Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page refactored, thanks to /ref/ tags. The discussion about how and what to glorify, and how to reward active contributors along different dimensions, is of general interest -- I'm not sure how to start that kind of discussion, but it should be had. In particular, I have heard a few suggestions of creating an actual WP video game environment, and one of the primary elements of such an environment would be good 3D vandal-fighting interfaces and stats tracking. Would this be useful? harmful?

I believe that if we focus on making editing (and cleanup) fun for everyone involved [1], rather than fighting over tactics -- we will be closer to that ideal of a frictionless information commons. I like the comparison of CVU with Wikipedia:Typo... which is clearly done in a spirit of (rather rote, but still genuine) fun. +sj + 00:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Stats

I pulled out some stats from the 16/8/2006 database dump, as always with such stats they need to be taken with a pinch of salt. And of course are subject to error on the part of the idiot who runs the extract (me). Using the revision table, look for all edits with summaries like:

  • Reverted%edits by%
  • Revert to revision%popups%
  • %Reverted [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]%

And by converting to lower case first

  • rvv
  • rv%vandalism%

This should cover a good number of vandalism reverts (though possibly includes non-vandalism as well). It should cover most of the main vandalism reversion tools, whilst excluding the reversion bots. This won't be all vandalism reverts but should hopefully be equally biased for CVU and non-CVU reverts.

CVU Reverts are considered all those in Category:Counter-Vandalism Unit members though it is of course possible that some of those members are also neutral or supportive of deletion.

For the month of July.

  • Total reverts: 100733
  • Reverts CVU: 24679

Along similar lines I've also considered edits to WP:AIV, again this has it's own problems such as often admins will deal with multiple vandals and then do one edit, whilst others don't, some will do a null edit to add the "List empty" type edit summary... For July

  • Total Edits: 6382
  • CVU Edits: 2018

-- pgk 12:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

General Comments

  • Comment - The page has already been merged with Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism, so this debate should be brought to an end.-- Lorrainier 06:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment - Turning a page under discussion into a redirect is specifically prohibited under the guide to deletion, and merging material under discussion is strongly discouraged under the same guideline. This page is still under discussion, and action should not be taken against it until the discussion is closed. That's the purpose of gathering consensus.-- Cswrye 07:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment - I had fufilled the merge request for all intents and purposes before this debate even broke out.-- Lorrainier 07:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment - The issue is still under discussion. That's what this is all about. - Cswrye 15:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    You seem to be interpreting this as a simple them and us type debate, many of those advocating deletion have been/are still involved with CVU and see the need to move the removal of vandalism forward. For example Drini who closed the last MFD was one of the original members actually originaly arriving here as a beta tester of the CDVF tool. To make an assumption that the ability to manage the vandalism issue without this particular page is a mistake. -- pgk 09:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment - I'm not so much concerned about the CVU as I am about proper procedure being followed. Wikipedia is about consensus, and I see that being ignored on this issue. That sets a bad precedent for future issues. One person does not have the authority to finalize any decision (unless, of course, that person is User:JimboWales). I know that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but if an issue is controversial, that's even more reason to go through the proper chanels to reach consensus. There was majority support for keeping the CVU, and even though Wikipedia is not a democracy, that's not something to be taken lightly. There were good arguments for deleting the CVU, and I have no issue with that, but there were also good arguments for keeping it. If, at the end of this dicussion, the consensus is to delete the CVU, I'm not going to shed any tears, but the proper procedure needs to take place for that to happen. - Cswrye 15:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply

(more on a CVU <--> Bobby Boulders link) [2]

(reset tabs)-- You know, Dr. Chatterjee, I distinctly remember you being one of those who was rather gung-ho on the "making pages about vandals" thing... I assume you now believe you have "seen the light" and don't bother with that any more. However, making this big fuss is at least as distressing to a lot of people (like me) as is having your userpage repeatedly bobbybouldersified (mine's been hit a few times too, though I never saw that before someone else reverted it first). I'm not sure this crusade against people who are just trying to do the right thing is any better for wikipedia than what our friend Bobby does. Actually, I think it's worse: at least Bobby's shenanigans end up bringing wikipedians together, your crusade seems to do nothing but divide.
As I think was mentioned elsewhere, wikibooks also has a CVU (and an irc channel to go with it)... we don't get a lot of traffic on the page because we don't have a lot of organised vandals, outside of WoW and the "Penis!Penis!" vandal. We don't have sockpuppet pages (or categories), and if a user is permanently blocked, we just delete them. We don't even have a template for userpages saying "this user is blocked", for the same reason.
However, chasing sockpuppets is not all the cvu does, it's just what you happened to concentrate on while you were a member of it. The CVU does plenty of good work, and while I happen to agree that building monuments for the vandals is a bad idea, there's no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater, even if you don't like the baby very much.
BTW, who's bright idea was it to do this footenote thing? :) It's very confusing. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

(more on the honey-pot theory) [3]

  • Comment/Rhetorical Question What has a bigger and more positive effect on deterring vandalism: a) simply reverting and ignoring it, thereby showing that vandalism doesn't faze us and doesn't succeed in disrupting Wikipedia, or b) making an enormous deal out of vandalism, and dedicating pages and manpower to talking about "fighting" it? In my opinion, the former is the far superior approach. It's fine to have a central place for anti-vandalism methods and resources (such as the official pages, like Wikipedia:Vandalism and WP:CUV). But we shouldn't turn counter-vandalism into anything more glamorous or larger-than-life than it has to be. Dr Chatterjee 18:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply

(more on how WP does or does not need the CVU for vandal-fighting to be effective) [4]

  • Comment One fairly compelling reason for "keeping" the CVU has been people's citing it as a good introduction to Wikipedia in their editing or vandal-fighting careers. Be that as it may, there's no good reason why that role can't be served by one of the other, official anti-vandalism sites, provided that they all now contain the information that was once limited to the CVU. So the CVU, bereft of whatever value once kept it unique, is now just a redundant page whose only unique feature is that it makes a game or "war" out of vandal fighting. Dr Chatterjee 23:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Another very salient point to consider is that organization against vandals is not the sole and exclusive domain of the CVU. I realize many people here "grew up" with the CVU, and thus have emotional attachments to it. But we must realize and accept that that same organizational, introductory, or even "fun" role can be -- and often IS -- fulfilled elsewhere to equal effect. To quote the administrator Antandrus -- himself a long-time target of Bobby Boulders' vandalism and tireless "fighter" of it:
>>Actually it is fun to revert vandalism, and the fun doesn't need to be visible at all. Machine-gunning a vandal's contributions with twenty rollbacks in five seconds, good-natured competition to see who can get to the block button first, and other such behind-the-page actions are some of the things that make vandal patrolling so engaging, as any long-time RC patroller can tell you. And then after it's all done, you feel good about having helped the project. I really don't think that removing military-style logos and pages from Wikipedia takes away that basic "fun". Just my opinion. Antandrus (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)<<.
As we see in this quote, "fun" can be had reverting vandalism without making a visible deal about it. And the deletion of military-style "logos and pages" from Wikipedia won't take the appeal of counter-vandalism away from users. Dr Chatterjee 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ok that's it. Dr Chatterjee and John254: You are disrupting this page and making it unusable. Take your arguments to your talk pages. The next time either of you edits this page you will be blocked for disruption. pschemp | talk 00:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The new face of the CVU!
  • I don't think it matters much whether the project page as it stands stays or goes. The discussion about whether to glorify vandalfighting or to make it as unglamorous as possible is worth pursuing. It is true that vandalfighting is currently seen as a badge of honor in a way that editing is not; for better or for worse. It is also true that active vandalfighters enjoy what they do in a game-like way, just as persistent vandals do. I don't know whether enhancing this is a good thing or not. +sj + 00:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • In a state of flux While I agree with WP:DENY most of the time and I don't like the Junta-esque vibe of this group, I do like its repository of links and the fact that it helps educate the masses on how to defend wikipedia from mailicious idiots (aka vandals). It has links to helpful javascripts, long term abuse pages, and policies, which are nice things to see consolidated on one page. I would like to keep the page itself but delete its membership, because about 99% of all constructive editors fight vandalism in some way or another. Also, the images/badges are bit, umm.....bad. Representatives of wikipedia such as Jimbo stress in interviews that vandalism is a minor problem on wikipedia, and it is, isn't it? It's not as if we are being constantly enountering edit conflicts with vandals while trying to improve the encyclopedia. Most anon edits I find are actually constructive, and it takes some time to find vandalism these days in recent changes. YMMV. This whole spiderweb of counter-vandalism makes it sound like a counter-terrorist group. Get vandalproof, get lupin's javascript, scan recent changes, but don't make a big deal out of it. The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 00:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

*Comment As a member of the CVU I might not like the fact that it was deleted but please keep in mind that Dr Chatterjee was making a good faith effort when he nomed it and also while was tring to debate it logically (Granted things did get heated). Drini was as well (even thought he closed earily). Also as a result I will remain neutral in this but will follow it for now. Æon Insanity Now! EA! 04:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Drini was making a good faith effort but the Doc is a vandal and was trying to destory a unit that opposed him Æon Insanity Now! EA! 17:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I am an anon, and I want to vote, but I know I can't vote because of a few restrictions placed on anons for voting. But, if I was able to vote, I would vote Delete because of what it did to WikiProject Anime and manga's logo. I thought that organization wasn't supposed to VANDALISE things! But now that I think of it, the CVU VANDALISED the WikiProject Anime and manga's logo, as well as PLAGIARIZED it! I can't believe an anti-vandalism organization would ever do that! It's very overwhelming to me... I have been a CVU supporter for most (if not all) of my time on Wikipedia (note:I've had several IP addresses my wikilife). Now that the CVU vandalized another WikiProject's logo, I would absolutely vote a MEGA-SUPER-STRONG DELETE if I was a registered user on Wikipedia. Can somebody share my views on this MFD and vote Delete for the reason I've listed above? I can't bear to see this organisation call itself an "anti-vandal" organisation while it actually does vandalise and plagiarise other people's hard work. If the CVU ever does survive this MFD, I want it to reorganize its personality and REFORM itself! If not, I want it to DISSOLVE as quickly as it can! 74.225.117.237 18:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

PS: this is evidence of my accusations: [2]. Click on the link, and it will take you to the talk page of the CVU, where they are currently having a GOOD LAUGH about it. As you can see, i've tried to knock some sense into them. 74.225.117.237 18:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

credit is given to the two works it is derived from. That covers both plagiarism and copyright. One of the side effects of the GFDL is that people can create derivative works. Geni 18:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply


  • Comment - I would like to remind everyone what we are debating here: the existence of the CVU, not it's mistakes, not it's methods, not it's organization. Those arguments can be made at the CVU's talk page. What we are arguing here is whether the CVU should have the right to exist. It may need a major revamp, but I think the CVU is a beneficial wikiproject. Like I said earlier, it is an organization that works TOGETHER, finding better ways to find vandalism, handle vandalism, comment on vandalism subjects... this is far different than WP:CUV (or what the CUV page used to be before merged). It is like a watchdog and a think tank and a research and development department. I think the CUV should be merged into the CVU instead of the other way around...if at all. United we stand, divided we fall. This organization (CVU) has had great results and overall does not cause any harm. Therefore, it should remain, especially if its members are dedicated to it. -- TinMan 20:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Seeing the CVU userbox on someone else's profile and then joining the CVU myself got me involved on a deeper level with Wikipedia, checking out the IRC features and such. The CVU provided an entry point for me that allowed me to join something that had meaning right away, and could show others that I was committed to helping Wikipedia improve. In the arguments on the main page I've seen cleaning up vandalism called dull and menial, and it is. But why not spice it up with something like the CVU to give it meaning? I do not think the CVU glorifies vandals; to the contrary, it tells them that there are people out there ready to revert their vandalism. It puts vandals on notice, if you will. I'd hate to see something cool about Wikipedia, something I felt I could be a part of, be eschewed in favor of something more boring and menial just because "we're an encyclopedia." We're also a community of users. -- Omaryak 10:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

footnotes

how I do love them...

