Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (second 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 Reasoning: 1. This is not a vote. Arguments do count. 2. CVU was never an officially recognized wikiproject. 3. There's WP:VAND for starters, and there's a whole wiki out there for information and gathering, www.countervandalism.org 4. IT's bait. 5. The frenode vandalism channels are not affiliated with wikipedia (that's why they aren't called #wikipedia-something like the others). Therefore, the pages do not belong to wikipedia. Ergo. Delete -- Drini 21:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• This Speedy Delete is now in Deletion Review at: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 29

[edit] Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit

Re-Opening the debate for the CVU, on the grounds that it glorifies the fight against vandalism and thus glorifies vandalism in general. Also, it has both spawned a number of high-profile vandals over the last few months and served as a focal point for vandals to attack. Vandals come to the CVU like moths to a flame, and perhaps it's time to put out the flame. Dr Chatterjee 01:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous nomination at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. ~ PseudoSudo 01:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Meh. Trying to counter vandalism in general has perhaps 'generated' those vandals. Other than that, the same one has attacked that page a few times in the last few months. Also, by the same token, ANI gets hit by vandals "like moths to a flame." There's better ways to channel your anger about vandals if you take deny recognition to heart. Kevin_b_er 01:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Well, that's kind of the point. Creating a dedicated page such as CVU not only does not deny recognition to vandals, but in fact gives the most prominent vandals undue recognition in the way of infamy and mystique. I see it this way: If I'm a prospective vandal new to Wikipedia, and I find out there's a bunch of editors playing cops-and-robbers with fancy titles like the "Counter-Vandalism Unit," I'm going to be pumped up about playing a robber. I would argue, furthermore, that the CVU's existence may cut down on petty vandalism, but it encourages organized vandalism. The average vandal is a new user who lasts all of a couple minutes before being reverted and giving up. But the average long-term vandal does it for the recognition, and seeing places like the CVU, realizes that there's recognition in it for him if he persists. I would much prefer that we just revert vandalism on sight, block the vandals when we see them, and move on to business as usual. Making a huge fuss about vandals, as we do with the existence of the CVU, is counter-productive to the goals of stopping vandalism.Dr Chatterjee 01:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep! This is a NEEDED group! Myself and other members of the CVU help fight vandals and prevent the damge to articles on Wikipedia. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 01:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  What you have described nothing different than what I and many other unaffiliated Wikipedians do each day. I'm not sure how this justifies the existence of the CVU. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. In that it helps to coordinate efforts against vandalism, I can't really see any reason to delete it. It's not spawning vandals. alphaChimp ^laudare 01:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I disagree completely on the notion that it's "not spawning vandals." Witness all the attacks by Bobby Boulders, Blu Aardvark, the Airport Vandal, and their imitators over the last few months. It's hard to argue that vandals like these would even exist if not for the CVU and its over-glorified anti-vandal literature. Its very existence gives vandals something to aspire to: recognition by the CVU. Dr Chatterjee 02:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

They are going to come ANYWAYS. We need something like this inorder to coordinate effort not everyone has access to IRC so something like this is needed. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we really, honestly need this place to get "organized"? The best way to combat vandalism is to monitor the Recent Changes list, find the vandalism there, revert it, and report the vandals in question. Making a huge deal out of the concept of vandalism glorifies it. Dr Chatterjee 02:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Some do! And some also need a project like this in order to fight the vandals (To give them info, programs and tools to do it). Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, those are exactly the people I dont want fighting vandals. Getting to those tools is something that happens as you explore, become familiar with policy and grow as a wikipedia. I want them to be slightly hard to find so that I know that most of the users will have knowledge beyond learning-level of wikipedian. That shows a bit of dedication to the community, more then the edit count restrictions placed on those tool do (quick learners would get there faster, but mostly be engaged and knowledgable about it, slower learners would get there with higher edit counts then the standards, and hopefully be informed enough.) a centralized place to get powerful tools is a recipe for diaster. -M^ask 02:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, Blu Aardvark has demonstrably nothing to do with the CVU. ~ PseudoSudo 02:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I don't think that there was any implication to that effect. I think the point was being made that because the CVU has drawn attention to vandalism, notorious vandals such as Blu Aardvark have popped up because they know they'll get recognition for it. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My point was simply that Blu Aardvark is not a notorious vandal. ~ PseudoSudo 03:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why is he #6 on the CVU's list of persistent vandals? --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm; sorry, that's news to me. ~ PseudoSudo 04:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. If people need tools to fight vandalism they should just go to the Dealing With Vandalism page. It's all there for you. CVU is at best redundant at worst a probelm. Funkyzeit 02:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  For anyone who's still reading this, this account was created five minutes before posting this comment. The owner has also posted himself a {{welcome}} on his talk page. ~ PseudoSudo 02:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Unneeded The CVU has their own wiki and IRC channels to cordinate (here and #vandalism-en-wp on freenode) so this page seems unneccesary and focus's vandals. That said, I feel a delete vote is unneeded, its more of a move to their own wiki, perhaps a cross-wiki redirect left? -M^ask 02:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The up swing in vandalism can be attributed to the pouplarity of Wikipedia as a whole and not because of one group. We have grown ALOT since last year when I joined plus the Wiki has gotten a lot of press time since then. You can't blame one group or a few pages on the vandalism when we have become one of the most popular sites on the web. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's saying that vandalism exists on Wikipedia as a whole "because" of this group's page, but rather that this page does more harm than good. It perpetuates more vandalism (and, crucially, more organized and directed vandalism) than it stops. Dr Chatterjee 02:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, in the current state of affairs, Wikipedia is negatively affected more by unorganized vandalism than organized vandalism. ~ PseudoSudo 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is not the CVU's fault in fact many of use give up lots of hours just to fight vandals. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, no reason to delete has been given that makes any sense other than that you don't like it. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said I didn't like it (I am, in fact, an active member). I have stated, however, that it glorifies vandalism, and in doing so, hurts Wikipedia more than it helps. I've stated that reasoning plenty of times, in plenty of different ways. I would like to think my reasoning runs a bit more sophisticated and nuanced than a simple "I don't like it." Please give me some more credit than that. Dr Chatterjee 02:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, with note. I will defer to any judgement Coolcat makes on this issue, otherwise count this as a delete. The CVU is a little bit too ego-pushing and militaristic/badge-driven/ego-pumping for my tastes, and is borderline poisoning-the-well. It tends to attract the newest members of our culture who at least fairly often get too much pleasure carrying a nightstick. At the same time, it does do some good. In the past, I worked with CoolCat to try to reform the group, which unfortunately did not work (although I gained a lot of respect for Coolcat for the effort). I believe it is time for this project, as it is now, to end. --Improv 02:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete While I understand that the CVU promotes the countering of vandalism (which is laudable), my general experience with what I term "watchdog" task forces is that in going about their business, they often find themselves in the way of individual users who are attempting to do the same thing. There are existing policies for dealing with vandalism. What I read on the CVU page is stuff that is either covered in the official policy (and links on that page) or should be integrated into the official policy. For me, consolidation of information is preferable to having a group that appears to be almost a central clearinghouse for anti-vandalism activities. I also agree with the comments made concerning the glorification of vandalism. The best way to deal with a pest is to stop giving it attention. In this case that means quietly going through and reverting, warning and reporting. By creating a counter-vandalism unit, it calls attention to the act of vandalism and sends the message that if someone wants attention and fame (even if it's infamy), all they have to do is cause widespread vandalism. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Vandals are always going to find a reason to vandalize things regardless of whether there is a CVU. At least if it exists, it provides an organized way to handle vandalism. --Cswrye 02:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What we have to consider is whether the organization against vandals is outweighed by the glorification of vandals. In my opinion, that's precisely the case. Counter-vandalism efforts work just fine without a vigilante group running around, acting like the be-all, end-all of counter vandalism. Meanwhile, vandals are rewarded with mentions on the CVU page and talk page (or worse, with their own Long-Term Abuse sub pages). The real winner in the equation here is the vandals. CVU isn't serving any greater good than intelligent users with knowledge of the Wikipedia:Vandalism page are capable of. Dr Chatterjee 02:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We are not a vigilante group Doctor. And as to the vandals that are noted on the page those could be edited out if consenus is reached on it. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 02:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a vigilante as "A person who takes the law into his or her own hands, outside the boundaries of official law enforcement." The Counter-Vandalism unit certainly a) takes the law into its own hands, and b) operates outside of official Wikipedia policy (and hence, outside the boundaries of official law enforcement). In my opinion, that pretty much qualifies as a vigilante organization to me. Furthermore, taking the mentions of vandals out of the CVU page is a good first step. But you're still faced with the notion that the CVU, by virtue of its very existence and "24" styled name, gives vandals the idea that they have a hyped up enemy. It gives them a nemesis, and thus, a purpose. Dr Chatterjee 02:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep This is a necessary group, coordinating anti-vandal activity. Scienceman123 02:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The arguments I've seen for keeping it are that it is a necessary group to Wikipedia -- and? It's been pointed out that CVU has its own page. I agree with the general "glorification" consensus. This is why major web sites do not have "Defacer Resistance Squads" on their pages; it's practically an invitation to deface. --JStalk 02:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I say keep, because unfortunately vandals are going to target any page. They can easily change any page they wish, which is sad, but just because they target one article more than another should NOT be grounds for the page's deletion. It should be locked from editing or something. Vandals may target any page at any time. This one is no different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuke monster (talk • contribs)

