Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia vandal control

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 Delete With all due respect to the keep commenters, it does appear that the creator has abandoned this, and might not have had an incredibly clear idea for it in the first place. Xoloz 19:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikipedia vandal control

Duplicate effort with Counter-Vandalism Unit; one editor's project. No members that I could find. In short, I don't find any need nor consensus that this is at all wanted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete page and all affiliated pages, categories, not need by the CVU. Housekeeping, unnecessary duplication of existing, well-run project. Badbilltucker 00:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Associated: Template:Wvc userbox, Template:Wvc userpage, Template:Wvc talkpage, Template:Wvc article, Template:Wvc general, Template:Wvc highvandalism, Category:WVC Members, and User:StonedChipmunk/WVC_Member_Pages. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete page and the associated templates / category. A main issue here is the user's desire to tag articles with the rather unnecessary templates I pointed out above (see the "vote"). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete everything, including templates, subpages, and anything else I haven't seen yet - confusing, no concensus for many things (like a template which has been created, intended to be added to an article which has been vandalised recently etc.), and is redundant to the CVU. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 01:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Creator-Proposed Deletion: Feel free to delete. I wasn't intending it to be same as CVU, but since nobody understands just delete it (main goal was a group in which people who are dedicated to combating vandalism join... as in most of time on Wikipedia is spent doing so, while CVU contains many members of whom have maybe found less than 3 occurrences). - StonedChipmunk 01:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete CVU is doing fine. KrakatoaKatie 10:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no need for multiple CVUs. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 15:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Postpone this deletion request a week. StonedChipmunk says the intent isn't the same as CVU, give him a week to show that it isn't. We have Esperanza, Concordia, and the Kindness Committee whose functions somewhat overlap, but who play different roles. Maybe "WVC" will do something in a different, novel way. He just started it, give him/her a chance to hammer out the details. Jcam 16:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as duplication of existing CVU and suggest that if the creator has some novel ideas on vandal fighting, that editor work with the CVU on those topics. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now - we should see if anything could come of this. CVU is a project that no longer is overall good for Wikipedia, and I'd be thrilled to see a replacement. At the same time, I'm concerned that this group looks just as military/police-ish as CVU and has some of the same broken ideas. Maybe it'll do a better job though... there's little harm in giving it a shot. --Improv 21:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Seems to me like a merger or redirect might be a better solution. I'm not sure why we should spend the time to delete. Rossami (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I supported keep in the CVU MfD, but I understand the frustrations with the current CVU. However, has anyone actually tried to reform the CVU? If there is a problem with editors being attached to an "old CVU" and thus making the task very hard, then I would understand the need to make a new effort. -- Ned Scott 06:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • CoolCat, who started the whole thing, tried to reform it when things started to go astray sometime back. Unfortunately, his efforts were met with so much vitrol that he nearly left Wikipedia. CVU is a cesspool, at least partly for the attitudes it tends to create nowadays. --Improv 01:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as abandoned per StonedChipmunk, no other editors seem to be involved. Accurizer 00:10, 10 November 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.