  1. ^ (even for thwarted vandals :) "You've been blocked by User:Aschrm for spamming. Bored? Try categorizing or geotagging entries near where you live, something you can do even while blocked."
  2. ^
    Dood even giving the appearence of being inspired by overtough admins could not exist if admins didn't exist in the first place. Shall we get rid of admins? Geni 16:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    Ok, seriously: one more straw man like this on this page, and I'm going to have a coronary. :P Once again: NO ONE is saying we should get rid of the admins. Try arguing against MY ACTUAL POINTS, not weakened or exaggerated versions of them. Dr Chatterjee 16:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    Errm if he is CVU inspired why doesn't his long rant meantion the CVU? I can show vandels exist that are equaly insipred by the actions of certian admins. Should we block those admins? Geni 16:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    The fact that he attacked the CVU so frequently, and made anti-CVU comments upon doing so, seems proof positive that -- at the very least -- he was incited to at least some violence against Wikipedia by the CVU's existence. The CVU was proof to Bobby of the "fascism" he claimed was evident in Wikipedia. His theories are, of course, foolish and wildly bizarre, but that doesn't divert from the fact that the CVU was a consistent and favorite target of his, and provided much fodder for his vandalism efforts. Dr Chatterjee 16:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    With same strawmans argument certain vandal fighting administrators such as Curps is also an insparation as there are so many attackuser-m dedicated against him...
    Nothing would encourage vandals more if we start deleting wikiproject pages in response to their actions. If same vandalism is to happen "inspired" by arbcom, will we delete WP:ARBCOM too?
    -- Cat out 16:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    I agree, vandals, at the end, are inspired by one thing and one thing only: Wikipedia. Should we propose to delete Wikipedia instead because of the glorifying argument? Arbiteroftruth 16:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    Vandals are always going to vandalize Wikipedia because it's Wikipedia. No one's disagreeing with you there. But at the same time, shouldn't we be doing our part to minimize the incentive to vandalize Wikipedia whenever and wherever we can? Sure, deleting CVU wouldn't put a halt to vandalism in general. But it would certainly help. And keeping it around would continue giving vandalism undue glory, glamour, and attention. Also, for what it's worth, I suggest we make straw man required reading before posting on this thread. It's getting ridiculous at this point. If I hear one more "If we do this, shouldn't we also (insert exteme/distorted suggestion here}?" argument, I'm going to freak. :( Dr Chatterjee 16:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    Depends are you going to read Reductio ad absurdum? Geni 16:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    It seems quite a few people here should, because that seems to be a favorite argumentative tactic when arguing with me here. :P Dr Chatterjee 16:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    well of course because your argments lend themselves to it. My page just got hit by the communism vandal probably because I blocked him earlier. I would rather not be blocked. Geni 16:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    My arguments don't "lend themselves" to anything more than what people choose to make of them. :) The fact that several arguments against mine have been weak and relied on argumentative fallacies like straw man and/or Reductio ad absurdam do not indicate such flaws in my argument; they merely indicate flaws on the parts of the people who made them.
    Reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy. Geni 17:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. ^
    • Comment Another common argument being made quite frequently in this discussion is the "honey pot" theory: namely, that keeping the CVU around serves as a "honey pot," which vandals will waste time attacking instead of other Wikipedia articles. While this is a pleasant and quaint theory, in practice it has never bourne out. All vandals who have attacked the CVU (check the CVU's history for proof; I'm not going to cite the many hundreds of them by name here) have gone on to attack other Wikipedia pages. They do not limit themselves to the CVU, and if anything, are inspired to "keep going" by having read or attacked the CVU and generated notoriety for themselves in doing so. Dr Chatterjee 16:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Comment -- Wikipedia:Vandalism gives vandalism a lot more attention than the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Vandalism served as a focal point for intense vandalism when semi-protection was temporarily removed (the edit history of this page still displays vitriolic vandalism in the edit summaries). Should we delete Wikipedia:Vandalism to "deny recognition"? John254 16:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Comment - vandalism is nothing more than a waste product of the wiki process, and it is a waste product we are historically capable of expelling organically. The CVU is the equivalent of putting a healthy person on dialysis: all negative side effects, no positive result. Phil Sandifer 16:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Comment -- I don't think that many users will participate in Wikipedia:Expelling a waste product of the wiki process. Wikipedia today is much larger than it was in August 2005, and the levels of vandalism it receives are far greater. Prominent, organized Counter-Vandalism efforts, like the Counter-Vandalism Unit, may well be necessary to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia today. John254 17:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      It may also be that changing the Wikipedia logo to a duck is necessary to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia today, but that doesn't have any actual evidence supporting it either. Phil Sandifer 17:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      By the same token, one could argue that due to the ever-increasing amount of new vandals coming to Wikipedia, keeping vandalism-glamorization to a minimum is more necessary now than ever before. New vandals whose malicious edits are reverted swiftly and without a big deal will usually give up and leave Wikipedia, or turn constructive instead. But new vandals who read pages like the CVU will stick around and try to 'fight back.' The CVU makes light of vandalism vs. counter-vandalism, and rewards long-term and persistent vandals with discussions about them, listings on its Most-Wanted list, and even in-depth analysis in the case of very prominent vandals. If we removed the CVU, we'd remove at least one very powerful source of vandal-inflamation and vandal-glorification. Granted, we wouldn't remove ALL instances that exist on Wikipedia, but we'd be making a very good start.
      Also, you must must keep in mind that, while counter-vandalism is admirable and necessary, it can be done just as well (if not better) wihout making a huge fuss about the vandalism we're countering. I don't see why reverting a vandal's work and then blocking that vandal without undue fuss and fanfare is less effective than doing the same thing, but making a big deal about it. Mister Righteous 17:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      If we don't promote Counter-Vandalism efforts, fewer users will be willing to swiftly revert malicious edits. Furthermore, the above comment was originally added by 71.107.251.78 [1], and User talk:71.107.251.78 shows that 71.107.251.78 has an extensive history of vandalism himself. This is the clearest possible evidence yet that vandals are attacking the Counter-Vandalism Unit as a technique of psychological warfare in a deliberate attempt to destroy an organization that has played an important role in helping to protect Wikipedia against vandalism. John254 17:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      "If we don't promote Counter-Vandalism efforts, fewer users will be willing to swiftly revert malicious edits" This is an unprovable hypothesis. Can you point to any evidence to support this claim? Dr Chatterjee 17:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Comment -- The truth of "If we don't promote Counter-Vandalism efforts, fewer users will be willing to swiftly revert malicious edits" is based on obvious common sense. Not every action taken in the course of human affairs can be based on scientific evidence, and Wikipedia's administrative processes would grind to a halt if we attempted to. John254 18:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      "vandals are attacking the Counter-Vandalism Unit as a technique of psychological warfare" Again, the fact that vandals are bothering to attack the CVU is irrelevent to the discussion at hand. But also, the fact that vandals even know about, and bother to attack the CVU is evidence that the CVU inflames them and inspires them to activities they wouldn't normally pursue. Dr Chatterjee 17:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Comment -- Of course the Counter-Vandalism Unit angers vandals, for the same reason that the police anger criminals, and the Department of Homeland Security angers terrorists. The vandals are angry at the Counter-Vandalism Unit because the Counter-Vandalism Unit stands between them and the destruction of Wikipedia. If the Counter-Vandalism Unit were eliminated, vandalism on Wikipedia would be far easier. We should not negotiate with or attempt to appease the vandals. John254 18:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Yet another strawman. Deleting the CVU isn't "appeasing" or "negotiating" with the vandals; it's taking away the bait that encourages them to fight on. It's like taking toy guns away from delinquent children, or ignoring their behavior. It has the effect of "boring them out of the business," so to speak. Anti-vandalism should be boring, in order to make vandalism boring. And since very many vandals seem to be in this for the attention, removing any pages which give them unwarranted attention helps deter their reasons to continue vandalizing. Also, the fact that you compare vandalism to real-life terrorism is further proof that you guys (the CVU) are turning vandalism into a game. Vandalism is not terrorism. It's not even close to being on the same scale. Let's avoid Reductio ad Hitlerum-style logic here. I know you're just trying to make a point, and I respect that, but real-life terrorism is in many ways a very different animal from Wikipedia vandalism. It's a flawed comparison to equate the two, and to equate how to deal with the two. That's a big part of why the CVU has failed in its mission, in my opinion. Dr Chatterjee 18:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Furthermore, your assertion that the CVU is "all that stands between vandals and the destruction of Wikipedia" is utterly preposterous. Let's not make vandalism a bigger or sexier issue than it needs to be. Doing so only encourages vandals and feeds the trolls. Dr Chatterjee 18:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      You were accuseing the CVU of trivializeing vandalism. Now you are complaining about it being made a bigger issue. Geni 18:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Admittedly, my use of "trivializing" was confusing and perhaps not the best choice of words. What I meant to say was "turning into a game." Trivializing in the moral sense of the word, not the attention sense. I apologize for the confusing wording there. But the fact remains that the CVU (and organizations like it) glamorize vandalismm, give undue attention to vandals and vandalism, and make a game out of "battling" it. Dr Chatterjee 18:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Comment -- I don't believe that "Anti-vandalism should be boring". Making anti-vandalism boring is the surest way to ensure that we won't have many volunteers. Furthermore, Dr Chatterjee is misquoting me. I stated that "The vandals are angry at the Counter-Vandalism Unit because the Counter-Vandalism Unit stands between them and the destruction of Wikipedia." not that the Counter-Vandalism Unit is all that stands between the vandals and the destruction of Wikipedia. John254 18:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Apologies for misquoting you, which was not intentional. Regardless, the thought still remains the same: The CVU is not "standing between vandals and the destruction of Wikipedia." Administrators are. There's no need for a self-styled vigilante group to run around thumping its collective chest and acting needlessly high and mighty. That sort of thing only encourages vandals to respond in kind. Dr Chatterjee 18:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Administrators? I think not. Oh we do our best but most are not really active in that area. Geni 18:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      In as much as administrators are the only people empowered to block vandals, then yes, administrators are the only parties who literally "stand in the way" of vandals and Wikipedia's "destruction." All that non-admin CVU members can do, on the other hand, is report vandals to the admins and then make an enormous deal out of what they've done. They're just doing what non-CVU anti-vandals are doing, only they're glamorizing their efforts needlessly. Dr Chatterjee 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. ^
    • Comment As for the argument that, if anti-vandalism were boring, no one would do it, that's nonsense. People had been fighting vandalism for years before the CVU came along, and are still doing a great job even if not affiliated with the CVU. The CVU has had an extremely minimal net effect -- if any -- on stemming the tide of vandalism. Dr Chatterjee 18:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment -- What worked with the smaller Wikipedia that existed before the Counter-Vandalism Unit unit was formed may not work with the much larger Wikipedia we have today (which has 1,359,963 articles at the last count). Wikipedia has flourished during the time that the Counter-Vandalism Unit has been with it. Let's not mess with that successful formula. John254 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    If you can point to any sort of solid or supporting proof that the CVU is (as you seem to imply) solely responsible for keeping the growing amounts of vandalism in check, then you can make these sorts of claims. Until then, you're just tossing out your personal theories without any semblance of substantiation. Let's not rush to attribute the "flourishing" of Wikipedia with the Counter-Vandalism Unit, just because they happened at the same time. More likely, the reason Wikipedia is "flourishing" is because vandalism has always been a relatively minor issue in comparison with the amount of positive users on this site. If your theory were true, by the way, then we'd expect vandalism numbers to stay consistent DESPITE the growing number of Wikipedia users. That does not seem to be the case. Vandalism seems to be increasing in direct proportion with the increase in Wikipedia's user base: a fact that would seem to negate your pet hypothesis. Dr Chatterjee 18:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    Furthermore, by your same logic I could claim that the addition of any and all Mickey Mouse-related pages have been responsible for the "flourishing" of Wikipedia in the last year. Let's see... Wikipedia's userbase has been growing, so Wikipedia has been flourishing, and some changes were made in that time to the Mickey Mouse page. Conclusion: let's make more Mickey Mouse pages! This kind of flawed and specious logic attributes causality to circumstances we cannot prove. Dr Chatterjee 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    Conversely, one thing we can prove is that the existence of the CVU has inspired, inflamed, or egged on at least two notorious vandals: the Airport Vandal and Bobby Boulders. If even two long-term vandals are getting their kicks out of the CVU, that's two too many. Dr Chatterjee 18:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The relationship of the Counter-Vandalism Unit to the success of Wikipedia is obvious, since its members are responsible for a significant portion of the RC patrol that occurs today. The relationship between the Airport Vandal, Bobby Boulders, and the Counter-Vandalism Unit is tenuous at best. John254 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    Tenuous? Take a look at the edit history on the CVU page over the last two or three months, and tell me with a straight face that Bobby Boulders doesn't get his rocks off (stupid pun intended!) by attacking or mocking the CVU. Dr Chatterjee 18:54, 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 Airport Vandal and Bobby Boulders get away with destroying the Counter-Vandalism Unit. John254 19:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    Also: >>...its members are responsible for a significant portion of the RC patrol that occurs today<< Prove it. Let's see some numbers, some RC-vandalism-reversion statistics and percentages, or at the very least, a credible citation that supports this otherwise-unprovable and unsubstantiated claim. Throughout this debate you've hounded me to cite my sources, and prove my claims with links. I have done as you've asked. Now I'd like to ask you to start doing the same. Dr Chatterjee 19:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment -- The fact that members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit are responsible for a significant portion of the RC patrol that occurs today is obvious to anyone who participates in RC patrol. Not every action taken in the course of human affairs can be based on scientific evidence, and Wikipedia's administrative processes would grind to a halt if we attempted to. John254 19:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    There is no "fact" in any statement you can't prove. It is not a statement of fact; it is a statement of your personal opinion. Just as my positions in this argument are statements of my personal opinion, and anyone's statements within this MfD discussion are thier personal opinions. The reason I called you out on your claim that "a significant portion of RC edits are from CVU members" is because you say it as though it's a well-recognizable and unassailable fact. In fact, it is not. I participate in RC patrolling every day, and it is not obviously apparent to me whether or not a significant portion of the RC reverts come from CVU members. All I'm asking is that you try to refrain from making sweeping generalizations and high-level claims about the function of Wikipedia as a whole that you cannot substantiate with at least some evidence. Furthermore, I ask that you hold yourself and your own claims/opinions to the same scrutiny that you hold mine. You demanded earlier on that I cite evidence for my claims, and I did so to the best of my abilities. You should endeavor to do the same when making your own claims. Otherwise, this becomes a very one-sided and counter-productive discussion. Dr Chatterjee 20:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment -- The level of evidence required for a claim depends on its nature, and whether the claim comports with common experience and common sense. John254 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Recent changes patrol

