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

Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit

Relisting per WP:DRV Cowman109^Talk 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. Cowman109^Talk 05:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Is it really unnecessary? I can think of a number of admins who might want to re-speedy this. This includes speedy keeping it. – Chacor 05:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  It's been made clear already that speedy closing this again would be innapropriate, so let's just leave it that. Cowman109^Talk 05:29, 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)

  Not sure I understand what you mean. The deletion is about this page, not about stopping people dealing with vandalism. cleaning up vandalism is one alternative resource along similar lines, but without the cultural issues you describe. --pgk 09:14, 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)

  I think you are missing the point about why many believe this should be removed. --pgk 11:35, 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)

  This is a result of a relist of DRV, that reason is given i.e. it is effectively a rerun of the second nomination. --pgk 11:35, 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:

  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.

  Cool Cat:

  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.

  Viridae:

  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.

  and myself:

  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.

  John254 05:46, 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. —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)

Comment - The issue is still under discussion. That's what this is all about. —Cswrye 15:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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)

In Response- Do forgive me for being a little bit radical, as I am a bit tired right now. However, cleaning up vandalism, and getting rid of it (hence the term "War on Vandalism") is a very important part of anyone's wiki-life. Whether we like it or not, vandals will be around, and will probably remain so until the end of life as we know it. I see no reason why we shouldn't promote anti-vandalism as good thing to do, because it is. Quite honestly, have we gotten to a point where we are ashamed of standing up against vandalism and promoting a good Wikipedia? Arbiteroftruth 08:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, we've got to a point where we are ashamed of putting vandals up on pedestals and treating them like more than they are, which is basically what the CVU page, the vandal subpages, and other things did for them. The page Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism contains everything that the CVU page does. The only difference is that it treats cleaning up vandalism as just that: cleaning up vandalism, not some glorious holy war. If you're afraid of the CVU being disbanded or think that's what I want, then you shouldn't worry. I don't want them disbanded, I just want them to present themselves as vandal reverters and not religious warriors.--Lorrainier 08:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Lorrainier, I do not like the term "religious warriors" bandied around in that context. It sounds like an insinuation that all CVU members are either "Vandal Revert Nazis" or Talibans. Bringing passion into the things we do is important, and in this case, this is a group of passionate users eager to make Wikipedia a better place by reverting vandalism. Passion is a key ingredient to enjoying something. So what is next? Are we banning passion as well from Wikipedia? Arbiteroftruth 08:24, 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, or at least more so than the damned CVU page.--Lorrainier 07:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Professional? Why would we want that seeing as we are not getting paid?Geni 12:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete CVU makes vandalism an adversarial issue from what should be a maintenance issue. The DefCon thing is it's own caricature and CVU is at least partially to blame for the over-reporting issues at WP:AIV. The "war on vandalism" cult is damaging and should be moderated by deleting CVU and handling vandalism like any other maintenance task. Rx StrangeLove 09:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You seen the backlog at other maintenance tasks lately?Geni 11:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have. Not sure what your point is though, are you saying that if CVU is deleted it's members won't fight vandalism and othes will have to pick up the slack? Do you really think that? Rx StrangeLove 13:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete last time around I would have probably voted weak keep, but seeing the way that discussion went and indeed the DRV went leads me to believe that it is indeed time to remove this. The focus of those discussions seemed to put some magical mystique around the CVU name and votes Tlike "don't delete US" leads me to conclude that the emphasis here is completely wrong. Per Rx StrangeLove, we are an encyclopedia nothing else, removal of vandalism is an unfortunate necessity which should be dealt with as simple janatorial task the same way as many other items are. Wikipedia is not a battleground, we don't need one group running around as policemen (CVU) whilst another runs around as criminals (ISV) --pgk 09:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Grovey. So when you say like other maintenance tasks do you mean like CAT:CSD where many speedies have to be not reported to avoid overloading the system or WP:CP where month long backlogs are not unknown?Geni 11:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So the marking of articles for CSD is progressing quite nicely without having a CVU equivalent? That is exactly what I mean. Not having enough admins to deal with the backlog is a different issue, which I don't believe would be resolved by creating a CVU for CSD (You could in fact argue that our over emphasis on vandalism issues takes admin resource away from those areas which need it) . --pgk 11:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

most marking is done by bots. More traditional speedies probably are covered by the CVU.Geni 12:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So what was your point again. You reply to the idea that treating this as a janitorial task is a bad idea since those other janitorial tasks are backlogged and now claim that in fact that isn't really a different janatorial task at all. Have you anything to back up your claim that most of the CSD stuff outside of images tagged by bots is done by people claiming it to be "CVU. Lets not lose focus here this is a discussion about a page and any unwanted overtones from the structure/format etc. We aren't talking about banning all those who associate themselves with CVU, or stopping them reverting vandalism, tagging pages etc. --pgk 12:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

CAT:CSD can mostly handle old fashioned speedies (in a few weeks there may be a problem due to other issues but wei'll deal with that when we get there). However in order to keep it functioning I had to block a user who was mass adding a certian type of speedies. We have also had backlogs of over 200 items. Clearly this is not a case of functioning well. It is a case not falling over spectacularly. Other than that please don't create strawmen. By covered by CVU I meant within their area of operation.Geni 12:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No it's within the "area of operation" of RC and New page patrol, of which some people associate with CVU, by no means everybody and I guess probably a minority. I still don't understand your point, you seem say we shouldn't treat vandalism in the same way because it is overload/if certain controls weren't in place it would be overloaded and we should look to CVU as a model of efficiency in not being overloaded and in the next breath say it is CVU doing this thing which is severly overloaded, these suggestions seem to be rather contrary to each other. Not that it matters, since I think you are trying to compare two dissimilar things in terms of where the bottle necks occur as I already pointed out. Regarding your stopping of a user which was flooding CSD, my understanding of that is it was incorrectly tagging images as the criteria clearly says "This does not apply to images duplicated on Wikimedia Commons..". WP:AIV would soon get flooded if people filled it with items which shouldn't be there. --pgk 12:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok if you don't like CSD which area of janatorial tasks would you like to lump it in with?Geni 12:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to "lump in in" with any other task. In fact since when did CVU become a task? RC Patrol, Vandalism reverting these are tasks, and I am not saying the tasks should be deleted. I have said I believe removal of vandalism should be approached in the manner of a janatorial task. --pgk 12:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

which janatorial task?Geni 12:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

? I don't see it's helpful to try and specify it to be like a specific task, because clearly if it was that much like it, it would be that task. There are many janitorial tasks on wikipedia which function well. I am specifying in *the manner* of, since I don't believe the current manner of policemen (CVU) and there criminal counterpart (ISV) is constructive. --pgk 13:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

"There are many janitorial tasks on wikipedia which function well" evidences?Geni 13:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How about New page patrolling? You seem to have said that causes problems on CSD, so I assume you believe that works well? Orgeneral RC patrol, yeah there is sometimes a backlog on AIV but not that frequently. --pgk 13:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

you've just listed the two things CVU works on. So out of all the janitorial tasks the only ones you think work are those worked on by the CVU?Geni 13:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

What has that got to do with my reasons for thinking this should be removed? CVU isn't the task, and still am not as has been said several times not advocating stopping RC Patrol, new page patrol. Since it is my contention that the notion of CVU in some respects attracts vandalism (ISV), then removing it would actually improve those tasks. --pgk 13:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you just stated that the janitorial tasks that CVU works on mostly go OK. Bow I know there is no sane way you could say that about most other tasks so it would appear there is some level of correlation between the CVU and a janitorial task doing ok. You've destroyed your own case.Geni 13:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If CVU exclusively worked on those, then you might have a point, but as I point out above, I guess that CVU is actually the minority in doing such tasks. But whatever. --pgk 14:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per the arguments articulated at WP:DENY and in the various discussions already held regarding this page. In short, CVU glorifies vandalism, and makes it an adversarial issue, which encourages persistent vandals. Additionally, any admin who closes this MfD early would be making a clear statement that they love DRAMA!! much more than progress. For God's sake, please don't close it early. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

and the vandals will then get thier kicks from AN/I. It should be remebered that at least some vandalism is adversarial.Geni 11:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, I don't think we really need to glorify dealing with vandalism cleanup, and heck, even CoolCat would probably like to see this go. At the very least, if we keep this, I'd say we rename it to something less glorius, like "Vandalism Cleanup" or "Admins with Mops". --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename unnecessary, there's already Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or at the very least rename. It's not different from any other WikiProject, and having an offsite equivalent does not preclude an onsite group. As for WP:CUV and such, those are fine, and could be considered part of the WikiProject, but should not become the essence of a rather large group. I don't see why having a project aiming to clean up vandalism is a horrible, nasty thing. If the military style of the page is the problem, then rename it. (How about WikiProject Vandalism or WikiProject Cleaning Up Vandalism?) Other pages are great but the group needs some way to collaborate, and offsite means do not count. --Chris (talk) 12:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename - the name may not be appropriate, but it seems to me that the goal of the unit is relavent and very appropriate. The current pages on "cleaning up vandalism" are just informative pages, you won't find IRC information or general vandal-cleaning related discussions there.--Konstable 12:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this page is not Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism. I think both pages are useful, but WP:CUV is more like a Portal (in fact was copied from the portal template) then anything else. W:CUV is a great place to refer people to when discussing cleaning up vandalism in general, but does not have the workability and resouce gathering affects that WP:CVU has. CVU is a de facto WikiProject, and does not claim to be a sanctioned official authority on anything, and specicifically states that on the page. If there are problems with editors being incivil, and they claim exemption from responisibilty for their incivility, then we have plenty of measurse for that, just as we do if someone edit wars over a stub-type. A vandalized page is just as bad as an incorrect page for new readers, and any association of editors working to keep pages clean should be welcomed. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per discussions in first nomination June 23rd 2006 Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit. Restore logos and user boxes. WP:AGF, there's lots of leaping to the conclusion that this project is feeding the trolls and harming the project, but no evidence that the page Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit is causing this. Clappingsimon talk 13:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  Sure there is [1], do you think Robert Boulders does his ISV thing if there's just a how-to guide on fighting vandalism? Honestly? Rx StrangeLove 13:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  On the other hand, pages like this also serve as a honeypot to attract vandalism away from the encyclopedia. But neither argument is really a good one: you may claim that the CVU just created that vandal, while others will argue that the CVU attracted that vandal away from the encyclopedia. Neither may be true. He may well have been a vandal before. And he may well have started at the CVU and will now haunt the rest of the encyclopedia. Both arguments lack objective evidence, and effectively nullify eath other. --Chris (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

But they don't....first of all vandalism is vandalism, it still has to be reverted and still takes time away from something else. Second....he has a 3 letter acronym concerning vandalism plus a logo. I think it's pretty clear that it's in response to CVU. So we have vandalism that's clearly in response to CVU that has to be reverted. Let's take the "honey pot" away...Rx StrangeLove 14:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

WOW predates CVU. Vandels with big egos have always existed and always will.Geni 14:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Strawman, no one claims it'll end the problem....but it's clear CVU is a contributing factor. Rx StrangeLove 14:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

clear? I don't think so. Do you have solid evidence of that claim.Geni 14:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is nothing more than a WikiProject with a different name. Shadow1 14:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - 'tain a wikiproject - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - CVU has created a pseduo-official capacity for themselves (the defcon, etc) and uses it to lobby and interpret policy. This is inappropriate. Phil Sandifer 14:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It is explicitly pointed out on the page that the CVU is not an official Wikimedia project and does not intend on becoming one. --AndreniW 15:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- It is highly inappropriate to delete the Counter-Vandalism Unit in an effort to disenfranchise its members from the policy making process. Phil Sandifer has actually encouraged members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit to leave Wikipedia altogether: "vandalism... would continue to be reverted even if the CVU were deleted and all its members left Wikipedia. I mean, thanks for your efforts, but don't mistake yourself for being necessary."[2] I reiterate that if the Counter-Vandalism Unit had not been disrupted by the speedy deletion of its project page, there would probably be four times as many established users in favor of keeping it than in favor of deleting it, as indicated by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (second nomination). John254 15:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or rename, but take the honey pot away. -- FrostytheSnowman ^'sup? 15:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "take the honey pot away"? --AndreniW 15:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• I prefer Keep but rename would be acceptable. I suppose next we'll be debating the deletion of the Recent Changes patrol, or even WP:MOS or WP:NOTABLE? --AndreniW 15:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong DELETE on the grounds that the CVU is unnecessary, given that other counter-vandalism resources already exist on Wikipedia which are a) official, b) unbiased, c) non-militaristic, d) tone/value-neutral. The CVU is none of these things. It glorifies, adds notoriety to, feeds attention to, trivializes, glamorizes, and makes a game out of vandalism by doing the same things for counter-vandalism. "Vandalism is not a game" is an essay I've written recently which sums up my thoughts on this matter pretty succinctly, and I submit it as a valid argument against the existence of paramilitary-style groups such as the CVU. Also, please refer to my arguments (and those of others) made in the previous (second) MfD on the CVU for further reasoning. Dr Chatterjee 15:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- Dr Chatterjee's essay neglects the fact that not "glamorizing" or "glorifying" counter-vandalism efforts will impair our ability to recruit users to RC patrol. Indeed, describing counter-vandalism efforts in janitorial language, such as "cleaning up vandalism" makes them distinctly unattractive. I believe that the Counter-Vandalism Unit has resulted in a net gain in the integrity of Wikipedia, as the direct glorification and enhancement of counter-vandalism efforts is likely to outweigh the derivative "glorification" of vandalism, if indeed such an effect occurs at all. John254 15:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, what you "believe" and what you can prove are two very different things. Anyone can look at the edit histories of CVU-inspired vandals (such as Bobby Boulders and The Airport Vandal) and prove that the existence of the CVU incited them to further and more furious bouts of vandalism. But I challenge you to find concrete evidence of your claim that glorifying counter-vandalism (as with the CVU) has a net-beneficial effect on vandalism cleanup. Counter-vandalism should be janitorial and mundane by nature. By removing the sexiness of counter-vandalism, we in turn make vandalism less sexy and more mechanical, boring, and attention-sapping. We take away the "prize" for persistent vandals. Witness the case of Bobby Boulders: as soon as his name was removed from the CVU's "wanted list," and his CVU-endorsed LTA page was deleted, he all but stopped vandalising Wikipedia. He went from Public Enemy #1 to MIA practically overnight. I would consider the case study of Bobby Boulders to be a near-perfect example of how de-glamorizing counter-vandalism takes away incentives to vandalize. Dr Chatterjee 15:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Chatterjee, I agree that glorifying vandals are not good, but that alone does not deserve the deletion and disbanding of a group of passionate users who want to make Wikipedia a good place. No systems are perfect, and reforms are needed. However, just because the system has a couple of drawbacks does not mean we have to destroy it. If that is the case, we will have to destroy Wikipedia in general. Doctor, if we destroy CVU today, what is next? Recent Changes Patrol? Banning passion from Wikipedia, or destroy all Wikiprojects? This is a slippery slope we are going towards. Arbiteroftruth 15:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

>>if we destroy CVU today, what is next? Recent Changes Patrol? Banning passion from Wikipedia, or destroy all Wikiprojects?<< With all due respect, this is a straw man argument. No one is suggesting that we are on some sort of vindictive campaign to delete all counter-vandalism resources or WikiProjects in general. What we are trying to do, though, is delete any WikiProjects or pages that set a bad example. CVU falls into that category, because its net effect is actually to incite and inflame vandalism, which happens more frequently and visibly than it achieves its stated goals (i.e., the deterrence of vandalism). If a WikiProject sets a bad or counterproductive precedent, then yes, it should be deleted. I don't believe the RC Patrol meets that criteria -- and regardless, the RC Patrol's fate is entirely irrelevent to the discussion at hand. Dr Chatterjee 15:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree in the strongest manner that fits civility. Vandalism will happen with or w/o this project. Bot attacks have happened before this wikiproject was started and will happen weather or not this project exists. The deletion rationale is a strawamans argument. --Cat out 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (as per previous noms). Its a wikiproject. The deletion rationale is a strawamans argument. --Cat out 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While CVU has some good editors and is effective at combatting vandalism, it is poisonous to the community with its focus on badges, its militaristic attitude, the immaturity it tends to bring about, and its practices. Taken completely off-wiki, it may be less harmful, or it may dry up -- either way, people who want to fight vandalism should do so as wikipedia editors, not as part of a cohesive and separate group like this. --Improv 15:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

  RC Patrol is a military group too. --Cat out 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)