Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 07:45, 3 April 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Note: CVU has been relisted at WP:MFD. Cowman109Talk 05:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit

[edit]

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

This discussion lasted less than 24 hours for this. This is not acceptable. There was too brief of a time discussion on the deletion rationale. Yet rather than wait for full discussion, this was deleted preemptively. At least one of closing arguements, that it was not a wikiproject, is flawed. There's no 'officialness' to wikiprojects. Also, WP:DENY isn't a policy or a guideline, though I'll admit its nice. Closing admin was drini. Kevin_b_er 21:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sure, before I start I want to remark, in big bold letters that DRV is not a second MFD. Then I'll explain my behavior:
  1. About the complain is that there were more keeps than closes, I won't comment. It's known my position about htat.
  2. About the arguments. I think the discussion was addressing the wrong issues. So I'll write a few points to have in mind during the review.
    • The IRC channels are NOT affiliated with CVU. CVU does not control them. CVU does not grant acces to them, CVU "membership" isn't needed to help there.
    • The information abot how to help vandalism is already in several palces, WP:VANDALISMfor one, which was the original place. And there's a whole wiki devoted to the issue: www.countervandalism.org
    • The role that CVU oes is now done at VCN at the url mentioned. CVU does NOT COORDINATE vandalism removal.
    • CVU was never an officially approved wikiproject.
    • Again, since the information is already there, there's no need for all the logos, defcons and other things. Noone needs such thing to help cleaning up vandalism, so the CVU pages are unneeded.
    • Moreover, since the vandalism network was moved out of wiki, the IRC channels not under control of foundation, we get to the conclusion that the IRC activity is not official on wikipedia and thus is better handled at the external wiki.
    • Finally, while I think it's good to have info on vandalism removal, the emphasis of CVU was misplaced. There is already neutral-tone sites with information WP:VAND WP:CUV, and those are the sites where newcomers should be pointed when they ask, not a "club" since, for any effect, that's what CVU did. You enrolled and you were then a "CVU member" (it didn't grant you access to the IRC channels, it didn't provide info there were not available at other palces, it didn't coordinate , ...).

So, there are plenty of reasons to delete CVU. Now I'll tackle a few of the first "keep arguments" in comparison

    • Keep Meh. Trying to counter vandalism in general has perhaps 'generated' those vandals... <--- wrong issue, the vandal recognition was not the real issue, it being that the VCN content is already out there.
  • Speedy Keep! This is a NEEDED group! <--- no, it's not. It's not even an official wikiproject, and the management is done at the external wiki
  • Keep. In that it helps to coordinate efforts against vandalism, I can't really see any reason to delete it. <-- no, it's VCN who coordinates.
  • Comment The up swing in vandalism ... <--- Another dealing with the wrong issue. doens't address the issue why it should be kept
  • Speedy keep, no reason to delete has been given that makes any sense <--- I gave reasons

Basically, it was not a whim decision. It was supported by many arguments. -- Drini 22:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will also be available on IRC by afternoons if someone wants to discuss more quickly and deeply any item (as I cannot keep watching and answering here all afternoon) -- Drini 22:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted its demise is long over-due. Resurrection would be regrettable. --Doc 22:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't matter. There was no real discussion as it didn't even last a day. It was improperly closed. Kevin_b_er 22:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Bloody hell, what do you mean it 'doesn't matter'. Of course it matters, if it were useful we should restore it, but it isn't so we shouldn't. That consideration is precisely and only what matters. --Doc 22:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a rule allowing to ignore rules when common sense and arguments are present. -- Drini 22:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where's the discussion? ~ trialsanderrors 22:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here. Please not that 75% of contributors posted a "keep". – ClockworkSoul 22:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • However numerical rati (EVEN ON DRV) does not determine consensus. -- Drini 22:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Neither does one admin who was so certain that he was right that he couldn't wait for a process to reach a conclusion. There's a name for that... um... rogue admin, I think it's called. – ClockworkSoul 22:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, arguments do determine consensusl. Havne't I give enough? However, this isn't the place to discuss MY attitude, this is about the deletion. -- Drini 22:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Your arguments do not stand on their own. With respect, the idea of "officiality" has no meaning here, and the argument that it makes vandals is absurd: even if one or two vandals did get their ideas from there, it wouild have just been something else anyway. Besides, the vast majority of vandals pretty much though if it on their own. The remainder of your arguments boil down to "because I know better than you". I'm sorry, but it just doesn't hold water. – ClockworkSoul 22:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Wehre have I claimed that such pages make vandals? I point there are better more neutral alternatives, however. ON the other hand, I have no problem with you not buyinmg my arguments, in the sense that not everybody has to agree with me, I just explained my reasons, I stand by them. -- Drini 22:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • My apologies: that was actually Dr Chatterjee. Honestly, I don't care if this page dissapears forever. What really does burn me, however, is the disregard some people have for other users and their opinions. This kind of major action against the wishes of others is foolhardy, at best. Right or wrong, you're still affecting alot of people who actually participate in that project, and there is likely going to be some backlash (anybody remember the userbox debacle?). I would have expected more sensitivity and social acumen from a mediator. – ClockworkSoul 22:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Unfortunately, numbers do matter at DRV. As for this, numbers shouldn't matter, but a full hearing should. You really think that you heard all the arguments that would be necessary in such a short time? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • (too many indentation levesl confuse me). Well, I'm sorry, I know it was a very controversail act. But controversial act doesn't mean self-righteousness. I've given my explanation, my reasons. I'm answering everyone who asks me, I'm not being confrontational (while it may seem , i'm not). I?m open to discussion, and I will keep explaining the reasonings to those who ask me. It's not a case of roguism (which would be "I close it becuase I want and nobody can do anything"). -- Drini 22:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy undelete, let the discussion take its course. Whether or not we need it around is obviously open to debate; but, regardless of one's opinion in that regard, deleting it like this was an entirely undeserved slap in the face to the many good-faith contributors who associated themselves with it. "Being right about an issue does not mean you're not being a dick." (As an aside, I find the talk of "official" WikiProjects utterly bizarre.) Kirill Lokshin 22:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevent info to Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism and delete. - The CVU has its own wiki. It doesn't need this page. However, the CVU page was a lot more up to date about what tools are avaliable etc. and how to fight vandalism. The information on the CVU page should be used to update Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism (minus the pseudo military crap of course) rather than just be deleted into oblivion. Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism is a nice neutral page that could benefit from having more accurate info. pschemp | talk 22:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While that's a sensible opinion (and that's precisely what I?m inviting people to do on my last paragraph above), this is not a second MFD to decide what to do with the article. -- Drini 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drini are you complaining that I proposed a sensible option when you ignored all the rules to close it early? (a sensible option you thought, I'm sure.) So what if DRV is not a second MFD. Proposing a sensible option is never wrong. pschemp | talk 22:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know, I just wanted to make the point, since I've seen many controversial DRVs going wrong and becoming second MFDs. You're right, it's never wrong to give a sensible opinion. -- Drini 22:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Endorse Vandal Fighting Tools (Vandal Proof, Vandal Sniper ect) into the RC Patrol and let it rest in peace. It did its duty. (Even though I fought good and hard to keep the CVU from being deleted). Æon Insanity Now!EA! 22:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism is the better solution. Vandalism is something all should help with, not a militaristic non-recognized project that co-ordinates it's activities off wiki. The CVU can organize on their countervandalism.org wiki and their freenode channels. No need for this. -Mask 22:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and let us move on to more productive matters. CVU has been renamed to VCN and has been moved off-site. Nothing more to see here. --Cyde Weys 23:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Undelete. Allow it to have a full MfD discussion before removal. A significant majority was in favor of keeping. The worst that should have come out was "no concensus". Even with the closing statement it looks like one admin putting his will above numerous others. --StuffOfInterest 23:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