Several people in the discussion mentioned that they didn't like the image militaristic overtones and exclusivity that the CVU sometimes presents. I'm curious as to whether there's any interest in creating an RCP WikiProject that doesn't have these negative overtones. I don't mind starting something like this up but I wanted to get a feel for whether this is something that anyone'd be interested in. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 15:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Why don't we just revise the CVU, stripping it of its unwanted qualities. By the way, it's not just Recent Changes, that's what the RCPatrol is for. -- TinMan 17:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
because the CVU appears to be reasonably sucessful in it's current form. Geni 17:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
But it's so evil! The emblem is so violent! The tone - so intimidating! Vandals find it so humiliating! Boo-wiking-hoo. -- Chodorkovskiy (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Grow up everyone. -- TinMan 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I've always wondered why there isn't an RCP project, actually. RCP isn't just about vandal-thumping... you need to know a bit about categories and naming too.-- SB_Johnny | talk 20:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Those stats do not confirm that it is necessary or successful. All it shows is that people who put a CVU userbox on their page revert a lot of vandalism. Those same people who put that userbox are likely to have reverted vandalism regardless of whether they put that userbox on their page. — Centrx→ talk • 22:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Has anyone considered that deleting the project is essentially just insulting the vandal-fighters for no reason? The stats prove that those users are a helpful bunch, and alienating them by deleting their project would not be in our best interests.
CVU does not attempt to expand content, so there can be no complaints as to their subject being non-notable or otherwise unencyclopedic. There is no such thing as CVUcruft, they certainly aren't vandalizing the wiki, they don't push POV, and their members are helpful. Deleting a group's wikiproject is deciding that they were hurting Wikipedia. The members of this group are NOT hurting Wikipedia, so deletion would just be a stupid besmirchment of their honour to no benefit.
Unless it can be definitively shown that they are hurting the wiki to an amount that outweighs their vandalism reverts, the argument to delete is utterly groundless. -- tjstrf 22:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Dual user vote

User:Frosty0814snowman aka. FrostytheSnowman, has voted twice. Just a note. I didn't strike one or another. feydey 23:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The first time, he voted "Keep." The second time, he changed his mind and voted "Delete." It's up to him whether to strike his original comments, but for the record, his second vote explains that he no longer believes the way he did during his first vote. Dr Chatterjee 16:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The talk page is not a second MfD

Can we keep the talk page from spilling over and becoming another branch of this MfD debate? I realize I'm barred from further participation in the MfD, but I'm just saying... Dr Chatterjee 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

WWJD

What Would Jimbo Do? This page is such a polarising issue, with respected Wikipedians on both sides of the debate. Any decision made either way (keep, delete, or merge/redirect) will cause a lot of outcry. I'd really like to know what Jimbo would think of this... -- Deathphoenix ʕ 16:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

You probably won't know until you ask. My mental Jimbo would say keep, but since Jimbo is actually a person, so I don't think we are allowed to make claims on his behalf like that. -- tjstrf 17:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Just so you all know...

... this whole MfD was a bad-faith attempt by Bobby Boulders (under the sock name Dr Chatterjee) to disrupt Wikipedia. See Dr C's last edit to his talk page before I protected it: this. NawlinWiki 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

A rather superb stunt by bobby/whoever it is: he's managed to graduate from grafitti to instigating riots. So kudos, Bobby...you've made yourself into a precendent setter! Now go find youself something constructive to do, eh? -- SB_Johnny | talk 19:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Yep. Booby targeted the CVU because we have stoped him several times in the past. Æon Insanity Now! EA! 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I wonder how this plays into the whole honeypot theory. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I dunno, but shouldn't this mean that deleting the page would be against the WP:DENY principle, since a vandal was attempting to make a mark by deleting the page? -- tjstrf 17:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Nobody cares about the DENY principle - it's not an official policy yet, thank God.-- Chodorkovskiy (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, a lot of people do. Notice the sudden absence of LTA pages and all the votes against the CVU here that are based on WP:DENY?-- tjstrf 18:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, many people are following the ideal this suggested policy is supposed to uphold, but not because of the policy. -- Chodorkovskiy (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Closing

Unless somebody objects, I am going to close this discussion/vote within a few hours in accordance with WP:SNOW. - Mike Rosoft 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I would have closed the discussion with the following reason:

The result of this discusion was: Keep, obvious and blatant bad-faith nomination. The originator of the previous nomination (which resulted in the page's deletion despite an overwhelming consensus to keep) was found to be a sockpuppet of a known vandal. Even before the discovery, the count was 29 to delete vs. 45 to keep (with 11 more afterwards). There is no way this page would achieve a consensus to delete.