You're missing the point, though. It's not just about which pages vandals target. It's about how the content and nature of the CVU breed vandalism because they glorify it. The fact that so many high-profile vandals attack the CVU is only the tip of the iceberg. Dr Chatterjee 03:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For frame of reference, review this poster's talk page. --JStalk 03:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I fail to see any valid reasoning. The idea that this may bring forth vandals is merely a personal theory and not any sort of valid deletion criteria. The group maintains a laudable function. IrishGuy ^talk 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not that the group "may" bring forth vandals; it's that it already has. Bobby Boulders is the direct result of someone who saw the CVU, saw what the CVU said about people like Willy on Wheels and the Communism vandal, and decided to make a similar name for himself. The Airport Vandal is a guy who saw what the CVU had made of Bobby Boulders, and ran with it. That right there is at least two generations of notorious vandals who were directly inspired by the CVU's existence. Dr Chatterjee 03:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bobby is most likey WoW. Cyde convinced other SYSOPs of this and the Airport vandal may be WoW as well the CVU can't be blamed for his/there vandalism. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 03:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Bobby isn't WoW, and neither is Airport. It's just something Cyde and the Sysops made up to take away Bobby's glory and bore him out of vandalizing. For the most part, it seems to have worked. By a similar token, taking away the CVU will give vandals nothing to strive for, and no possibility of notoriety, and hence will eventually bore the attention-seeking vandals out of the business. Dr Chatterjee 03:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that would help! All it is going to do is possibly delete a needed project form wikipedia. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 03:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it "needed," though? You keep saying it's needed, but you haven't specified why. What purpose does it serve beyond providing the tools users can find elsewhere, such as on the official Wikipedia Vandalism page? That page has everything the CVU has, is an official wikipiedia policy page, and does not glorify the vandals it seeks to contain. It's everything the CVU does, and better. Dr Chatterjee 03:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have many times. Keep it because it helps Orginize counter vandal operations, has all the tools listed and the info on what to look for. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 03:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've said plenty of times, though, and as others on this page have pointed out, those tools are available on Wikipedia:Vandalism and WP:LTA. There's nothing on CVU that isn't already available through those two official Wikipedia pages. Dr Chatterjee 03:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Whatever happens, I wish they'd sort out of they want to be "official" or not. If not, they should stop using Wikipedia and especially Wikimedia's logo and "Wikimedia Foundation" on their frontpage. If so, they need to get permission. Either way, the notice about such should be farther up the page than buried under "What CVU is not", halfway down. I asked this on their talk page, but apparently they're too busy fighting vandals... -- nae'blis 03:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  I just went and read Wikimedia's style guidelines for the presentation of the Wikimedia logo. It would seem that the CVU logos would violate a couple of the guidelines. Specifically, I'm seeing potential issues with the use of additional colors in the logo, the presentation of the word "Wikimedia", and the use of a margin (or lack thereof) around the logo itself. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "Aeon has returned. WATCH IT VANDALS! I'M BACK!!!!!!!!" (from AEon's userpage). This is the kind of inflammatory stuff Dr Chatterjee is talking about. If I were a vandal, I'd see that as an "oh really!?" kind of invitation to deface him. The defacement counter on his user page is probably evidence of that. The motivation of this MfD is the inflaming of vandals through any means, this page not the least. I feel the same way about "I've been vandalized 20 times!" (a prospective vandal might want to vandalize you to see if she becomes 21). --JStalk 03:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And I have removed it for those reasons today (on my own with out promting I do however HATE vandalism) as I realised that it could be taken as such but how ever the CVU is not about baiting the vandals it is abot stoping them. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 03:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the CVU page still acts like bait. Persistent vandals are rewarded with a listing! --JStalk 03:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And to above the defecment was because of my counter vandal efforts not because of siad warning. If you revert over 700 vandals you get some fire back at you. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 03:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And, from the discussion on my user page -- I could assert that all of those vandals know you are insanely proud of your work, and rub it in their faces every chance you get (700 reverts! wow!) I know if I were a vandal, I'd take that kind of self-lauding as an invitation to vandalize just to spite you.