YEs, I've acknowledge majority say yes. Ive tackled the arguments. Again, it was not a deletion by whim, it was reasoned. Recall that arguments determine consensus, not majority. -- Drini 23:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And, I'm a bit confused. If an admin closes "delete" without explaining, he's doing his will, if an admin closes AND gives reasonings, it's he doing his will. So what's better, giving or nit giving the arguments on the closure? -- Drini 23:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By no means it was an obvious consensus to keep. If anything, a majority. But most of the "keepers" did not state any argument (just stated they didn't want it to be deleted) -- Drini 23:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist. While I think the end result may have been correct, that doesn't justify the lack of proper process. The general guideline for MfD is eight days. On a hot-button topic like this one, the full time ought to be allowed to pass before a decision is made. This was far from snowball. No matter how well reasoned the decision to close was, it was absolutely premature. Agent 86 23:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, I did follow a policy, and not even a normal one, but a top level one (form the five pillars). Homework: find out which one. -- Drini 00:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know which one you believe would justify your action; but it's rather obvious which of the pillars you violated undertaking it. Kirill Lokshin 00:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The core policy is stated at The five pillars one of them being that process is not a holy thing nor the most important. People are saying they agree with the deletion, not with process, therefore it must be challenged. Have process people forgot that there's a policy allowing disregarding process and policies in some cases ? -- Drini 00:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. [CHECK] I think that while my action was controversial, Iv'e been respectful all the time.
Be civil. Same as above.
Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. I haven't attacked anyone.
Stay cool when the editing gets hot; I think I'm handling things very calmly.
avoid lame edit wars by following the three-revert rule; I don't see reversions.
So, what pillar have I broken? -- Drini 00:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have a rather different understanding of "respect" than I do, then. I'd never have guessed that "respect your fellow Wikipedians" means "cut short a discussion and delete a WikiProject at whim, despite considerable opposition to deletion"; I guess you really do learn something new every day! Kirill Lokshin 00:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you're confusing "respect" with "don't make bold decisions which are controvertial". But yes, you learn something every new day. By the way, CVU was never a wikiproject. -- Drini 00:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What then was it, precisely? If it looks like a WikiProject and acts like a WikiProject (certainly more productively than some WikiProjects I've seen), I'd call it one.
And "controversial" decisions need not be deliberately provocative; but I would characterize this particular decision of yours as the latter, rather than the former. Kirill Lokshin 00:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be incorrect, Drini. WP:IAR is, thankfully, not policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up comment (man, these indents are crazy). Drini cites Wikipedia:Ignore all rules; however, I fail to see how allowing the MfD to run its full course "prevent(s) you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality". It is policy that process on an XfD is important (i.e. the Undeletion Policy). Furthermore, while it's in the context of AfD, Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Early_closure states, "Any substantial debate, regardless of how lopsided the keep/delete count may be, implies that an early closing would be a bad idea." On an issue of this magnatude, time must be given so that editors can have time to weigh in with their comments. An early flood of comments one way or another does not mean that will be the final result. Yes, my initial opinion is that the deletion "may" have been correct, I do not agree that it "was" correct. In fact, I was waiting to see what other viewpoints were brought to the discussion so as to make an informed contribution. If this MfD is allowed to be cut off prematurely, I guess we'll never know what those other viewpoints might have been. Agent 86 01:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well done. Delete, keep deleted, etc. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn & Relist I have one big gripe with this deletion: As it was said above, the MfD ran for less then a day. Drini said there were (in his opinion) far better arguments for the deletion than for the retention. But still why not let it run for at least a day. Perhaps a good reason for keeping the page might have been found if more people had been allowed to participate in the MfD. And less than 24h are hardly enough for such an hotly contested issue. Also, had I been a member of the CVU I might have felt slightly offened - all the hard work, and it was not even worth 24h of discussion? CharonX/talk 00:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist per CharonX and Agent. Not snowballable and I don't see any advantage to not letting the discussion run through the full discussion period. JoshuaZ 00:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. If it's permitted to endorse sensible options, endorse pschemp's sensible option too. If not, please disregard last bit ++Lar: t/c 00:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion No reasonable arguments were made in favor of keeping the CVU, other than impassioned pleas from its members. "It's needed!" or "Don't delete it!" may come from the heart, but they are not reasonable or logical talking points in favor of keeping the CVU around. In the course of both initiating this debate in the first place and stating my case, I never came across any real or valid arguments in favor of maintaining the CVU on Wikipedia. Conversely, the most salient argument in favor of deletion that emerged from the discussion -- and one upheld by Drini's decision -- was that the CVU served no purpose not already served by official, neutral-toned Wikipedia pages such as Wikipedia Vandalism, etc. Those pages have everything the CVU had, plus they do not glorify vandalism OR counter-vandalism the way the CVU did. Dr Chatterjee 00:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy undelete then MfD I'm inclined to agree that the CVU should be deleted and it's component parts merged with WP:Vandalism and the other above mentioned pages, the 'list of famouse vandals' done away with, and maybe some of the above pages modified to reclaim some of the good aspects of the CVU, but it's a bit hard to discuss all this when we cannot see the page. undelete and let the MfD run it's course.
Also, i'd suggest stopping speedy-deleting associated pages, like template:User CVU1-en (the CVU image), as, if the CVU page is undeleted (not exactly impossible), the other pages will have to be undeleted aswell = meaningless work. let this discussion run its cource, and then, if CVU remains deleted, delete the associated pages. --DakAD 00:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok, but I dind't delete such templates. -- Drini 01:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm undeleting it for a while, so people can see what are we discussing, and also to let people who want to merge it into Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism or Wikipedia:Vandalism can do so. I'm acting in good faith. -- Drini 01:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Delete While I think Drini may have acted a bit too quickly (which I see as the only legit argument against his actions), I think the decision was correct. There is no need for this group. They may not do any harm, but the group existing does nothing but give people a reason to think they have more "power" than others.--Joe Jklin (T C) 03:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a bit late to endorse deletion if people are now being asked to merge the content elsewhere, so at this point the best solution is to redirect to Wikipedia:Vandalism and protect the redirect if necessary. This project was a out of line with the welcoming atmosphere that we are otherwise trying to maintain, and was misleading some new users as to how things are done. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Undeleted and Restart MFD. MFD exists for a reason, and if 22 people show up within 1 DAY of a MFD running just to say Keep something, it obviously deserves some debate. Closing the MFD within 1 day is the same as a Speedy Delete, and this page does not appear to meet a speedy deletion criteria, or have any pressing need to have it immediatley deleted. — xaosflux Talk 03:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a vote, as people have reiterated before. It's a consensus based on whoever presents the most valid arguments for their position. In this case, the admin in question decided that the arguments made for deletion were stronger than the arguments made against deletion. It doesn't matter if 22 people showed up and voted to keep the page running, because among those 22 people, not one presented a decent reason for keeping the page around. Or at least not a decent reason that wasn't a simple appeal to emotion and nostalgia. Mister Righteous 03:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In response to that DRV is not a second MFD, it certainly is not..it is a process review...and the only relevant items should be if the deletion was done IN PROCESSS or OUT OF PROCESS, not a place to debate CONTENT. — xaosflux Talk 03:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At the time of deletion, the reasons were certainly in favor of deleting it. Deletion discussions are not a vote, and hand-waving about it being "valuable" and "useful" and "increasing awareness" with no explanation in the face of strong, sound reasons why it should be deleted, is irrelevant. —Centrx→talk • 03:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The amount of votes this article received in favor of "Keep"ing it