Since there has been an objection, I am going to wait a day or two. (The normal length is 5 days, correct?) And regarding GTBacchus's comment: no, I don't think a valid reason has been given to delete the project. There have been fair arguments against the project as it exists now, but they would be best brought to its talk page, not to a request to delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I think it may be a conflict of interest for you to close the case, Mike, as you yourself are a member of the counter-vandalism unit. People might bring that up to deletion review whatever the outcome of this case, so it's obviously a sensitive issue :). Cowman109 Talk 12:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Let it run the full time frame and then make sure an admin who has not participated in the discussion (this time, in DRV, or last time) and is not listed as a member of the CVU handles closure. -- StuffOfInterest 13:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
there is nothing much to lose by letting it run it's full length before closeing it as keep. Geni 13:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Supermajority?

For the record, if people really want to go by the numbers, there were about 52 keeps and 24 deletes and a few scattered 'renames' and 'merges', which is not really a supermajority, but I went through the list and took votes that actually gave valid reasoning and discounted sockpuppet votes, and came up with 16 reasonable keeps and 16 reasonable deletes here. Cowman109 Talk 13:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think you understand; Which users have you counted?-- Chodorkovskiy (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

By the way, why are people saying that this nomination was started by Willybobby? As far as I can tell the current discussion was started by a procedural relisting from WP:DRV. Also, need I point out that Willy Bobby socks have been spotted requesting undeletion of various long-term abuse pages. -- Cyde Weys 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I already addressed that, Cyde :). Oh, and Chodorkovskiy, I didn't even look at who was making "votes" except when I looked for the Willy on Wheels sockpuppets. I only looked at the reasoning. This is just my interpretation of the deletion debate, as I've said before. You're more than welcome to interpret it in your own way, of course. :) Cowman109 Talk 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I see. As you wish. -- Chodorkovskiy (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Cyde, the DRV was a (nearly procedural) review of the speedy close of the MFD started by Dr Chatterjee. ~ PseudoSudo 22:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Counting votes with arguments isn't any better than just counting votes... all it really shows is that the person wieghing in happened to have a minute or two to be wordy, rather than saying "keep, this MFD is rediculous." (My vote (which you counted) was in part just a long-winded way to say "keep, this MFD is rediculous"). One could just as easily add to and break up my comment into 10 good arguments as one could make 10 sockpuppets to put them foreward (if they were the sort of person who likes having sock-smelly hands), but it wouldn't mean that those 10 different arguments were necessarily good ones, and just because there was 10 of them doesn't mean they're better than just one, even if the one was "this MFD is rediculous". -- SB_Johnny| talk| books 23:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, since this isn't a straight up or down vote, 1 not-vote with ten arguments is pretty much the same as 10 not-votes with one argument each...good or bad. I'd say based on the number and validity of the arguments the closing admin would be justified in closing this as a delete. Whether s/he will or not is probably based more on wiki-politics then the actual reasoning behind the debate. It's been a while since I've been active, but Wikipedia seems to be moving away from strict vote counting. Issues like this is probably one of the reasons why. 208.42.140.43 17:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Unlike the sock puppet accounts, it's harder to expose anons as being vandals. I suspect 208.42.140.43 is likely just a troll. It's not uncommon to just strike that which comes from anons and brand new accounts, especially with the extremely high level of sock/ vandal activity on these pages. I don't see this comment as providing any useful information, just flawed speculation (even if I was on the pro-delete side this is clearly a non-consensus case). -- Ned Scott 21:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Um, why would you assume he/she is a troll? -- SB_Johnny| talk| books 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Because I have good reason to assume bad faith by anons on this particular page? Just look at the edit history. Not only that, but you can be right or bring up a good point and still be a troll (not that I agree with his logic, at all). We're semi-protected now, so it won't matter for the rest of the debate. -- Ned Scott 03:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

You people do know that...

The vandals will transfer into another page, the one where CVU will be merged (if that'll be the resolution). -- Howard the Duck 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

This honeypot notion is bogus. One of the arguments for deletion was that the attitude of a paramilitary organization incites vandalism, not that vandals are attracted to pages about vandalism. — Centrx→ talk • 22:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Have we actually seen evidence that shows increased activity because of the CVU? -- Ned Scott 00:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Actually this has a precedent, in real life. In the Philippines, karaoke bars have removed " My Way" because he caused many deaths; when people sang it with the wrong notes, drunk people will shoot them to death. Then these drunkards then used the "Impossible Dream" to shoot people down. It's a vicious cycle, really. These vandals, would then attack under pages. (Well, George W. Bush is probably the most-vandal prone article, if being vandal-prone is a criterion for deletion, then it should be at AFD eons ago.) -- Howard the Duck 04:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply

There is the Willy on Wheels e-mail, there is the "ISV" counter-part to CVU. Random vandals target Wikipedia:Vandalism because it gets mentioned in their warning notices whereas specific, chronic sockpuppeteers target CVU. It is impossible to find evidence that anyone seems to consider legitimate but we do have a couple vandals stating that they find the vandalism fun and continue it specifically because of the hysterical response by self-proclaimed vandal-fighters, and concentrating on complex schemes associated with this page.

The underlying argument though is that this separate "unit" is not necessary and not consistent with the goals of Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, the only part of the CVU that should not be merged into Wikipedia vandalism-related pages proper is the CVU userboxes, many of whom are just vandals themselves. The statistics claiming it has been productive are based solely on those userboxes. All the useful parts of CVU properly belong in the main vandalism-related pages; they have been duplicated there anyway and having them here too is just redundant and a duplication of effot. Everything that is good about it should be merged into the main pages related to vandalism. Everything that is paramilitary and self-aggrandizing should be thrown out with this page. All of the people are free and welcome to continue fighting vandalism, and all of those who are interested in Wikipedia as a whole will do so. — Centrx→ talk • 02:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply

CVU is just a WikiProject, a place set aside for common discussion and efforts. Not everyone agrees with every WikiProject, and not everyone finds them useful. There are some WikiProjects with only a handful of members, because those 4 or 5 editors find it useful. We have evidence that vandals retaliate against vandal fighting resources on Wikipedia, and that is all. I still fail to see any evidence that CVU encourages vandals, brings new vandals to Wikipedia, or that the amount of vandalism increases because of CVU.
It's been said by a few people that, as with any WikiProject, CVU's focus and approach has slightly changed over-time, and not always for the better. Like with any other collaborative effort, that is something to improve, not delete. Program development, user assistance, education, guideline forming, and many other positive things have come out of the CVU.
There's no evidence that the CVU concept increases vandalism. If editors wish to collaborate on an effort then they should be allowed to do so, as with any other WikiProject. Just because some don't find that project useful does not mean it should be deleted. This is not the article namespace, this is not how we operate with WikiProjects. The problems addressed by users here are a minority of what makes up the CVU. This is a case were a black spot is all that is seen on a white sheet of paper.
And why the hell hasn't anyone stepped in and closed this so it can be moved to arbitration? MfD is not the place for this. -- Ned Scott 03:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Why would this be a case for arbitration? This MfD is to delete this page. Anyone is free to do whatever they want outside of Wikipedia, and MfD would not apply to it. ArbCom is not going to issue a desist order on thoughts off-wiki about aggressive or peculiar vandal-fighting. — Centrx→ talk • 03:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A hearty seconding to all but the last line of Ned Scott's post. And Centrx, I believe this nomination is to discuss deleting the page, not to delete it. -- tjstrf 03:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Because this dispute isn't about the content of the pages as much as it is a dispute about the group's activities. ArbCom has addressed editing behavior and what is or isn't acceptable. It's extremely obvious that these are heavily used pages and probably the largest WikiProject on Wikipedia, and it's been around for a while. This whole process was started by a vandal, and it still hasn't been stopped. Many of the people moving for a delete seem to be confused as to what the CVU actually does.
On Wikipedia we discuss things before bringing them to this point, per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. This whole thing just seems so.. asshole-ish. An MfD undermines the importance of this debate, and is hardly appropriate for an 7-8 day discussion (and I really want to know what the hell the closing admin of the 2nd nom was thinking). *fD pages are not appropriate for this kind of discussion. It seems to me that no one has done anything simply because it's easier to get rid of the group this way. That's just fucked up. Is this how we're supposed to treat each other? Hi, I don't like your WikiProject, so I'm just gonna delete the document where it is and hope you don't notice -- Ned Scott 03:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No, the page in itself should be merged with other pages, based solely on the contents of the page and regardless of the activities of CVU members. It is redundant. The only reason, then, to keep the page would be for some camaraderie of its members, for which there is argument why that has not been so productive. — Centrx→ talk • 03:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not a content dispute. I don't see why you are referring this to the dispute resolution system. There is not some heated edit war or POV pushing. By the criteria you seem to be using for calling something a dispute, half of AfDs would be put on WP:RFC instead. — Centrx→ talk • 03:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
But we don't delete things we merge, we redirect them to keep their page history. CVU seems to have been the first project space set aside specifically for user collaboration for fighting vandalism, while other pages such as Wikipedia:Vandalism seemed to have been set up (at least at the time) just to define things, and not as much to keep track of user efforts. Even today CVU remains a far more active discussion place than the places that people wish to "merge" it to. The comments for both keep and delete seem hardly concerned for the exact contents of the pages, and far more about the collaboration effort itself. This is obvious, so don't bullshit me by saying this is some non-controversial maintenance-type task. The large involvement of this group at the very lease warrants the courtesy of a RCF or arbcom case. Can you nominate an active WikiProject for deletion? Aparently so, but it's still an asshole of a thing to do. Like I said before, whether you agree with them or not, this is not how we should treat each other. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, maybe it should be called "Miscellany for discussion" but that opens up other problems. A reason for bringing it here is if you bring it up on the Talk page there, all the project members have opposed any sort of merge whereas general Wikipedians who don't watch that page have different views. The reasoning here is to get rid of the page, not to purge its page history or prevent redirects. That said, a merge proposal with an RfC may have been more appropriate. A lot of the reasoning has been about the "collaboration effort" because that is the only reason for keeping the page. The page itself has nothing that doesn't belong elsewhere. — Centrx→ talk • 01:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Perhaps there should be a Village pump (vandalism)? The key is that it is general to Wikipedia, it is not purporting to be some special group with badges. One can fight vandalism—and even help self-proclaimed CVU members on the CVU Talk page—without being a part of the CVU, and users can proclaim to be part of the CVU without ever fighting vandalism, or may even be vandals. — Centrx→ talk • 01:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1136421696"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page refactored, thanks to /ref/ tags. The discussion about how and what to glorify, and how to reward active contributors along different dimensions, is of general interest -- I'm not sure how to start that kind of discussion, but it should be had. In particular, I have heard a few suggestions of creating an actual WP video game environment, and one of the primary elements of such an environment would be good 3D vandal-fighting interfaces and stats tracking. Would this be useful? harmful?

