Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit

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 Speedy keep. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit

This category has spawned members like user:VandalPatrol and more recentlyuser:PandalPetrol.It has abused its existence and more likely acts as interacting platform for organised vandalism,in which participation of member admins too is not ruled out.Members should not vote —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holywarrior (talk • contribs) 11:02, 23 June 2006 BST

Do you have any evidence to support your claims? Even if they're true, the good day-to-day work of the CVU outweighs such rare, isolated incidents. Waggers 10:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

DELETEHolywarrior 10:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wagger better see Talk:Bhumihar,Bhurabal history,and afd discussion,and alsoTalk:Shudra page.Incidents are many.How are you sure it outweighs.....I just think otherwise.It gives newcomers a bullying tag,many of whom are actually shocks of banned accounts.Also see user:Mike Rosoft admission on his user page and his behaviour on Bhurabal page.I don't see any logic in continuation of this dubious organisation.Holywarrior 10:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The only one of the pages you mention that includes any reference at all to the CVU is user:Mike Rosoft's user page, in which he says he's a proud member of the unit. None of the other pages are anything to do with the CVU, and any problems that have occurred with them would have come to pass whether or not the CVU existed. One of your comments in Talk:Bhumihar implies a belief on your part that only administrators are authorised to add cleanup/maintenance tags to articles - that simply isn't true. What argument do you have against the CVU itself (as opposed to selected members of it)? Waggers 14:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

keep i actually reviewed the 'evidence' as presented (next time some diffs would be appreciated to prevent having to wade through histories) and can only conclude the holywarrior is upset that several wikipedians, some of them members of the cvu, are opposed to pages on the caste system being used to push a pov. he has removed {{db-attack}} tags on these pages, which i believe after a short review were in good faith, and labelled such activities as "vandalism". the solution to remove the cvu page because one pov is losing a revert war over a couple of pages that have a strong attack feel to them just doesn't seem like a constructive one. --frymaster 14:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

comment observ this talk page where holywarrior throws down a test-4 as the first user warning.

user:PandalPetrol himself identifies as user:VandalPatrol why do you expect me to issue him test1,2 or 3.look[1]Holywarrior 16:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, take a look at his talk page where he refers to warnings or blocks as vandalism and those who have warned or blocked him as vandals. He has also refered to several users as sockpuppets of certain other users without evidence and even created a userpage for a certain IP stating that it was a sock of User:VandalPatrol.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 15:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was blocked by whom?????? I was never blocked man..Can user:PandalPatrol block me.This shows how CVU tag was misused.What you have made above is misleading bad faith comment.Holywarrior 16:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at these pages and also note the time duration.Not only me butuser:pjacobi who was witness of this drama and has reported it well has mentioned these IPs.Plz dont try to mislead just to save this page.Shame on you.[2].If you can read find the most abusive hindi slangs targeted on me in edit summary.Amazing ppl atre not ashamed of backing this user:PandalPetrolHolywarrior 16:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep - The reasons the nominator provides for this nomination make no sense. This is just a bad-faith act by troll who's angry about his own acts of vandalism or violation of policy being reverted.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 15:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC).

It would be better to cite where I had been indulged in vandalism.this is something ridiculous you are talking.I never push my POV.If ever can you tell where.No nonesense talk plz.You can back user:PandalPetrol for all the nonesense he utters against me but cannot malign me.I have always followed very strict principle and can explain each and every event.Holywarrior 16:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep per above. Naconkantari 15:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, please. ~ PseudoSudo 15:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, per Conrad Devonshire. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:46, 23 June 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.