That's what this MfD is all about, dedicating a page to "how good Wikipedia is at crushing vandals" is really, as Dr has pointed out, an invitation to vandalize more. Criminals regularly act out of spite.

I also feel that Wikipedia:Most_vandalized_pages should be deleted too, for similar reasons to this one. It's practically a list of targets... --JStalk 03:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I;m proud of reverting the vandals so that others may be able to edit this wiki without seing among other things, Vulgar images, Personal Attacks, having there work Blanked ect. I help defend the wiki. and I am proud of that. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 03:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say you shouldn't be. That's great! WP needs a lot more people like you.

However, publicly being proud has a tendency to inflame people. That's what this MfD is all about, and the entire reason I brought up your user page -- it reflects the general attitude of members of CVU as a whole. Being publicly proud of your accomplishments is, in most cases, an invitation to spite you. That's why I support this MfD.

I think CVU should work as quiet as possible, even just not to give people ideas -- I'm sure there are masses of people who come across this page and say, Wow, that's really a problem! (not knowing vandalism was a serious problem before they looked). And to some people, this might feed them ideas. I know, cynical, but true, and I completely agree with Dr on this. --JStalk 03:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I still see a "watch out" warning to vandals. And there happens to be a list of vandals you've reverted on your user page as well. Reminds me of a fighter pilot who marks all his kills on the side of his plane. Yeah, he's good, but he's also made himself into a huge target. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

REmoved it (Thought I did when I added something) thanks for pointing that out. And as for the list it is for me to kep track and if needed find easily a revert that should not have been done (I find having a link there useful). And I have not been that big of a target. 16 hits is not that much compared so some other pages. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I didn't mean to malign you (really!), I meant to show the general "crack squad of anti-vandal soldiers" attitude that's prevalent with many members of CVU, you included. While it isn't a bad thing to be proud of crushing vandals, it does feed their fire when posted publicly. --JStalk 04:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think you did lol you made a good faith comment I just disagree with you. Now let me poit something out reverting them spins them up wonderfully and some of them love to get back on teh Reverter and mess up the page. And my Counter Vandal page has yet to get hit. Now my main page well that happens from time to time as will as my talk page I expect it when I warn a vandal. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I see no good out of deleting it. While I do see a tool to encourage vandal fighting if it is kept. Maybe it could use a name change and a logo change. But the project is valuable.--Konstable 03:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the CVU may do some harm by being visible, it does more good by increasing awareness -- yes, there are many users who fight vandalism without being part of the CVU, but nevertheless it does increase awareness! I might support some membership guidelines (e.g. established editors only, ala Esperanza's requirements, but deletion is an overreaction. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 03:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to see one compelling reason why the CVU page serves a greater good beyond what is available in Wikipedia's various official counter-vandalism pages. It's got NOTHING that you can't already find on WP:Vandalism, aside from some glorification/glamorization of vandals. To me, that's just an invitation for dedicated vandals to fight back and/or try to make a name for themselves. The CVU puts ideas into potential vandals' heads that they haven't thought of on their own. I hate to keep referencing Bobby Boulders, but I think he's a prime example here. Bobby started his career as a minor hoax-article creator. He made a few hoaxes, and when those hoaxes got deleted, he took to vandalizing the user pages of the people who called out his hoaxes. He then noticed that those users were "CVU" members, and followed the links on their user pages back to the CVU: where he learned about the infamous vandals of the day, studied their methods, and went for glory. The Airport Vandal did the exact same thing, only Bobby and not Willy was his inspiration. Who's to say that, tomorrow, some new vandal won't be similarly inspired by The Airport Vandal? This sort of copycat vandalism isn't always the result of vandals' seeing the CVU page, but seeing the CVU page certainly causes a lot more copycat cases than it solves. The CVU page doesn't create vandals, but it puts bad ideas into vandals' heads. It encourages them. It's like waving candy in front of a baby, and then telling the baby he can't have any. It breeds spite and resentment, and presents both a target and an incentive to vandals. Furthermore, the existence of the CVU proves that vandalism works. It proves that, if you vandalize long and