I believe that if we focus on making editing (and cleanup) fun for everyone involved [1], rather than fighting over tactics -- we will be closer to that ideal of a frictionless information commons. I like the comparison of CVU with Wikipedia:Typo... which is clearly done in a spirit of (rather rote, but still genuine) fun. +sj + 00:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Stats

I pulled out some stats from the 16/8/2006 database dump, as always with such stats they need to be taken with a pinch of salt. And of course are subject to error on the part of the idiot who runs the extract (me). Using the revision table, look for all edits with summaries like:

  • Reverted%edits by%
  • Revert to revision%popups%
  • %Reverted [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]%

And by converting to lower case first

  • rvv
  • rv%vandalism%

This should cover a good number of vandalism reverts (though possibly includes non-vandalism as well). It should cover most of the main vandalism reversion tools, whilst excluding the reversion bots. This won't be all vandalism reverts but should hopefully be equally biased for CVU and non-CVU reverts.

CVU Reverts are considered all those in Category:Counter-Vandalism Unit members though it is of course possible that some of those members are also neutral or supportive of deletion.

For the month of July.

  • Total reverts: 100733
  • Reverts CVU: 24679

Along similar lines I've also considered edits to WP:AIV, again this has it's own problems such as often admins will deal with multiple vandals and then do one edit, whilst others don't, some will do a null edit to add the "List empty" type edit summary... For July

  • Total Edits: 6382
  • CVU Edits: 2018

-- pgk 12:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

General Comments

  • Comment - The page has already been merged with Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism, so this debate should be brought to an end.-- Lorrainier 06:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment - Turning a page under discussion into a redirect is specifically prohibited under the guide to deletion, and merging material under discussion is strongly discouraged under the same guideline. This page is still under discussion, and action should not be taken against it until the discussion is closed. That's the purpose of gathering consensus.-- Cswrye 07:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment - I had fufilled the merge request for all intents and purposes before this debate even broke out.-- Lorrainier 07:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment - The issue is still under discussion. That's what this is all about. - Cswrye 15:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    You seem to be interpreting this as a simple them and us type debate, many of those advocating deletion have been/are still involved with CVU and see the need to move the removal of vandalism forward. For example Drini who closed the last MFD was one of the original members actually originaly arriving here as a beta tester of the CDVF tool. To make an assumption that the ability to manage the vandalism issue without this particular page is a mistake. -- pgk 09:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    Comment - I'm not so much concerned about the CVU as I am about proper procedure being followed. Wikipedia is about consensus, and I see that being ignored on this issue. That sets a bad precedent for future issues. One person does not have the authority to finalize any decision (unless, of course, that person is User:JimboWales). I know that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but if an issue is controversial, that's even more reason to go through the proper chanels to reach consensus. There was majority support for keeping the CVU, and even though Wikipedia is not a democracy, that's not something to be taken lightly. There were good arguments for deleting the CVU, and I have no issue with that, but there were also good arguments for keeping it. If, at the end of this dicussion, the consensus is to delete the CVU, I'm not going to shed any tears, but the proper procedure needs to take place for that to happen. - Cswrye 15:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply

(more on a CVU <--> Bobby Boulders link) [2]

(reset tabs)-- You know, Dr. Chatterjee, I distinctly remember you being one of those who was rather gung-ho on the "making pages about vandals" thing... I assume you now believe you have "seen the light" and don't bother with that any more. However, making this big fuss is at least as distressing to a lot of people (like me) as is having your userpage repeatedly bobbybouldersified (mine's been hit a few times too, though I never saw that before someone else reverted it first). I'm not sure this crusade against people who are just trying to do the right thing is any better for wikipedia than what our friend Bobby does. Actually, I think it's worse: at least Bobby's shenanigans end up bringing wikipedians together, your crusade seems to do nothing but divide.
As I think was mentioned elsewhere, wikibooks also has a CVU (and an irc channel to go with it)... we don't get a lot of traffic on the page because we don't have a lot of organised vandals, outside of WoW and the "Penis!Penis!" vandal. We don't have sockpuppet pages (or categories), and if a user is permanently blocked, we just delete them. We don't even have a template for userpages saying "this user is blocked", for the same reason.
However, chasing sockpuppets is not all the cvu does, it's just what you happened to concentrate on while you were a member of it. The CVU does plenty of good work, and while I happen to agree that building monuments for the vandals is a bad idea, there's no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater, even if you don't like the baby very much.
BTW, who's bright idea was it to do this footenote thing? :) It's very confusing. -- SB_Johnny | talk 17:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

(more on the honey-pot theory) [3]

  • Comment/Rhetorical Question What has a bigger and more positive effect on deterring vandalism: a) simply reverting and ignoring it, thereby showing that vandalism doesn't faze us and doesn't succeed in disrupting Wikipedia, or b) making an enormous deal out of vandalism, and dedicating pages and manpower to talking about "fighting" it? In my opinion, the former is the far superior approach. It's fine to have a central place for anti-vandalism methods and resources (such as the official pages, like Wikipedia:Vandalism and WP:CUV). But we shouldn't turn counter-vandalism into anything more glamorous or larger-than-life than it has to be. Dr Chatterjee 18:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply

(more on how WP does or does not need the CVU for vandal-fighting to be effective) [4]

  • Comment One fairly compelling reason for "keeping" the CVU has been people's citing it as a good introduction to Wikipedia in their editing or vandal-fighting careers. Be that as it may, there's no good reason why that role can't be served by one of the other, official anti-vandalism sites, provided that they all now contain the information that was once limited to the CVU. So the CVU, bereft of whatever value once kept it unique, is now just a redundant page whose only unique feature is that it makes a game or "war" out of vandal fighting. Dr Chatterjee 23:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Another very salient point to consider is that organization against vandals is not the sole and exclusive domain of the CVU. I realize many people here "grew up" with the CVU, and thus have emotional attachments to it. But we must realize and accept that that same organizational, introductory, or even "fun" role can be -- and often IS -- fulfilled elsewhere to equal effect. To quote the administrator Antandrus -- himself a long-time target of Bobby Boulders' vandalism and tireless "fighter" of it:
>>Actually it is fun to revert vandalism, and the fun doesn't need to be visible at all. Machine-gunning a vandal's contributions with twenty rollbacks in five seconds, good-natured competition to see who can get to the block button first, and other such behind-the-page actions are some of the things that make vandal patrolling so engaging, as any long-time RC patroller can tell you. And then after it's all done, you feel good about having helped the project. I really don't think that removing military-style logos and pages from Wikipedia takes away that basic "fun". Just my opinion. Antandrus (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)<<.
As we see in this quote, "fun" can be had reverting vandalism without making a visible deal about it. And the deletion of military-style "logos and pages" from Wikipedia won't take the appeal of counter-vandalism away from users. Dr Chatterjee 00:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ok that's it. Dr Chatterjee and John254: You are disrupting this page and making it unusable. Take your arguments to your talk pages. The next time either of you edits this page you will be blocked for disruption. pschemp | talk 00:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
The new face of the CVU!
  • I don't think it matters much whether the project page as it stands stays or goes. The discussion about whether to glorify vandalfighting or to make it as unglamorous as possible is worth pursuing. It is true that vandalfighting is currently seen as a badge of honor in a way that editing is not; for better or for worse. It is also true that active vandalfighters enjoy what they do in a game-like way, just as persistent vandals do. I don't know whether enhancing this is a good thing or not. +sj + 00:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • In a state of flux While I agree with WP:DENY most of the time and I don't like the Junta-esque vibe of this group, I do like its repository of links and the fact that it helps educate the masses on how to defend wikipedia from mailicious idiots (aka vandals). It has links to helpful javascripts, long term abuse pages, and policies, which are nice things to see consolidated on one page. I would like to keep the page itself but delete its membership, because about 99% of all constructive editors fight vandalism in some way or another. Also, the images/badges are bit, umm.....bad. Representatives of wikipedia such as Jimbo stress in interviews that vandalism is a minor problem on wikipedia, and it is, isn't it? It's not as if we are being constantly enountering edit conflicts with vandals while trying to improve the encyclopedia. Most anon edits I find are actually constructive, and it takes some time to find vandalism these days in recent changes. YMMV. This whole spiderweb of counter-vandalism makes it sound like a counter-terrorist group. Get vandalproof, get lupin's javascript, scan recent changes, but don't make a big deal out of it. The ikiroid ( talk· desk· Advise me) 00:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

*Comment As a member of the CVU I might not like the fact that it was deleted but please keep in mind that Dr Chatterjee was making a good faith effort when he nomed it and also while was tring to debate it logically (Granted things did get heated). Drini was as well (even thought he closed earily). Also as a result I will remain neutral in this but will follow it for now. Æon Insanity Now! EA! 04:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Drini was making a good faith effort but the Doc is a vandal and was trying to destory a unit that opposed him Æon Insanity Now! EA! 17:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I am an anon, and I want to vote, but I know I can't vote because of a few restrictions placed on anons for voting. But, if I was able to vote, I would vote Delete because of what it did to WikiProject Anime and manga's logo. I thought that organization wasn't supposed to VANDALISE things! But now that I think of it, the CVU VANDALISED the WikiProject Anime and manga's logo, as well as PLAGIARIZED it! I can't believe an anti-vandalism organization would ever do that! It's very overwhelming to me... I have been a CVU supporter for most (if not all) of my time on Wikipedia (note:I've had several IP addresses my wikilife). Now that the CVU vandalized another WikiProject's logo, I would absolutely vote a MEGA-SUPER-STRONG DELETE if I was a registered user on Wikipedia. Can somebody share my views on this MFD and vote Delete for the reason I've listed above? I can't bear to see this organisation call itself an "anti-vandal" organisation while it actually does vandalise and plagiarise other people's hard work. If the CVU ever does survive this MFD, I want it to reorganize its personality and REFORM itself! If not, I want it to DISSOLVE as quickly as it can! 74.225.117.237 18:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

PS: this is evidence of my accusations: [2]. Click on the link, and it will take you to the talk page of the CVU, where they are currently having a GOOD LAUGH about it. As you can see, i've tried to knock some sense into them. 74.225.117.237 18:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply

credit is given to the two works it is derived from. That covers both plagiarism and copyright. One of the side effects of the GFDL is that people can create derivative works. Geni 18:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply


  • Comment - I would like to remind everyone what we are debating here: the existence of the CVU, not it's mistakes, not it's methods, not it's organization. Those arguments can be made at the CVU's talk page. What we are arguing here is whether the CVU should have the right to exist. It may need a major revamp, but I think the CVU is a beneficial wikiproject. Like I said earlier, it is an organization that works TOGETHER, finding better ways to find vandalism, handle vandalism, comment on vandalism subjects... this is far different than WP:CUV (or what the CUV page used to be before merged). It is like a watchdog and a think tank and a research and development department. I think the CUV should be merged into the CVU instead of the other way around...if at all. United we stand, divided we fall. This organization (CVU) has had great results and overall does not cause any harm. Therefore, it should remain, especially if its members are dedicated to it. -- TinMan 20:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Seeing the CVU userbox on someone else's profile and then joining the CVU myself got me involved on a deeper level with Wikipedia, checking out the IRC features and such. The CVU provided an entry point for me that allowed me to join something that had meaning right away, and could show others that I was committed to helping Wikipedia improve. In the arguments on the main page I've seen cleaning up vandalism called dull and menial, and it is. But why not spice it up with something like the CVU to give it meaning? I do not think the CVU glorifies vandals; to the contrary, it tells them that there are people out there ready to revert their vandalism. It puts vandals on notice, if you will. I'd hate to see something cool about Wikipedia, something I felt I could be a part of, be eschewed in favor of something more boring and menial just because "we're an encyclopedia." We're also a community of users. -- Omaryak 10:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

footnotes

how I do love them...

  1. ^ (even for thwarted vandals :) "You've been blocked by User:Aschrm for spamming. Bored? Try categorizing or geotagging entries near where you live, something you can do even while blocked."
  2. ^
    Dood even giving the appearence of being inspired by overtough admins could not exist if admins didn't exist in the first place. Shall we get rid of admins? Geni 16:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    Ok, seriously: one more straw man like this on this page, and I'm going to have a coronary. :P Once again: NO ONE is saying we should get rid of the admins. Try arguing against MY ACTUAL POINTS, not weakened or exaggerated versions of them. Dr Chatterjee 16:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    Errm if he is CVU inspired why doesn't his long rant meantion the CVU? I can show vandels exist that are equaly insipred by the actions of certian admins. Should we block those admins? Geni 16:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    The fact that he attacked the CVU so frequently, and made anti-CVU comments upon doing so, seems proof positive that -- at the very least -- he was incited to at least some violence against Wikipedia by the CVU's existence. The CVU was proof to Bobby of the "fascism" he claimed was evident in Wikipedia. His theories are, of course, foolish and wildly bizarre, but that doesn't divert from the fact that the CVU was a consistent and favorite target of his, and provided much fodder for his vandalism efforts. Dr Chatterjee 16:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    With same strawmans argument certain vandal fighting administrators such as Curps is also an insparation as there are so many attackuser-m dedicated against him...
    Nothing would encourage vandals more if we start deleting wikiproject pages in response to their actions. If same vandalism is to happen "inspired" by arbcom, will we delete WP:ARBCOM too?
    -- Cat out 16:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    I agree, vandals, at the end, are inspired by one thing and one thing only: Wikipedia. Should we propose to delete Wikipedia instead because of the glorifying argument? Arbiteroftruth 16:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    Vandals are always going to vandalize Wikipedia because it's Wikipedia. No one's disagreeing with you there. But at the same time, shouldn't we be doing our part to minimize the incentive to vandalize Wikipedia whenever and wherever we can? Sure, deleting CVU wouldn't put a halt to vandalism in general. But it would certainly help. And keeping it around would continue giving vandalism undue glory, glamour, and attention. Also, for what it's worth, I suggest we make straw man required reading before posting on this thread. It's getting ridiculous at this point. If I hear one more "If we do this, shouldn't we also (insert exteme/distorted suggestion here}?" argument, I'm going to freak. :( Dr Chatterjee 16:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    Depends are you going to read Reductio ad absurdum? Geni 16:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    It seems quite a few people here should, because that seems to be a favorite argumentative tactic when arguing with me here. :P Dr Chatterjee 16:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    well of course because your argments lend themselves to it. My page just got hit by the communism vandal probably because I blocked him earlier. I would rather not be blocked. Geni 16:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    My arguments don't "lend themselves" to anything more than what people choose to make of them. :) The fact that several arguments against mine have been weak and relied on argumentative fallacies like straw man and/or Reductio ad absurdam do not indicate such flaws in my argument; they merely indicate flaws on the parts of the people who made them.
    Reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy. Geni 17:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. ^
    • Comment Another common argument being made quite frequently in this discussion is the "honey pot" theory: namely, that keeping the CVU around serves as a "honey pot," which vandals will waste time attacking instead of other Wikipedia articles. While this is a pleasant and quaint theory, in practice it has never bourne out. All vandals who have attacked the CVU (check the CVU's history for proof; I'm not going to cite the many hundreds of them by name here) have gone on to attack other Wikipedia pages. They do not limit themselves to the CVU, and if anything, are inspired to "keep going" by having read or attacked the CVU and generated notoriety for themselves in doing so. Dr Chatterjee 16:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Comment -- Wikipedia:Vandalism gives vandalism a lot more attention than the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Vandalism served as a focal point for intense vandalism when semi-protection was temporarily removed (the edit history of this page still displays vitriolic vandalism in the edit summaries). Should we delete Wikipedia:Vandalism to "deny recognition"? John254 16:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Comment - vandalism is nothing more than a waste product of the wiki process, and it is a waste product we are historically capable of expelling organically. The CVU is the equivalent of putting a healthy person on dialysis: all negative side effects, no positive result. Phil Sandifer 16:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Comment -- I don't think that many users will participate in Wikipedia:Expelling a waste product of the wiki process. Wikipedia today is much larger than it was in August 2005, and the levels of vandalism it receives are far greater. Prominent, organized Counter-Vandalism efforts, like the Counter-Vandalism Unit, may well be necessary to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia today. John254 17:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      It may also be that changing the Wikipedia logo to a duck is necessary to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia today, but that doesn't have any actual evidence supporting it either. Phil Sandifer 17:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      By the same token, one could argue that due to the ever-increasing amount of new vandals coming to Wikipedia, keeping vandalism-glamorization to a minimum is more necessary now than ever before. New vandals whose malicious edits are reverted swiftly and without a big deal will usually give up and leave Wikipedia, or turn constructive instead. But new vandals who read pages like the CVU will stick around and try to 'fight back.' The CVU makes light of vandalism vs. counter-vandalism, and rewards long-term and persistent vandals with discussions about them, listings on its Most-Wanted list, and even in-depth analysis in the case of very prominent vandals. If we removed the CVU, we'd remove at least one very powerful source of vandal-inflamation and vandal-glorification. Granted, we wouldn't remove ALL instances that exist on Wikipedia, but we'd be making a very good start.
      Also, you must must keep in mind that, while counter-vandalism is admirable and necessary, it can be done just as well (if not better) wihout making a huge fuss about the vandalism we're countering. I don't see why reverting a vandal's work and then blocking that vandal without undue fuss and fanfare is less effective than doing the same thing, but making a big deal about it. Mister Righteous 17:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      If we don't promote Counter-Vandalism efforts, fewer users will be willing to swiftly revert malicious edits. Furthermore, the above comment was originally added by 71.107.251.78 [1], and User talk:71.107.251.78 shows that 71.107.251.78 has an extensive history of vandalism himself. This is the clearest possible evidence yet that vandals are attacking the Counter-Vandalism Unit as a technique of psychological warfare in a deliberate attempt to destroy an organization that has played an important role in helping to protect Wikipedia against vandalism. John254 17:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      "If we don't promote Counter-Vandalism efforts, fewer users will be willing to swiftly revert malicious edits" This is an unprovable hypothesis. Can you point to any evidence to support this claim? Dr Chatterjee 17:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Comment -- The truth of "If we don't promote Counter-Vandalism efforts, fewer users will be willing to swiftly revert malicious edits" is based on obvious common sense. Not every action taken in the course of human affairs can be based on scientific evidence, and Wikipedia's administrative processes would grind to a halt if we attempted to. John254 18:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      "vandals are attacking the Counter-Vandalism Unit as a technique of psychological warfare" Again, the fact that vandals are bothering to attack the CVU is irrelevent to the discussion at hand. But also, the fact that vandals even know about, and bother to attack the CVU is evidence that the CVU inflames them and inspires them to activities they wouldn't normally pursue. Dr Chatterjee 17:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Comment -- Of course the Counter-Vandalism Unit angers vandals, for the same reason that the police anger criminals, and the Department of Homeland Security angers terrorists. The vandals are angry at the Counter-Vandalism Unit because the Counter-Vandalism Unit stands between them and the destruction of Wikipedia. If the Counter-Vandalism Unit were eliminated, vandalism on Wikipedia would be far easier. We should not negotiate with or attempt to appease the vandals. John254 18:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Yet another strawman. Deleting the CVU isn't "appeasing" or "negotiating" with the vandals; it's taking away the bait that encourages them to fight on. It's like taking toy guns away from delinquent children, or ignoring their behavior. It has the effect of "boring them out of the business," so to speak. Anti-vandalism should be boring, in order to make vandalism boring. And since very many vandals seem to be in this for the attention, removing any pages which give them unwarranted attention helps deter their reasons to continue vandalizing. Also, the fact that you compare vandalism to real-life terrorism is further proof that you guys (the CVU) are turning vandalism into a game. Vandalism is not terrorism. It's not even close to being on the same scale. Let's avoid Reductio ad Hitlerum-style logic here. I know you're just trying to make a point, and I respect that, but real-life terrorism is in many ways a very different animal from Wikipedia vandalism. It's a flawed comparison to equate the two, and to equate how to deal with the two. That's a big part of why the CVU has failed in its mission, in my opinion. Dr Chatterjee 18:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Furthermore, your assertion that the CVU is "all that stands between vandals and the destruction of Wikipedia" is utterly preposterous. Let's not make vandalism a bigger or sexier issue than it needs to be. Doing so only encourages vandals and feeds the trolls. Dr Chatterjee 18:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      You were accuseing the CVU of trivializeing vandalism. Now you are complaining about it being made a bigger issue. Geni 18:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Admittedly, my use of "trivializing" was confusing and perhaps not the best choice of words. What I meant to say was "turning into a game." Trivializing in the moral sense of the word, not the attention sense. I apologize for the confusing wording there. But the fact remains that the CVU (and organizations like it) glamorize vandalismm, give undue attention to vandals and vandalism, and make a game out of "battling" it. Dr Chatterjee 18:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Comment -- I don't believe that "Anti-vandalism should be boring". Making anti-vandalism boring is the surest way to ensure that we won't have many volunteers. Furthermore, Dr Chatterjee is misquoting me. I stated that "The vandals are angry at the Counter-Vandalism Unit because the Counter-Vandalism Unit stands between them and the destruction of Wikipedia." not that the Counter-Vandalism Unit is all that stands between the vandals and the destruction of Wikipedia. John254 18:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Apologies for misquoting you, which was not intentional. Regardless, the thought still remains the same: The CVU is not "standing between vandals and the destruction of Wikipedia." Administrators are. There's no need for a self-styled vigilante group to run around thumping its collective chest and acting needlessly high and mighty. That sort of thing only encourages vandals to respond in kind. Dr Chatterjee 18:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      Administrators? I think not. Oh we do our best but most are not really active in that area. Geni 18:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
      In as much as administrators are the only people empowered to block vandals, then yes, administrators are the only parties who literally "stand in the way" of vandals and Wikipedia's "destruction." All that non-admin CVU members can do, on the other hand, is report vandals to the admins and then make an enormous deal out of what they've done. They're just doing what non-CVU anti-vandals are doing, only they're glamorizing their efforts needlessly. Dr Chatterjee 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. ^
    • Comment As for the argument that, if anti-vandalism were boring, no one would do it, that's nonsense. People had been fighting vandalism for years before the CVU came along, and are still doing a great job even if not affiliated with the CVU. The CVU has had an extremely minimal net effect -- if any -- on stemming the tide of vandalism. Dr Chatterjee 18:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment -- What worked with the smaller Wikipedia that existed before the Counter-Vandalism Unit unit was formed may not work with the much larger Wikipedia we have today (which has 1,359,963 articles at the last count). Wikipedia has flourished during the time that the Counter-Vandalism Unit has been with it. Let's not mess with that successful formula. John254 18:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    If you can point to any sort of solid or supporting proof that the CVU is (as you seem to imply) solely responsible for keeping the growing amounts of vandalism in check, then you can make these sorts of claims. Until then, you're just tossing out your personal theories without any semblance of substantiation. Let's not rush to attribute the "flourishing" of Wikipedia with the Counter-Vandalism Unit, just because they happened at the same time. More likely, the reason Wikipedia is "flourishing" is because vandalism has always been a relatively minor issue in comparison with the amount of positive users on this site. If your theory were true, by the way, then we'd expect vandalism numbers to stay consistent DESPITE the growing number of Wikipedia users. That does not seem to be the case. Vandalism seems to be increasing in direct proportion with the increase in Wikipedia's user base: a fact that would seem to negate your pet hypothesis. Dr Chatterjee 18:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    Furthermore, by your same logic I could claim that the addition of any and all Mickey Mouse-related pages have been responsible for the "flourishing" of Wikipedia in the last year. Let's see... Wikipedia's userbase has been growing, so Wikipedia has been flourishing, and some changes were made in that time to the Mickey Mouse page. Conclusion: let's make more Mickey Mouse pages! This kind of flawed and specious logic attributes causality to circumstances we cannot prove. Dr Chatterjee 18:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    Conversely, one thing we can prove is that the existence of the CVU has inspired, inflamed, or egged on at least two notorious vandals: the Airport Vandal and Bobby Boulders. If even two long-term vandals are getting their kicks out of the CVU, that's two too many. Dr Chatterjee 18:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The relationship of the Counter-Vandalism Unit to the success of Wikipedia is obvious, since its members are responsible for a significant portion of the RC patrol that occurs today. The relationship between the Airport Vandal, Bobby Boulders, and the Counter-Vandalism Unit is tenuous at best. John254 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    Tenuous? Take a look at the edit history on the CVU page over the last two or three months, and tell me with a straight face that Bobby Boulders doesn't get his rocks off (stupid pun intended!) by attacking or mocking the CVU. Dr Chatterjee 18:54, 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 Airport Vandal and Bobby Boulders get away with destroying the Counter-Vandalism Unit. John254 19:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    Also: >>...its members are responsible for a significant portion of the RC patrol that occurs today<< Prove it. Let's see some numbers, some RC-vandalism-reversion statistics and percentages, or at the very least, a credible citation that supports this otherwise-unprovable and unsubstantiated claim. Throughout this debate you've hounded me to cite my sources, and prove my claims with links. I have done as you've asked. Now I'd like to ask you to start doing the same. Dr Chatterjee 19:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment -- The fact that members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit are responsible for a significant portion of the RC patrol that occurs today is obvious to anyone who participates in RC patrol. Not every action taken in the course of human affairs can be based on scientific evidence, and Wikipedia's administrative processes would grind to a halt if we attempted to. John254 19:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    There is no "fact" in any statement you can't prove. It is not a statement of fact; it is a statement of your personal opinion. Just as my positions in this argument are statements of my personal opinion, and anyone's statements within this MfD discussion are thier personal opinions. The reason I called you out on your claim that "a significant portion of RC edits are from CVU members" is because you say it as though it's a well-recognizable and unassailable fact. In fact, it is not. I participate in RC patrolling every day, and it is not obviously apparent to me whether or not a significant portion of the RC reverts come from CVU members. All I'm asking is that you try to refrain from making sweeping generalizations and high-level claims about the function of Wikipedia as a whole that you cannot substantiate with at least some evidence. Furthermore, I ask that you hold yourself and your own claims/opinions to the same scrutiny that you hold mine. You demanded earlier on that I cite evidence for my claims, and I did so to the best of my abilities. You should endeavor to do the same when making your own claims. Otherwise, this becomes a very one-sided and counter-productive discussion. Dr Chatterjee 20:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment -- The level of evidence required for a claim depends on its nature, and whether the claim comports with common experience and common sense. John254 20:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Recent changes patrol

