Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (3rd nomination)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dr Chatterjee (talk | contribs) at 16:36, 5 September 2006 (→Dual user vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]

(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]
  • 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=73971102"