Lorrainier (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Lorrainier (talk | contribs) delete, dammit! |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
*'''Keep''' - I'm only vaguely familiar with the CVU, but it was one of the first groups that I found out about when I first started editing Wikipedia. Regardless of whether or not it is an "official" WikiProject, it serves the same purpose as many other WikiProjects. People have many different roles on Wikipedia, and not all of them involve adding content to articles. As long as that person's actions still contribute to the goal of Wikipedia, it is still admirable. While removing vandalism is indeed everyone's responsibility, the CVU is a group of editors who have made removing vandalism one of their primary reasons and purposes for being involved in the project. That is relevant to the project's goals, and if they want to have a project page that helps them organize and implement their actions, I don't see a reason to prevent it. —[[User:Cswrye|Cswrye]] 06:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' - I'm only vaguely familiar with the CVU, but it was one of the first groups that I found out about when I first started editing Wikipedia. Regardless of whether or not it is an "official" WikiProject, it serves the same purpose as many other WikiProjects. People have many different roles on Wikipedia, and not all of them involve adding content to articles. As long as that person's actions still contribute to the goal of Wikipedia, it is still admirable. While removing vandalism is indeed everyone's responsibility, the CVU is a group of editors who have made removing vandalism one of their primary reasons and purposes for being involved in the project. That is relevant to the project's goals, and if they want to have a project page that helps them organize and implement their actions, I don't see a reason to prevent it. —[[User:Cswrye|Cswrye]] 06:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
'''Comment''' - The page has already been merged with [[Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism]], so this debate should be brought to an end.--[[User:Lorrainier|Lorrainier]] 06:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
'''Comment''' - The page has already been merged with [[Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism]], so this debate should be brought to an end.--[[User:Lorrainier|Lorrainier]] 06:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
:'''Comment''' - Turning a page under discussion into a redirect is specifically prohibited under the [[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion|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 [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]]. |
:'''Comment''' - Turning a page under discussion into a redirect is specifically prohibited under the [[Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion|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 [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]].--[[User:Cswrye|Cswrye]] 07:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
::'''Comment''' - I had fufilled the merge request for all intents and purposes before this debate even broke out. |
::'''Comment''' - I had fufilled the merge request for all intents and purposes before this debate even broke out.--[[User:Lorrainier|Lorrainier]] 07:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
*'''Extremely Speedy Keep'''- The powers that be who deleted CVU has set back Wikipedia's War on Vandalism several years, and this has already damaged Wikipedia. I am asking anyone with a sense of sanity to please support me in restoring CVU and stand up to those powers that be who wished for its death. [[User:Arbiteroftruth|Arbiteroftruth]] 07:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
*'''Extremely Speedy Keep'''- The powers that be who deleted CVU has set back Wikipedia's War on Vandalism several years, and this has already damaged Wikipedia. I am asking anyone with a sense of sanity to please support me in restoring CVU and stand up to those powers that be who wished for its death. [[User:Arbiteroftruth|Arbiteroftruth]] 07:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
:'''Comment''' No, actually refering to cleaning up vandalism as a "War on Vandalism" is far more damaging to Wikipedia, as it gives vandals the feeling that what they are doing has a legitimate purpose. Seriously, you sound like an anti-vandal version of Bobby Boulders.--[[User:Lorrainier|Lorrainier]] 07:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
:'''Comment''' No, actually refering to cleaning up vandalism as a "War on Vandalism" is far more damaging to Wikipedia, as it gives vandals the feeling that what they are doing has a legitimate purpose. Seriously, you sound like an anti-vandal version of Bobby Boulders.--[[User:Lorrainier|Lorrainier]] 07:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
'''Speedy Delete''' - Redundant and pointless; only serves to romanticise vandals and vandalism. The page [[Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism]] is much more professional and appropriate, than the damned CVU page.--[[User:Lorrainier|Lorrainier]] 07:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:32, 2 September 2006
Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit
Relisting per WP:DRV Cowman109Talk 05:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, but sanction any admin who decides to speedy close this MFD. – Chacor 05:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- That comment is unnecessary. We've already established that this should be relisted, no need to tell people not to speedy close it once more. Thank you. Cowman109Talk 05:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- keep but fix i think the CVU performs a useful roll, as does any other wikiproject that dedicates itself to just one aspect of wp; however, i agree with the points that argue it shouldn't glamorize vandalism, or make it fun/game-like for the vandals. We should keep, but look at limiting/eliminating the glamorising aspects (probably even a name-change), and maybe fixing a few other things --DakAD 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- request to the people who want the CVU deleted: fair enough. go ahead and argue for deletion here. but, please dont enbark (intentionally or accidentally) on a war of annhiolation against the CVU, by going after its logos, user-templates etc etc etc. --DakAD 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep This page and group have been instrumental in organizing the fight against vandalism. Scienceman123 05:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep If no other reason than the fact that a reason wasn't actually given. You're going to have to say something, especially since this is the third time it's been submitted. EVula 05:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- there is a whole other wiki and infrastructure for addressing (not fighting) vandalism. CVU has militaristic trappings that many view as divisive. Delete after extracting any useful information. ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep -- It's extraordinarily unfair to disrupt the Counter-Vandalism Unit by speedily deleting its project page (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (second nomination)), then, when most of the members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit have stopped monitoring this page, to renominate it for deletion. It is unlikely, under such circumstances, that this MFD discussion can truly consider whether there is consensus for the proposed deletion. Members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit should not be largely excluded from this discussion. To the extent that numerical consensus is relevant to the discussion of the proposed deletion, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (second nomination) offers the best evidence of what the numerical outcome would have been if the second nomination discussion had not been speedily closed: in the second nomination discussion, there was a strong supermajority of established users in favor of retaining this project page. Furthermore, adequate reasons for keeping this project page were provided on Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit by TinMan:
Cool Cat:The CVU is an organization of Wikipedians that not only want to counter vandalism, but want to find better and systematic ways of catching vandals. They provide innovative discussion on the topics of vandalism and collaborate when neccessary on the best way to deal with vandalism. In a sense, it is a think tank and a watchdog group that is beneficial to Wikipedia and is different from the RCpatrol. It does not just look at recent changes, it looks at purposely added incorrect information and other more-difficult-to-find forms of vandalism. It is a team with a positive purpose with positive results and should remain as a page. The CVU does [not] interfere with Wikipedia's workings, nor does it cause cause any harm; it has many members that are dedicated to these principles. There is no logical reason for its deletion.
Viridae:To my knowledge, Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit was never moved off wiki... As for www.countervandalism.org, I do not know who they are nor do I care. We arent going to delete startrek wikiproject simply because memory-alpha exists. Furthermore that wiki seems very inactive compared to the en.wiki counterpart. It isnt a valid argument to suggests that we were able to deal with vandalism w/o this wikiproject. Of course we were. We also had decent anime and manga related articles before that wikiproject existed. See Wikipedia:Wikiprojects to see why we have wikiprojects.
and myself:On the topic of the actual page, I belieeve it is useful contact for those interested in RC patrol and others. The argument that it could incite vandals also applies to every vandal warning template (like {{test3}} for instance) but it is not appropriate to remove them either because they serve a purpose among the community.
John254 05:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)The Counter-Vandalism Unit does serve the same general purpose as Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism. However, the Counter-Vandalism Unit's unique style is well-suited to the recruitment of users who would not otherwise participate in RC Patrol. Members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit clearly participate in a significant portion of the RC patrol that occurs on Wikipedia today. For this reason, it is probable that the Counter-Vandalism Unit has increased participation in RC patrol, thereby enhancing the integrity of Wikipedia.
- Keep - I'm only vaguely familiar with the CVU, but it was one of the first groups that I found out about when I first started editing Wikipedia. Regardless of whether or not it is an "official" WikiProject, it serves the same purpose as many other WikiProjects. People have many different roles on Wikipedia, and not all of them involve adding content to articles. As long as that person's actions still contribute to the goal of Wikipedia, it is still admirable. While removing vandalism is indeed everyone's responsibility, the CVU is a group of editors who have made removing vandalism one of their primary reasons and purposes for being involved in the project. That is relevant to the project's goals, and if they want to have a project page that helps them organize and implement their actions, I don't see a reason to prevent it. —Cswrye 06:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Extremely Speedy Keep- The powers that be who deleted CVU has set back Wikipedia's War on Vandalism several years, and this has already damaged Wikipedia. I am asking anyone with a sense of sanity to please support me in restoring CVU and stand up to those powers that be who wished for its death. Arbiteroftruth 07:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No, actually refering to cleaning up vandalism as a "War on Vandalism" is far more damaging to Wikipedia, as it gives vandals the feeling that what they are doing has a legitimate purpose. Seriously, you sound like an anti-vandal version of Bobby Boulders.--Lorrainier 07:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - Redundant and pointless; only serves to romanticise vandals and vandalism. The page Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism is much more professional and appropriate, than the damned CVU page.--Lorrainier 07:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)