Several people in the discussion mentioned that they didn't like the image militaristic overtones and exclusivity that the CVU sometimes presents. I'm curious as to whether there's any interest in creating an RCP WikiProject that doesn't have these negative overtones. I don't mind starting something like this up but I wanted to get a feel for whether this is something that anyone'd be interested in. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 15:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Why don't we just revise the CVU, stripping it of its unwanted qualities. By the way, it's not just Recent Changes, that's what the RCPatrol is for. -- TinMan 17:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
because the CVU appears to be reasonably sucessful in it's current form. Geni 17:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
But it's so evil! The emblem is so violent! The tone - so intimidating! Vandals find it so humiliating! Boo-wiking-hoo. -- Chodorkovskiy (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Grow up everyone. -- TinMan 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I've always wondered why there isn't an RCP project, actually. RCP isn't just about vandal-thumping... you need to know a bit about categories and naming too.-- SB_Johnny | talk 20:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Those stats do not confirm that it is necessary or successful. All it shows is that people who put a CVU userbox on their page revert a lot of vandalism. Those same people who put that userbox are likely to have reverted vandalism regardless of whether they put that userbox on their page. — Centrx→ talk • 22:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Has anyone considered that deleting the project is essentially just insulting the vandal-fighters for no reason? The stats prove that those users are a helpful bunch, and alienating them by deleting their project would not be in our best interests.
CVU does not attempt to expand content, so there can be no complaints as to their subject being non-notable or otherwise unencyclopedic. There is no such thing as CVUcruft, they certainly aren't vandalizing the wiki, they don't push POV, and their members are helpful. Deleting a group's wikiproject is deciding that they were hurting Wikipedia. The members of this group are NOT hurting Wikipedia, so deletion would just be a stupid besmirchment of their honour to no benefit.
Unless it can be definitively shown that they are hurting the wiki to an amount that outweighs their vandalism reverts, the argument to delete is utterly groundless. -- tjstrf 22:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Dual user vote

User:Frosty0814snowman aka. FrostytheSnowman, has voted twice. Just a note. I didn't strike one or another. feydey 23:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The first time, he voted "Keep." The second time, he changed his mind and voted "Delete." It's up to him whether to strike his original comments, but for the record, his second vote explains that he no longer believes the way he did during his first vote. Dr Chatterjee 16:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The talk page is not a second MfD

Can we keep the talk page from spilling over and becoming another branch of this MfD debate? I realize I'm barred from further participation in the MfD, but I'm just saying... Dr Chatterjee 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

WWJD

What Would Jimbo Do? This page is such a polarising issue, with respected Wikipedians on both sides of the debate. Any decision made either way (keep, delete, or merge/redirect) will cause a lot of outcry. I'd really like to know what Jimbo would think of this... -- Deathphoenix ʕ 16:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

You probably won't know until you ask. My mental Jimbo would say keep, but since Jimbo is actually a person, so I don't think we are allowed to make claims on his behalf like that. -- tjstrf 17:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Just so you all know...

... this whole MfD was a bad-faith attempt by Bobby Boulders (under the sock name Dr Chatterjee) to disrupt Wikipedia. See Dr C's last edit to his talk page before I protected it: this. NawlinWiki 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

A rather superb stunt by bobby/whoever it is: he's managed to graduate from grafitti to instigating riots. So kudos, Bobby...you've made yourself into a precendent setter! Now go find youself something constructive to do, eh? -- SB_Johnny | talk 19:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Yep. Booby targeted the CVU because we have stoped him several times in the past. Æon Insanity Now! EA! 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I wonder how this plays into the whole honeypot theory. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I dunno, but shouldn't this mean that deleting the page would be against the WP:DENY principle, since a vandal was attempting to make a mark by deleting the page? -- tjstrf 17:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Nobody cares about the DENY principle - it's not an official policy yet, thank God.-- Chodorkovskiy (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Actually, a lot of people do. Notice the sudden absence of LTA pages and all the votes against the CVU here that are based on WP:DENY?-- tjstrf 18:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, many people are following the ideal this suggested policy is supposed to uphold, but not because of the policy. -- Chodorkovskiy (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Closing

Unless somebody objects, I am going to close this discussion/vote within a few hours in accordance with WP:SNOW. - Mike Rosoft 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I would have closed the discussion with the following reason:

The result of this discusion was: Keep, obvious and blatant bad-faith nomination. The originator of the previous nomination (which resulted in the page's deletion despite an overwhelming consensus to keep) was found to be a sockpuppet of a known vandal. Even before the discovery, the count was 29 to delete vs. 45 to keep (with 11 more afterwards). There is no way this page would achieve a consensus to delete.