hard enough, you will be recognized for your efforts, and you will cause hundreds of self-styled policemen to waste their time discussing you.Dr Chatterjee 04:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That could also be said for the SYSOP box, and several others. I still Doc don't see how the CVU it could create copycat vandals. And vandalism dosen't work. It is reverted quickly. I agree with Ginkgo that this is a bit of an overreaction to the bigger proplem that is Vandalism Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's define what it means for vandalism to "work." Let's assume that, for your average attention-seeking vandal, success means getting recognized on the CVU page. If that's the measure of success, then by that measure, Bobby Boulders succeeded. The Airport Vandal succeeded. Willy on Wheels succeeded. Blu Aardvark succeeded. Johnny the Vandal, Randallrobinstine, The Communism Vandal, Mr. Pelican Shit, General Tojo, and The North Carolina Vandal all succeeded. Do you see what I'm getting at? If the CVU hadn't been around to make such a big deal about those vandals, chances are they wouldn't have stuck around out of sheer boredom. If their vandalism had been quietly reverted, and their accounts blocked without fanfare, they would have had no incentive to carry on. But the fact that the CVU glamorized what they were doing made those vandals all too eager to keep at it. Dr Chatterjee 04:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's called putting a bullseye up the size of the vandal's computer screen. This also isn't a matter of whether the Sysop box and other boxes contribute more or less to the inadvertant promotion of vandalism. This is strictly about CVU. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Then a simpler soultion is the removal of the vandals that are on the page not the unit itself. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If only it were that easy. But the problem is that it's not just those named vandals who are made problematic by CVU. CVU doesn't just glorify vandalism; it sensationalizes vandalism. The existence of CVU gives vandals the idea that "Hey, vandalism must be so effective that Wikipedia needs its own Counter-Terrorism group just to fight it! It must be really awesome to be a vandal!" By sensationalizing the problem of vandalism, the CVU gives would-be and active vandals the false sense that their vandalism has far-reaching consequences and is a more important issue than it really is, and/or that it has a bigger impact than it really does. Dr Chatterjee 04:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes we do because the vandals have been hitting and hitting more often now (especialy right after the Colbert Report about the elephants I remember that week). It is not the CVU sensationalizing it. And if that is what you are conred with tehn a revamp of the CVU page would take are of most of that. As I have said VAndalism is nt going to go away becuse you get rid of one group. It is going to get worse as Wikipedia grows. It is a fact of teh wiki so you need people like me who are willing to go after them so others can edit in reltive peace. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Let me get this straight, you believe the deletion of CVU will defer vandalism? Um, no, vandalism can be defered but the people truly intent on damaging Wikipedia don't give up and have their own little circles to discuss their actions or vent their rage. Sure, there are some posts on the talk page that may feed the trolls and fighting vandalism is one of the most unattractive aspects of a Wiki, this is a problem severe enough to need some kind of an organized effort to attempt to cease the problem. Have you read WP:FAC? It gets really heated over there and people object heavily on somethings that baffles others and creates fierce disputes. Should we delete that page because it causes general unhappiness? The same thing with AfD? You should try to make alot of people happy, but it's simply impossible to try to make everyone happy and not fail. Yanksox 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether it makes anybody happy. The fact that other pages have really heated debates is also not relevant to this deletion; I believe Dr's original goal with the MfD was that having a CVU page gives vandals not only an antagonist, but also a target and a purpose. We're not saying the page makes anyone unhappy, we're saying its mere presence is detrimental to the effort (the same cannot be said of the pages you reference). --JStalk 04:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There target and purpose is Vandalising Wikipedia not ust one section of it. Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The question in my mind is, does the CVU offer a benefit to the Wikipedia community above and beyond what exists officially? I think the answer is no. All the informative content is available through official channels -- including tools. Does the CVU make vandal-fighting more efficient? I doubt it. Since membership in the CVU does not offer extra benefits with regards to vandal-fighting, an unaffiliated user has the potential to do as much vandal-fighting as a CVU member. Regarding FAC and AfD, there is a difference between things which are official functions of Wikipedia and an unofficial item such as the CVU. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Granted, it could be feeding the vandals, but there is a needed center for information about what is occuring for a serious issue. But, CVU is not their antagonist...(brace yourself) Wikipedia is their antagonist. People target the website for the nifty little edit this page link, CVU may add a little icing, but AN/I is much bigger and better place. Vandals have an issue with Wikipedia itself and the community, to be frank, they just don't care at all about CVU. Let's put it like this, if you are opposed to the policies of the United States Government are you going to target a sole branch of the government? No, you are looking at the whole picture and attempting a massive attack. Sorry for being semi-incohernet, it's late and I'm aghast at this MfD, there are much more important things that this. Yanksox 04:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree! Vandals could care less about the CVU. They are going to go after otehr targets first, such as Featured Articles (usually the article of the day), AN/I, AIV ect ect Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 04:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right, most could care less about it. They care about causing as much havok as possible. Now, if you feel the page could be toned down, that may be entirely possible. But deleting a wikiproject is not the solution. Kevin_b_er 05:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The Counter-Vandalism Unit helps to promote and coordinate participation in counter-vandalism efforts, which are essential to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. John254 04:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SNOWBALL. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think this whole discussion is a violation of WP:Beans. :P Yanksox 05:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the very existence of the CVU, and a good deal of the content on the CVU page, are direct violations of WP:Beans. That's kind of the point here. The CVU gives vandals ideas they wouldn't have had otherwise. Dr Chatterjee 09:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Alphachimp. I do however think that the long-term abuse pages may glorify or promote vandalism and may need be deleted. --Credema 06:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

some have come up for MfD (I think WoW is going to get the axe) Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 07:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, the philosophy against vandalism presented here is a positive one, and as the encyclopedia grows we are only going to get more vandalism, rather than less - and this page ensures that we have more people fighting against it, too. It'd be nice if we could have all our anti-vandalism organisations in one place, and I don't feel that cutting them out is a way to do this. —Xyrael / 09:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't understand arguments such as this. So. Because vandals might be attracted to the page, we should delete the page? Doesn't that mean that we are bowing to them? No. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  It doesn't mean we're "bowing to them." It just means that we're taking a little bit of attention away from them. What do you do with a misbehaving child who wants attention? You ignore the child until he or she falls back in line. Vandals are much less inclined to persist when there isn't any hope of their getting attention or infamy. The CVU gives them both attention AND infamy. It's counterproductive at best in that sense. Rustag 11:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  Account Rustag created one minute before posting. ~ PseudoSudo 11:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And? Many people that just read the encyclopedia have opinions too. I was one of them, I only started editing recently. Why is the fact that perhaps this person one of them important to note? Because he provides a valid argument against yours? --JStalk 19:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Vandalism fighting is a chore, and if some members group together to do just that I don't see any reason why they should not be allowed to do so. Though I like the moths-flame analogy. Everybody knows what happens after the moth got attracted to the flame... CharonX/talk 14:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it encourages new'ish users to tackle vandalism, just because it is vandalised itself doesn't mean it should be deleted. I feel this Mfd is actually showing how successful you believe vandals to be. Vandalism won't go away by deleting this. If it's not this they target, it will be something else.--Andeh 14:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  Last I checked, our reason (at least mine) was not that the vandals target the CVU page for vandalism. They target other pages because the CVU publicizes vandalism so much. In my mind, it's the same reason a hardened criminal continues to commit crime - because he gets an ego kick out of seeing his name in lights. He doesn't go and commit a crime directly against the police station, he goes somewhere else to perpetrate the crime. The only difference is that the CVU isn't really the police. Except for those people who happen to be admins, CVU members have no real enforcement power against the vandals themselves (posting warning messages does not count as enforcement). The CVU is more on the order of a neighborhood watch group that acts like it's the police, while at the same time saying it's not. It just doesn't make sence. I'd say that at a minimum, the CVU has something of an identity crisis going on. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  Ditto what Carl said. The fact that the CVU page is targetted by vandals is only the tip of the iceberg, as I've said possibly 3 thousand times now. The real issue is that the CVU makes a game out of vandal fighting. It turns things into "cops and robbers," and rewards persistent vandals by putting their names front and center on its "wanted" list. Furthermore, the existence of a "watch group" outside the official jurisdiction of Wikipedia policy is silly at best, and counterproductive at worst. It trivializes vandalism, glorifies vandalism, and glamorizes vandalism all at the same time, by virtue of elevating vandalism to such a level that it needs a watch group in the first place. Vandalism doesn't need a CVU. It just needs diligent editors and administrators who check the Recent Changes list routinely and do their jobs without making a huge fuss about the vandals they've "fought." The cardinal rule of dealing with Internet trolls is not to feed the trolls. The CVU, by virtue of its name, its lists, and its game-like nature, feeds the trolls. Dr Chatterjee 16:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

How do we pubilise vandalism? They come to Wikipedia see that it can be edited without logging in and do it. Most don't know of the CVU. We don't have a link on Main Page saying We Have A CVU. Also we don't feed teh trolls we deal with preventing, reverting and blocking Vandalism. With that logic warning and blocking feeds themÆon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 16:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Theoretical day in the life of a vandal: come to Wikipedia, see that it can be edited and do so with malicious intent - just 'cause they can. It gets reverted, with a warning left on the vandal's talk page. Vandal reads the warning and possibly gets a bit indignant at what appears to be the censorship of his contribution (speaking US-centrically here, it's a first ammendment right after all). Goes to the user's page (because the user signed it), and sees that the member is part of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Clicks the userbox link to the CVU and sees an organization devoted to censorship (their opinion, not mine). Sees that they've basically got a most wanted list of the most prolific vandals going. Decides to make a name for himself, so he registers and starts working. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's also important to note that the scenario Carl's talking about here isn't just theoretical. It's happened before, at least twice in recent months with Bobby Boulders and The Airport Vandal. Looking back at the edit and blocking histories of both of those vandals, you can clearly see the pattern: 1) They began with petty vandalism, 2) They saw people's links to the CVU and followed them, 3) They realized they could make names for themselves in the vein of the "notorious" vandals listed at the CVU, 4) they became notorious vandals themselves. Even these two stories are two too many. If even one persistent vandal gets the idea to vandalize heavily based on the presence of the CVU, then the CVU has failed in its mission. And we can definitively prove at least two such instances. How many more Bobbies and Airports need to happen before we start putting two and two together? Sure, these vandals -- and others like them -- would have vandalized Wikipedia with or without the CVU. But they wouldn't have persisted as heavily or as frequently if not for the CVU's existence. Dr Chatterjee 17:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Great page for information on fighting vandals. Whispering^(talk/c) 19:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Totally pointless page that glorifies anti-vandalism and vandalism. ~ Mister Righteous 20:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  User's ninth edit. ~ PseudoSudo 21:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  How is this relevant? Do people have a minimum number of edits they have to have before their opinion matters to you? --JStalk 21:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think alot of people here voting in favor of CVU are voting from emotion and not logic. Yeah we're all attached to this place but is it really serving a better good than the bad it causes? i don't think thats the case. Try to be unemotional and unbiased about this. The best thing for the fight against vandalism is to not give it attention, which means deleting CVU's page. Mister Righteous 20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - how ridiculous. Lets also get rid of admins, and everyone's rollback feature as they also glorify vandalism right? There's no vandals names in bright lights there, nothing to glorify any vandal specifically at all. Im a big believer in WP:DENY but there's a difference between practical antivandalism measures and "glorification". Pullease. - GIen 21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - per kevin, alphachimp, zoe, cswyre, GIen, and others, and because these pages do not cause anyone to become vandals and it is a central location for all the information that is needed ST47 21:32, 29 August 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.