & keeps people interested in maintaining the encyclopedia. Attemmpts to disband the CVU will have no positive impact on Wikipedia, and it will generate a lot of ill-will, something that we don't need any more of around here. -/- Warren 19:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I read alot of stuff here about it supposedly moving off-site, but if that was true, you'd think the people moving it off-site would of posted some sort of big notice or something. Besides, alot of this discussion seems to have alot of anger, and considering it's just a counter-vandalism unit, that makes me really suspicious that people passionently want to delete this. Homestarmy 00:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

Please see: talk page

[edit] Footnotes and continuations of long discussion

1. ^ That comment is unnecessary. We've already established that this should be relisted, no need to tell people not to speedy close it once more. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 05:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   • Is it really unnecessary? I can think of a number of admins who might want to re-speedy this. This includes speedy keeping it. – Chacor 05:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     It's been made clear already that speedy closing this again would be innapropriate, so let's just leave it that. Cowman109^Talk 05:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

2. ^ In Response- Do forgive me for being a little bit radical, as I am a bit tired right now. However, cleaning up vandalism, and getting rid of it (hence the term "War on Vandalism") is a very important part of anyone's wiki-life. Whether we like it or not, vandals will be around, and will probably remain so until the end of life as we know it. I see no reason why we shouldn't promote anti-vandalism as good thing to do, because it is. Quite honestly, have we gotten to a point where we are ashamed of standing up against vandalism and promoting a good Wikipedia? Arbiteroftruth 08:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   • No, we've got to a point where we are ashamed of putting vandals up on pedestals and treating them like more than they are, which is basically what the CVU page, the vandal subpages, and other things did for them. The page Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism contains everything that the CVU page does. The only difference is that it treats cleaning up vandalism as just that: cleaning up vandalism, not some glorious holy war. If you're afraid of the CVU being disbanded or think that's what I want, then you shouldn't worry. I don't want them disbanded, I just want them to present themselves as vandal reverters and not religious warriors.--Lorrainier 08:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     Lorrainier, I do not like the term "religious warriors" bandied around in that context. It sounds like an insinuation that all CVU members are either "Vandal Revert Nazis" or Talibans. Bringing passion into the things we do is important, and in this case, this is a group of passionate users eager to make Wikipedia a better place by reverting vandalism. Passion is a key ingredient to enjoying something. So what is next? Are we banning passion as well from Wikipedia? Arbiteroftruth 08:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     Another reason why a "war on vandalism" is unhelpful is because most "vandals" are simply newbies who haven't figured our site out yet. These people could turn out to be useful editors, but if we scare them on their first experience with Wikipedia it's more likely that they'll either give up on us, or become real vandals. We should instead be trying to make them feel as welcome as possible while still getting the message across that their actions are not in line with community norms, not declare war on them. JYolkowski // talk 16:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

3. ^ Yes I have. Not sure what your point is though, are you saying that if CVU is deleted it's members won't fight vandalism and othes will have to pick up the slack? Do you really think that? Rx StrangeLove 13:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   • CVU helps deal with vandalism. Without CVUs help this will of course go on, but thats a strawmans argument. CVU merely uses the existing system in dealing with vandalism. That system was implemented long before CVU was formed. --Cat out 16:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     Not my Strawman, it's Geni's....he seems to think that the elimination of CVU will somehow increase the backlog. As you say, The system was in place long before CVU and will go on without it. The work will still be done...the same reverts, warnings, blocks...same amount of work, no increased backlog. Rx StrangeLove 17:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