Since there has been an objection, I am going to wait a day or two. (The normal length is 5 days, correct?) And regarding GTBacchus's comment: no, I don't think a valid reason has been given to delete the project. There have been fair arguments against the project as it exists now, but they would be best brought to its talk page, not to a request to delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I think it may be a conflict of interest for you to close the case, Mike, as you yourself are a member of the counter-vandalism unit. People might bring that up to deletion review whatever the outcome of this case, so it's obviously a sensitive issue :). Cowman109 Talk 12:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. Let it run the full time frame and then make sure an admin who has not participated in the discussion (this time, in DRV, or last time) and is not listed as a member of the CVU handles closure. -- StuffOfInterest 13:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
there is nothing much to lose by letting it run it's full length before closeing it as keep. Geni 13:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Supermajority?

For the record, if people really want to go by the numbers, there were about 52 keeps and 24 deletes and a few scattered 'renames' and 'merges', which is not really a supermajority, but I went through the list and took votes that actually gave valid reasoning and discounted sockpuppet votes, and came up with 16 reasonable keeps and 16 reasonable deletes here. Cowman109 Talk 13:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think you understand; Which users have you counted?-- Chodorkovskiy (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

By the way, why are people saying that this nomination was started by Willybobby? As far as I can tell the current discussion was started by a procedural relisting from WP:DRV. Also, need I point out that Willy Bobby socks have been spotted requesting undeletion of various long-term abuse pages. -- Cyde Weys 20:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I already addressed that, Cyde :). Oh, and Chodorkovskiy, I didn't even look at who was making "votes" except when I looked for the Willy on Wheels sockpuppets. I only looked at the reasoning. This is just my interpretation of the deletion debate, as I've said before. You're more than welcome to interpret it in your own way, of course. :) Cowman109 Talk 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I see. As you wish. -- Chodorkovskiy (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Cyde, the DRV was a (nearly procedural) review of the speedy close of the MFD started by Dr Chatterjee. ~ PseudoSudo 22:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Counting votes with arguments isn't any better than just counting votes... all it really shows is that the person wieghing in happened to have a minute or two to be wordy, rather than saying "keep, this MFD is rediculous." (My vote (which you counted) was in part just a long-winded way to say "keep, this MFD is rediculous"). One could just as easily add to and break up my comment into 10 good arguments as one could make 10 sockpuppets to put them foreward (if they were the sort of person who likes having sock-smelly hands), but it wouldn't mean that those 10 different arguments were necessarily good ones, and just because there was 10 of them doesn't mean they're better than just one, even if the one was "this MFD is rediculous". -- SB_Johnny| talk| books 23:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Well, since this isn't a straight up or down vote, 1 not-vote with ten arguments is pretty much the same as 10 not-votes with one argument each...good or bad. I'd say based on the number and validity of the arguments the closing admin would be justified in closing this as a delete. Whether s/he will or not is probably based more on wiki-politics then the actual reasoning behind the debate. It's been a while since I've been active, but Wikipedia seems to be moving away from strict vote counting. Issues like this is probably one of the reasons why. 208.42.140.43 17:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Unlike the sock puppet accounts, it's harder to expose anons as being vandals. I suspect 208.42.140.43 is likely just a troll. It's not uncommon to just strike that which comes from anons and brand new accounts, especially with the extremely high level of sock/ vandal activity on these pages. I don't see this comment as providing any useful information, just flawed speculation (even if I was on the pro-delete side this is clearly a non-consensus case). -- Ned Scott 21:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Um, why would you assume he/she is a troll? -- SB_Johnny| talk| books 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Because I have good reason to assume bad faith by anons on this particular page? Just look at the edit history. Not only that, but you can be right or bring up a good point and still be a troll (not that I agree with his logic, at all). We're semi-protected now, so it won't matter for the rest of the debate. -- Ned Scott 03:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

You people do know that...

The vandals will transfer into another page, the one where CVU will be merged (if that'll be the resolution). -- Howard the Duck 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply

This honeypot notion is bogus. One of the arguments for deletion was that the attitude of a paramilitary organization incites vandalism, not that vandals are attracted to pages about vandalism. — Centrx→ talk • 22:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Have we actually seen evidence that shows increased activity because of the CVU? -- Ned Scott 00:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Actually this has a precedent, in real life. In the Philippines, karaoke bars have removed " My Way" because he caused many deaths; when people sang it with the wrong notes, drunk people will shoot them to death. Then these drunkards then used the "Impossible Dream" to shoot people down. It's a vicious cycle, really. These vandals, would then attack under pages. (Well, George W. Bush is probably the most-vandal prone article, if being vandal-prone is a criterion for deletion, then it should be at AFD eons ago.) -- Howard the Duck 04:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply

There is the Willy on Wheels e-mail, there is the "ISV" counter-part to CVU. Random vandals target Wikipedia:Vandalism because it gets mentioned in their warning notices whereas specific, chronic sockpuppeteers target CVU. It is impossible to find evidence that anyone seems to consider legitimate but we do have a couple vandals stating that they find the vandalism fun and continue it specifically because of the hysterical response by self-proclaimed vandal-fighters, and concentrating on complex schemes associated with this page.

The underlying argument though is that this separate "unit" is not necessary and not consistent with the goals of Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, the only part of the CVU that should not be merged into Wikipedia vandalism-related pages proper is the CVU userboxes, many of whom are just vandals themselves. The statistics claiming it has been productive are based solely on those userboxes. All the useful parts of CVU properly belong in the main vandalism-related pages; they have been duplicated there anyway and having them here too is just redundant and a duplication of effot. Everything that is good about it should be merged into the main pages related to vandalism. Everything that is paramilitary and self-aggrandizing should be thrown out with this page. All of the people are free and welcome to continue fighting vandalism, and all of those who are interested in Wikipedia as a whole will do so. — Centrx→ talk • 02:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply

CVU is just a WikiProject, a place set aside for common discussion and efforts. Not everyone agrees with every WikiProject, and not everyone finds them useful. There are some WikiProjects with only a handful of members, because those 4 or 5 editors find it useful. We have evidence that vandals retaliate against vandal fighting resources on Wikipedia, and that is all. I still fail to see any evidence that CVU encourages vandals, brings new vandals to Wikipedia, or that the amount of vandalism increases because of CVU.
It's been said by a few people that, as with any WikiProject, CVU's focus and approach has slightly changed over-time, and not always for the better. Like with any other collaborative effort, that is something to improve, not delete. Program development, user assistance, education, guideline forming, and many other positive things have come out of the CVU.
There's no evidence that the CVU concept increases vandalism. If editors wish to collaborate on an effort then they should be allowed to do so, as with any other WikiProject. Just because some don't find that project useful does not mean it should be deleted. This is not the article namespace, this is not how we operate with WikiProjects. The problems addressed by users here are a minority of what makes up the CVU. This is a case were a black spot is all that is seen on a white sheet of paper.
And why the hell hasn't anyone stepped in and closed this so it can be moved to arbitration? MfD is not the place for this. -- Ned Scott 03:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Why would this be a case for arbitration? This MfD is to delete this page. Anyone is free to do whatever they want outside of Wikipedia, and MfD would not apply to it. ArbCom is not going to issue a desist order on thoughts off-wiki about aggressive or peculiar vandal-fighting. — Centrx→ talk • 03:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
A hearty seconding to all but the last line of Ned Scott's post. And Centrx, I believe this nomination is to discuss deleting the page, not to delete it. -- tjstrf 03:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Because this dispute isn't about the content of the pages as much as it is a dispute about the group's activities. ArbCom has addressed editing behavior and what is or isn't acceptable. It's extremely obvious that these are heavily used pages and probably the largest WikiProject on Wikipedia, and it's been around for a while. This whole process was started by a vandal, and it still hasn't been stopped. Many of the people moving for a delete seem to be confused as to what the CVU actually does.
On Wikipedia we discuss things before bringing them to this point, per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. This whole thing just seems so.. asshole-ish. An MfD undermines the importance of this debate, and is hardly appropriate for an 7-8 day discussion (and I really want to know what the hell the closing admin of the 2nd nom was thinking). *fD pages are not appropriate for this kind of discussion. It seems to me that no one has done anything simply because it's easier to get rid of the group this way. That's just fucked up. Is this how we're supposed to treat each other? Hi, I don't like your WikiProject, so I'm just gonna delete the document where it is and hope you don't notice -- Ned Scott 03:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC) reply
No, the page in itself should be merged with other pages, based solely on the contents of the page and regardless of the activities of CVU members. It is redundant. The only reason, then, to keep the page would be for some camaraderie of its members, for which there is argument why that has not been so productive. — Centrx→ talk • 03:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
This is not a content dispute. I don't see why you are referring this to the dispute resolution system. There is not some heated edit war or POV pushing. By the criteria you seem to be using for calling something a dispute, half of AfDs would be put on WP:RFC instead. — Centrx→ talk • 03:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
But we don't delete things we merge, we redirect them to keep their page history. CVU seems to have been the first project space set aside specifically for user collaboration for fighting vandalism, while other pages such as Wikipedia:Vandalism seemed to have been set up (at least at the time) just to define things, and not as much to keep track of user efforts. Even today CVU remains a far more active discussion place than the places that people wish to "merge" it to. The comments for both keep and delete seem hardly concerned for the exact contents of the pages, and far more about the collaboration effort itself. This is obvious, so don't bullshit me by saying this is some non-controversial maintenance-type task. The large involvement of this group at the very lease warrants the courtesy of a RCF or arbcom case. Can you nominate an active WikiProject for deletion? Aparently so, but it's still an asshole of a thing to do. Like I said before, whether you agree with them or not, this is not how we should treat each other. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Yes, maybe it should be called "Miscellany for discussion" but that opens up other problems. A reason for bringing it here is if you bring it up on the Talk page there, all the project members have opposed any sort of merge whereas general Wikipedians who don't watch that page have different views. The reasoning here is to get rid of the page, not to purge its page history or prevent redirects. That said, a merge proposal with an RfC may have been more appropriate. A lot of the reasoning has been about the "collaboration effort" because that is the only reason for keeping the page. The page itself has nothing that doesn't belong elsewhere. — Centrx→ talk • 01:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Perhaps there should be a Village pump (vandalism)? The key is that it is general to Wikipedia, it is not purporting to be some special group with badges. One can fight vandalism—and even help self-proclaimed CVU members on the CVU Talk page—without being a part of the CVU, and users can proclaim to be part of the CVU without ever fighting vandalism, or may even be vandals. — Centrx→ talk • 01:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1136421696"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE