Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fraud Protection Unit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 deleted by east718 (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights). Daniel (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Fraud Protection Unit

Disruptive project that duplicates the function of many other forms of dispute resolution and vandalism reversion. Nakon 22:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per my reasoning on the ANI thread about this. This seems overly bureaucratic, and probably redundant. (See the Counter Vandalism Unit and Long Term Abuse). I don't see a need to centralize anything here: if someone has a habit of make bad edits, warn, then if needed RBI. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Not a very auspicious start: Warning a long-term editor today for an edit made in 2005 just smacks of bad faith here. Besides that, the OP is right that this is unnecessary duplication of other processes we have in place already. -- Kesh (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a completely honest diff as it was toned down even before the user saw it. BVande (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You still made the edit. Nakon 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, ugly, and badly executed. Not worth marking as historical as, well, there's no history. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep No place in WP keeps attract of a possible pattern of willful misinformation. The page has been up less than 1 hour and already 2 pieces of wrong information has been reported. There is no bureaucracy, you just volunteer. We still AGF and probably excuse a few errors but we will notice if a lot of errors are made suggesting sneaky vandalism. BVande (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Fraud_Protection_Unit&action=history, you are the only editor of the page, if we ignore Nakon's AfD notice. Would you please provide the diffs of the the two reports. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There were TWO reports but one of them was reverted by the nominator even though it has clearly wrong information. BVande (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And both reports were stale and added by you. Nakon 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as stale. There was wrong information and in both cases, it persisted for over 2-3 years. However, you win. I give up. I do not agree with "delete" and will not change my vote but I will cease to add comments. Cruxify me, keep adding comments, and twist the sword in my stomach if you will, but please don't. BVande (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So someone creates an article, and you draw up a report on them? From the initial state of the article, it's presumably one of the editors first edits (given that they signed the page). This is pretty much the definition of assuming bad faith. A quick look at their contributions shows that this is clearly a good faith editor. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also say the project page name Fraud Protection Unit in itself strays far from WP:AGF but I think this is owing to nothing more than inexperience with Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonsense on stilts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this bureaucratic hilariousness, if only to help protect the reputation of its author. You're warning someone for an edit in January 2005? Grandmasterka 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As above, besides, I kinda like WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - User:BVande's first edit was 8 days ago. MickMacNee (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That is bitey. AGF and you can see my user page. BVande (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a neutral comment, interpret it how you want. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Whats the benefit of keeping a dossier on trivial factual errors? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete with snowball speed. Yikes. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete At best, the page appears redundant. There exist numerous avenues for the correction of factual errors, one of which is to simply perform research and verify the proposed error oneself. I'm also uncomfortable with writing reports on what may amount to either a good faith error or a generally good faith contribution. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - ZOMG think of the children. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Bureaucratic and WP:CREEPy, we don't need an entire unit for fact-checking. We already have [fact] tags and 'articles needing sources' categories, this just increases the amount of process. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 05:55, May 16, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: misleading and looks like it was created by the Azorius Senate. Wishing no offense to the author, we have no need for a unit specifically to investigate insertion of misinformation when we have Chuk***-obsessed giants running about. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 06:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Tagishsimon. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 16 May 2008 (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.