4. ^

   • most marking is done by bots. More traditional speedies probably are covered by the CVU.Geni 12:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     So what was your point again. You reply to the idea that treating this as a janitorial task is a bad idea since those other janitorial tasks are backlogged and now claim that in fact that isn't really a different janatorial task at all. Have you anything to back up your claim that most of the CSD stuff outside of images tagged by bots is done by people claiming it to be "CVU. Lets not lose focus here this is a discussion about a page and any unwanted overtones from the structure/format etc. We aren't talking about banning all those who associate themselves with CVU, or stopping them reverting vandalism, tagging pages etc. --pgk 12:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     CAT:CSD can mostly handle old fashioned speedies (in a few weeks there may be a problem due to other issues but wei'll deal with that when we get there). However in order to keep it functioning I had to block a user who was mass adding a certian type of speedies. We have also had backlogs of over 200 items. Clearly this is not a case of functioning well. It is a case not falling over spectacularly. Other than that please don't create strawmen. By covered by CVU I meant within their area of operation.Geni 12:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     No it's within the "area of operation" of RC and New page patrol, of which some people associate with CVU, by no means everybody and I guess probably a minority. I still don't understand your point, you seem say we shouldn't treat vandalism in the same way because it is overload/if certain controls weren't in place it would be overloaded and we should look to CVU as a model of efficiency in not being overloaded and in the next breath say it is CVU doing this thing which is severly overloaded, these suggestions seem to be rather contrary to each other. Not that it matters, since I think you are trying to compare two dissimilar things in terms of where the bottle necks occur as I already pointed out. Regarding your stopping of a user which was flooding CSD, my understanding of that is it was incorrectly tagging images as the criteria clearly says "This does not apply to images duplicated on Wikimedia Commons..". WP:AIV would soon get flooded if people filled it with items which shouldn't be there. --pgk 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     Ok if you don't like CSD which area of janatorial tasks would you like to lump it in with?Geni 12:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     I don't want to "lump in in" with any other task. In fact since when did CVU become a task? RC Patrol, Vandalism reverting these are tasks, and I am not saying the tasks should be deleted. I have said I believe removal of vandalism should be approached in the manner of a janatorial task. --pgk 12:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     which janatorial task?Geni 12:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

      ? I don't see it's helpful to try and specify it to be like a specific task, because clearly if it was that much like it, it would be that task. There are many janitorial tasks on wikipedia which function well. I am specifying in *the manner* of, since I don't believe the current manner of policemen (CVU) and there criminal counterpart (ISV) is constructive. --pgk 13:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     "There are many janitorial tasks on wikipedia which function well" evidences?Geni 13:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     How about New page patrolling? You seem to have said that causes problems on CSD, so I assume you believe that works well? Orgeneral RC patrol, yeah there is sometimes a backlog on AIV but not that frequently. --pgk 13:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     you've just listed the two things CVU works on. So out of all the janitorial tasks the only ones you think work are those worked on by the CVU?Geni 13:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     What has that got to do with my reasons for thinking this should be removed? CVU isn't the task, and still am not as has been said several times not advocating stopping RC Patrol, new page patrol. Since it is my contention that the notion of CVU in some respects attracts vandalism (ISV), then removing it would actually improve those tasks. --pgk 13:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     Sorry you just stated that the janitorial tasks that CVU works on mostly go OK. Bow I know there is no sane way you could say that about most other tasks so it would appear there is some level of correlation between the CVU and a janitorial task doing ok. You've destroyed your own case.Geni 13:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     If CVU exclusively worked on those, then you might have a point, but as I point out above, I guess that CVU is actually the minority in doing such tasks. But whatever. --pgk 14:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

5. ^ But they don't....first of all vandalism is vandalism, it still has to be reverted and still takes time away from something else. Second....he has a 3 letter acronym concerning vandalism plus a logo. I think it's pretty clear that it's in response to CVU. So we have vandalism that's clearly in response to CVU that has to be reverted. Let's take the "honey pot" away...Rx StrangeLove 14:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   • Yes, he is vandalizing in response to the CVU. But that doesn't mean that he wouldn't be vandalizing other parts of the encyclopedia anyway. And when he's vandalizing the CVU page or talkpage, it's much more likely to be reverted than if he subtly vandalizes an encyclopedia article. But as I say, neither argument is valid until it's backed up with evidence. --Chris (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     Another strawman, how do you know the alternative will be subtly vandalizing articles? He has never acted subtly before...I think that you accepting the fact the he is vandalizing in response to CVU pretty much says it all. Normal RC and vandal patrol is all we need for this, taunting [1] him on the CVU page just makes it worse. Rx StrangeLove 17:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     And how do you know it isn't? Please stop claiming that every oppsition to your argument is a strawman; it isn't. From Straw man: "A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position." I am not misrepresenting yours, I am saying that both of these common pro- and anti-CVU arguments are unprovable and invalid. You cannot prove that these vandals wouldn't be simultaneously performing subtle vandalism and were "created" by the CVU, and I can't prove that the vandal was around before the CVU. Neither are objectively provable points. --Chris (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     And FWIW, I do agree that the military stuff should be removed and the project renamed. I would ask that you work towards that end; "delete the CVU" is just going to piss people off. --Chris (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     I don't have to prove that he will (or won't) be doing subtle vandalism, that was your assertion...you're going to have to show that he's likely to before it has any meaning. Whatever you think of this point, there are other valid reasons for this deletion. As far as renaming/editing CVU, I don't see the point because we already have Wikipedia:Vandalism. Rx StrangeLove 23:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     WOW predates CVU. Vandels with big egos have always existed and always will.Geni 14:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     Strawman, no one claims it'll end the problem....but it's clear CVU is a contributing factor. Rx StrangeLove 14:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     clear? I don't think so. Do you have solid evidence of that claim.Geni 14:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     Clear as a bell: [2], like I pointed out elsewhere, a 3 letter acronym, a organization involving vandalism, a logo...it's a clear reaction to CVU. Think he does that in the absence of CVU? Rx StrangeLove 17:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

6. ^ Comment -- Dr Chatterjee's essay neglects the fact that not "glamorizing" or "glorifying" counter-vandalism efforts will impair our ability to recruit users to RC patrol. Indeed, describing counter-vandalism efforts in janitorial language, such as "cleaning up vandalism" makes them distinctly unattractive. I believe that the Counter-Vandalism Unit has resulted in a net gain in the integrity of Wikipedia, as the direct glorification and enhancement of counter-vandalism efforts is likely to outweigh the derivative "glorification" of vandalism, if indeed such an effect occurs at all. John254 15:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   • With all due respect, what you "believe" and what you can prove are two very different things. Anyone can look at the edit histories of CVU-inspired vandals (such as Bobby Boulders and The Airport Vandal) and prove that the existence of the CVU incited them to further and more furious bouts of vandalism. But I challenge you to find concrete evidence of your claim that glorifying counter-vandalism (as with the CVU) has a net-beneficial effect on vandalism cleanup. Counter-vandalism should be janitorial and mundane by nature. By removing the sexiness of counter-vandalism, we in turn make vandalism less sexy and more mechanical, boring, and attention-sapping. We take away the "prize" for persistent vandals. Witness the case of Bobby Boulders: as soon as his name was removed from the CVU's "wanted list," and his CVU-endorsed LTA page was deleted, he all but stopped vandalising Wikipedia. He went from Public Enemy #1 to MIA practically overnight. I would consider the case study of Bobby Boulders to be a near-perfect example of how de-glamorizing counter-vandalism takes away incentives to vandalize. Dr Chatterjee 15:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     Dr. Chatterjee, I agree that glorifying vandals are not good, but that alone does not deserve the deletion and disbanding of a group of passionate users who want to make Wikipedia a good place. No systems are perfect, and reforms are needed. However, just because the system has a couple of drawbacks does not mean we have to destroy it. If that is the case, we will have to destroy Wikipedia in general. Doctor, if we destroy CVU today, what is next? Recent Changes Patrol? Banning passion from Wikipedia, or destroy all Wikiprojects? This is a slippery slope we are going towards. Arbiteroftruth 15:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     "if we destroy CVU today, what is next? Recent Changes Patrol? Banning passion from Wikipedia, or destroy all Wikiprojects?" With all due respect, this is a straw man argument. No one is suggesting that we are on some sort of vindictive campaign to delete all counter-vandalism resources or WikiProjects in general. What we are trying to do, though, is delete any WikiProjects or pages that set a bad example. CVU falls into that category, because its net effect is actually to incite and inflame vandalism, which happens more frequently and visibly than it achieves its stated goals (i.e., the deterrence of vandalism). If a WikiProject sets a bad or counterproductive precedent, then yes, it should be deleted. I don't believe the RC Patrol meets that criteria -- and regardless, the RC Patrol's fate is entirely irrelevent to the discussion at hand. Dr Chatterjee 15:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     I disagree in the strongest manner that fits civility. Vandalism will happen with or w/o this project. Bot attacks have happened before this wikiproject was started and will happen weather or not this project exists. The deletion rationale is a strawamans argument. --Cat out 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     Bobby Boulders is in fact a perfect example why it is important to remeber the correlation is not causation (and of course claiming correlation based on 1 data point is a mistake).Geni 16:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     Fine then, if that argument about glorifying valdalism is right, why aren't we deleting the pages of other criminals on Wikipedia? Surely their threats to society and other people are bigger than a couple of vandals! Arbiteroftruth 16:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     Comment -- Dr Chatterjee has provided no actual edit histories to substantiate the claim of "CVU-inspired vandals". To merely refer to edit histories, without providing them, is not evidence. Furthermore, might it be possible that these "CVU-inspired vandals" (if any) merely created the appearance of being "CVU-inspired" as a technique of psychological warfare deliberately designed to disrupt the Counter-Vandalism Unit? Additionally, Bobby Boulders stopped vandalizing before the disruptive speedy deletion of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, so, if anything, this shows the need to eliminate the list of prolific vandals, not to eliminate the Counter-Vandalism Unit itself. To emphasize the absurd nature of Dr Chatterjee's essay, I am quoting from it in relevant part:

     Avoid the temptation to loudly congratulate oneself or others in their vandalism-correcting efforts. When possible, do not bestow anti-vandalism barnstars or similar accolades upon others unless extremely well deserved. Even then, try to avoid doing so. A well-decorated "vandal fighter" is an easy and inviting mark for a vandal or troll.

     In essence, Dr Chatterjee is advising us to cower in fear of the vandals, lest we should provoke them, and to disrupt our Counter-Vandalism efforts, because the vandals might not like them. By contrast, I support bold, decisive Counter-Vandalism efforts, as they are essential to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. John254 16:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     "Dr Chatterjee is advising us to cower in fear of the vandals, lest we should provoke them, and to disrupt our Counter-Vandalism efforts, because the vandals might not like them" Ok, this is the most egregious and patently offensive misreading of my essay, and the most blatant straw man argument I've seen made to date on this page. First of all, I am not advocating that we "cower in fear" of vandalism. I am advocating that we don't give vandalism (or, by association, counter-vandalism) undue attention or any unnecessary glamour. There is QUITE a difference between not glamorizing or feeding trolls, and "cowering" from them. Dr Chatterjee 16:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     Comment -- Dr Chatterjee claims that

     When possible, do not bestow anti-vandalism barnstars or similar accolades upon others unless extremely well deserved. Even then, try to avoid doing so.

     Since we provide barnstars for excellence in editing that doesn't involve the reversion of vandalism, how does Dr Chatterjee's advice not constitute cowering in fear? John254 16:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

7. ^

   • "The point that a militaristic response to vandalism is unhelpful needs to be made" For what it's worth, I've attempted to lay out that argument in a guideline suggestion/essay: WP:GAME. It's far from an official policy, and I don't claim it to be, but it's a decent summation of several pretty salient reasons why pages like the CVU can be seen as counterproductive to the cause of vandal reversion and suppression. Dr Chatterjee 21:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     I agree, but fundamentally this is a user behavior problem. Page deletion is invariably not the best possible solution to these problems. It generates a great deal of heat and often doesn't really accomplish the desired goal. User behvaior problems are best confronted by dealing with users who engage in the behaviors directly, through the various community sanctions that are available to us. Deleting this page is a decent start, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     Comment -- To (again) emphasize the absurd nature of Dr Chatterjee's essay, I am (again) quoting in relevant part:

     Avoid the temptation to loudly congratulate oneself or others in their vandalism-correcting efforts. When possible, do not bestow anti-vandalism barnstars or similar accolades upon others unless extremely well deserved. Even then, try to avoid doing so. A well-decorated "vandal fighter" is an easy and inviting mark for a vandal or troll.

     I think that we should reward editors for their anti-vandalism contributions, and we should not be paralyzed with fear of what the vandals might do if we dare to speak of them. John254 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     Here you go again with those straw man arguments. Please stop putting words into my mouth. Once more: I never said or implied that these policies are done out of "fear" of vandals, but rather, out of the premise that to deny recognition to vandals is to de-incentivize vandals. By only giving barnstars to (as quoted in my essay) "extremely well deserved" cases, we avoid turning anti-vandalism into too much of a game and a competition between anti-vandals and vandals. Furthermore, I have never said that we should 'not dare speak of vandals.' It's fine to speak about vandals, so long as we're not glorifying them when we do. Talking about vandals as if they were real-life terrorists, and naming ourselves and our groups after anti-terrorism groups on the TV show "24" are both glorifying vandalism by turning it into some sort of bizarre soap opera. Counter-vandalism should be swift, appear effortless, and be done without fanfare. THE MORE WE SHOW VANDALS THAT THEY CAN'T "GET" TO US, THE BETTER OFF WE WILL BE. AND BY CREATING PAGES LIKE THE "COUNTER-VANDALISM UNIT" WE GIVE VANDALS A PRETTY CLEAR SIGNAL THAT A) THEY CAN AFFECT US, AND B) WE NEED A "SPECIAL TEAM" JUST TO DEAL WITH THEM. I don't know how else to spell this out for you. Dr Chatterjee 21:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     Comment -- Deleting the Counter-Vandalism Unit in response to named cases of high-profile vandalism such as Bobby Boulders and the Airport Vandal is not "show[ing] vandals that they can't 'get' to us". It is quite the opposite. Rewarding the vandals with the deletion of the Counter-Vandalism Unit will only encourage more vandalism. John254 21:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     It seems to me to make a difference that CVU is a visible recognition, something they can point to, whereas the abscence of CVU is much harder for a vandal to point at and say: "look at how much attention they're paying to me". I fail to see how agreeing to stop giving someone visible recognition is a form of recognition. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     If the Counter-Vandalism Unit were to be deleted, vandals could point to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination) and say "look how we destroyed the Counter-Vandalism Unit". Furthermore, if we're trying to refrain from providing "visible recognition" of vandals or avoid conveying the impression that "[vandals] can affect us", we've already failed, Counter-Vandalism Unit or not. We have a special policy for vandals, special templates for warning the vandals, and we've even written special software, such as VandalProof, just to deal with vandalism. Vandalism is a persistent problem on Wikipedia, and there's no point in attempting to hide this fact. John254 22:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     John254, the following is an honest question, because I'd like to understand the position you're taking: Are you saying that the basic motivation behind WP:DENY is to try and hide the fact that vandalism is a persistent problem here? It sounds to me like you might be saying that, but I'd like you to correct me if I'm misunderstanding you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

     The purpose of WP:DENY is to deny recognition to individual, specific vandals, by deleting the various pages and categories devoted to them. WP:DENY is not intented to deny recognition to the existence of vandalism itself (nor can we). Quite simply, WP:DENY, if accepted, would suggest the deletion of Willy on Wheels', Bobby Boulders', and the Airport Vandal's long term abuse pages, but certainly would not suggest the deletion of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, or any other anti-vandalism page not devoted to a specific vandal. John254 22:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   By your own criteria, then, the CVU should be deleted in violation of WP:DENY, given that -- second perhaps only to the dedicated LTA pages for notorious vandals -- it has been a long-standing center of recognition of, discussion of, and glorification of long-term vandals. Vandals like Willy on Wheels, Bobby Boulders, The Airport Vandal, Johnny the Vandal, Blu Aardvark, etc were constantly discussed in excrutiating detail on the CVU page, the CVU talk page, and in its "Persistent Vandals" wanted list. These fundamental aspects of the CVU run contrary to every possible tenet of WP:DENY. Also, I want to reiterate that no one is arguing in favor of not discussing vandalism. Rather, we are arguing in favor of discussing vandalism in a tone-neutral, value-neutral manner. That is to say: it's fine to talk about vandalism, but to call ourselves some fancy, pseudo-official name like "The Counter-Vandalism Unit," and to discuss vandalism as though it's on the same pedestal as the work of Osama bin Laden is to go dangerously and ludircously overboard. This sort of talk and behavior glorifies vandals, gives them a clear "enemy" to respond to, and causes many more problems than it solves. Dr Chatterjee 00:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

   And I will state again that the CVU IS NOT BEING DELETED OR DISBANDED OR WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT TO CALL IT. IT IS SIMPLY BEING MERGED WITH WP:CUV.--Lorrainier 00:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

   When we find ouselves using a lot of boldface and caps lock in conversations, it's a great indication that it's time to walk away from the computer for a few minutes. Where I am, in Seattle, it's a beautiful day: the sun is shining, birds are singing, and this really is just an argument on the internet. Dr. Chatterjee, Lorrainier, anyone else who's feeling a bit warm about this - it's pretty clear to me that we all have Wikipedia's best interests in mind, and that some of us have put a lot of careful and valuable thought into this debate. It'll still be here tomorrow though, and it's really not worth it to get upset and keep typing. Please consider stepping away from the arguing for a few hours, and attend to your own mood and comfort for a while. Take a load off; you'll thank yourself. I'm opening my first beer now... -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:07, September 3, 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.