around during the MfD process is entirely irrelevent, and is not in and of itself a valid reason for un-deleting the page. OF COURSE something like the CVU was going to get more "Keep" votes than "Delete" votes. It's an organization with hundreds of members -- many of whom, I might add, did some lobbying (via IRC or Talk Page messaging) on behalf of the CVU page as soon as they realized it was up for deletion. In the end, the CVU members showed up in large numbers to vote "Keep," but not a one of them presented a compelling case for keeping the CVU around. Furthermore, the MfD process is not a vote. It doesn't matter if the CVU received 22, or 22,000 "Keep" votes. If the Con argument outweighed the Pro argument, then that's all that matters. Dr Chatterjee 04:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Editor's note: Removed a side debate that was becoming uncivil and counterproductive to the issue at hand. All parties involved seem to be in agreement that said conversation was best removed from the record here. If anyone is morbidly curious, feel free to go through backlogs of this page. Dr Chatterjee 05:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment: This is the closest I've come yet to being angry here at Wikipedia. Drini's "explanation" seems to be a rationale for doing what he wanted to do all along, but he had to go through the motions to do it. If the community wants to delete CVU, so be it - but there are processes and procedures and policies for this kind of thing, and discussions are supposed to stay open for a period of time - usually longer than 20 hours. I thought speedy deletes were only to be used for certain well-defined criteria, but it appears that an admin can close any XfD speedily regardless of community feelings or input. It's the Kelly Martin/userbox thing all over again, which happened while I was still an unregistered IP editor. Wasn't anyone paying attention then? For a "community" that claims to have a goal of building an encyclopedia, there certainly is a lot of drama and unilateral action around here. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 04:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of three key criticisms I have with your arguments here:
1) Your anger/emotion has nothing to do with the facts of the case at hand. As has been stated, let's keep this discussion rational, and not emotional.
2) Drini wasn't acting the way he wanted all along, because Drini didn't initiate this debate. I did. If you need someone to be angry with, by all means, let me have it. Don't attack the administrator who simply came in, saw what he saw, and acted on his judgment of the opposing arguments at hand.
3) The existence of a self-styled vigilante force like the CVU runs counter to the idea of building a "community" on this encyclopedia. This is supposed to be a community of contributing editors. But pages like the CVU have spawned a breed of user dedicated ONLY to dealing with vandalism and making a sort of game out of it. These users occasionally don't even bother making constructive additions to the encyclopedia itself; they just come here for the fun of hunting vandals and stepping on toes along the way.
Dr Chatterjee 05:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I was angry - I said I was close to being angry. I don't get emotional about editing here, because you and I both know (based on our careers) that in the big picture, there aren't a lot of reasons to get angry or hurt over this project. Second, I didn't attack Drini - I'm disappointed with his actions and his "explanation". The process is the important thing to me, not the outcome, and the process really got the shaft here. I checked the CVU page before I went to bed late Monday night, and when I got here on Tuesday evening it had been deleted. There's something very, very wrong with that. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 19:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist per Agent 86. Anchoress 05:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion based on lack of valid arguments supporting the reinstatement of the CVU versus compelling arguments in favor of the deletion. ~ Mister Righteous 05:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and relist per Agent 86. VegaDark 06:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding your "CVU was never an officially approved wikiproject," Drini. Since when did wikiprojects ever receive "official" approval? From my understanding, if several editors get together and want to form one, they do so. While it's suggested that you propose one first if you aren't sure there is enough interest in it, it's certainly not a requirement. You don't have to ask permission from anyone. Additionally, the Foundation, administrators, ArbCom, or any other official or semi-official group or individual doesn't need to bless the new project for it to be legit. I doubt most of them (including Jimbo himself) could even tell you how many WikiProjecIts there are (especially since not all of them have "WikiProject" in the title) without doing some research first. There are likely even some projects of which they aren't even aware. Sorry if I'm rambling, but you kept bringing this up (here and in the MfD), so I thought it should be addressed. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted I would probably have voted weak keep, and probably for the wrong reasons. Making certain information on vandalism available is helpful, the style and format of CVU was no longer helpful so it needed to be moved forwards. Now it's gone that moving forward is probably far easier. --pgk(talk) 06:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. About time we got rid of all of this. Arguments for reopening are mostly process wonkery, and we shouldn't reopen debates on pages that were harmful to the encyclopaedia (by encouraging vandalism). --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and re-list on MfD This should not have been closed early. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.69.240 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. I guess normally I'd look at this and be thinking 'out of process deletion, restore!', but in this case I found the arguments to delete far more persuasive than the arguments to keep (surprisingly enough, I never had anything against the CVU). Merging with WP:CUV is a sensible option, the CUV page is a far more neutral format. I'll have a look later to see how much can be moved over; what can't be isn't really worth keeping (the logo's etc). In case that sounds too much like a MFD !vote, here's my pure DRV process bit: I endorse the closure, I believe it is perfectly acceptable for an admin to close a xFD discussion against numerical counts, as long as it is well reasoned based on core polices. I do not endorse it being closed after a day- it should have been left open for the full discussion period. Petros471 10:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn and undelete. Horrid, horrid close, WP:DENY is not policy, the early close was completely inappropriate, etc etc. Absolutely terrible. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse deletion - perhaps the MfD was closed too soon. However, the line of argumentation in favor of keeping CVU was not getting any better. In fact, I didn't see much variance in the arguments as time went on. The only argument being made in favor of deletion is the "official wikiproject" argument, as I agree with most of the CVU supporters in that there technically is no such thing. However, the signage (the logos at the top of the page and the template images) suggested that the CVU is an official subset of Wikipedia, etc., no matter what the CVU claimed in writing halfway down the page. --Carl (talk|contribs) 13:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Reposting below.[reply]

With all due respect, that's precisely the problem. The central purpose of Wikipedia is to write, edit, and enhance articles, not to fight vandalism. Fighting vandalism is a secondary, not primary, activity in the Wikipedia experience. And furthermore, fighting vandalism should be done without passion or fanfare if at all possible, so as to discourage vandals from passionately fighting back. Anything more than a simple reverting and warning of vandals borders on making a game out of vandal fighting. And doing so is detrimental to the very idea of keeping vandalism in check.
Pages like the CVU glamorize the fight against vandalism, and place an undue emphasis on its importance in the overall scheme of things. The CVU has given birth to a culture of Wikipedia editors whose sole purpose on Wikipedia is to fight vandalism. That's counterproductive at best, and borderline dangerous at worst. Regardless of how you want to view vandal-fighting culture, however, it detracts from the real purposes and goals of Wikipedia. Dr Chatterjee 14:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Give it the proper amount of time. --Kbdank71 13:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Delete may have been out of process but however I have discussed this with Drini and have lookover his comments. I doubt that he ws 'Doing what he allways wanted to do'. I think we should all assume tha tit was deleted in good faith (not saying that anybody is accussing him of doing so but wanted to bring it up) and lets move on there are otehr ways to fight the vandals so lets get to it. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 14:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether the delete was in good faith is one thing, but the CVU was obviously an important tool for people, and shouldn't be discarded so flippantly, either, especially when it's impossible to have heard all the necessary arguments in such a short time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can assume good faith as well as everyone else, but this seems simple-this was a speedy deletion, and is contested-contested speedy deletions are referred to xFD. I haven't heard of any reason why this page that has been active for over a year needs to be speedily deleted. — xaosflux Talk 14:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there really are "necessary arguments" to be made in favor of the CVU, then by all means, someone should step forward and make them. In the admittedly brief time that this MfD was up, not ONE of the 22 pro-CVU editors in the debate made a salient argument in favor of keeping the CVU. All of their arguments consisted of little more than "The CVU is necessary!" or "The CVU gives us tools to fight vandals!" Drini and others have disproved both of those arguments, on the grounds that a) The same tools can be found elsewhere, minus the glorification and editorialization present at CVU, and thus, b) CVU is not "necessary" as such. The MfD may have been closed pretty quickly, but in the amount of time it had been up, the arguments in favor of the CVU weren't trending any more sophisticated than those two lines of thought, both of which had been discounted numerous times. If someone has a logical and halfway-sophisticated argument in favor of keeping the CVU intact, it sure hasn't been stated in the MfD or here. Dr Chatterjee 14:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is NOT MFD-Arguments for keeping or not keeping this page sould be made at MFD, unfortuantley that opportunity was spoiled by a speedy delete. — xaosflux Talk 14:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist as it was closed very early in a MfD discussion. So early that it is unreasonable to make any statement about the likely weight of argument at the end of the discussion. Unless the page meets a criteria for speedy deletion, or the deletion discussion is already overwhelming in both quantity and quality, early closes should be relisted. This is even more true when the discussion has lasted less than 24 hours. This sort of behavior is in my eyes a violation of WP:CIVIL by the deleter. GRBerry 15:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I am in agreement with the reasons for deletion, but CVU is important to a large number of users, and I don't see why we shouldn't hear them out. That's not to say that views with non-encyclopedia-oriented reasoning should be given equal weight in the decision, just that the debate should have the ordinary amount of time. Why are we in a hurry? -- SCZenz 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This poisoned the well, and merited deletion for the good of the project. Closing it early was a bit irregular, but there were few arguments made for it and mostly pile-on keeps from people who were "members" of this. Project existence should not be guaranteed by the fact that its members will bloc-vote to keep it. --Improv 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is also unfortunate when we start seeing what looks like CVU members using sockpuppets on AfD/Deletion review, and incredible incivility from said group in these discussions. This might underline the harm that the group does to Wikipedia culture, whether it leads to a militaristic/antisocial mindset or attracts people who have it. --Improv 16:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is unfortunate you are saying people who aren't members are and are trying to smear the work the CVU does by doing so. Most of the legitimate CVU people have endorsed the deletion, including me. Stop trying to paint us all with the same brush. The legitimate CVU people never endorsed or used the psuedo military crap started by CoolCat, and still don't. pschemp | talk 16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I cannot speak about Coolcat in the early days (not having noticed CVU until it started to be problematic), but I recall talking with him about ways to reform the CVU in the past, we worked together on redefining it as a simple guide to fighting vandalism without members, and when he made the changes, the CVU, by and large, went completely spare and he almost left the project due to all the attacks he recieved from CVU folk. I now regret that I didn't step in more and speak on his behalf at the time, but if Coolcat has any blame for any of this (which I don't know), in the end I believe he has been shown to have good judgement on the whole thing. What I see in this discussion, by contrast, is more of the same problem attitude that I saw then. CVU had some good members too, and I don't want to paint all its members with a broad brush, but by and large it hurts Wikipedia much more than if the same people were working to deal with vandalism (and other problems) solo. --Improv 18:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So you are going to paint everyone with the same brush anyway. That's lovely of you. I'm glad you admit to not having all the data, because it is obvious you don't. It was CoolCat who designed the psuedo-military feel of the project at the beginning and sent it down that path. If you didn't notice though, I agree that the page should be deleted, but smearing the people who work hard to fix vandalism is highly offensive. The bots that keep things in check are collaborative efforts that 1. Have nothing to do with the CVU page here, and 2. Are much more accurate because a group of people are working on them, not just a solo person and 3. Are in no way hurting wikipedia. If you have proof that the current vandalism fighting efforts as run on #vandalism-en-wp are hurting wikipedia, please show it to me. Otherwise you might want to stick to saying why this page should be deleted rather than carrying a torch for your personal vandetta against the CVU. pschemp | talk 03:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • What are you talking about? Where am I painting everyone with the same brush? As stated above, I believe there were CVU "members" that were good folk, and that the fighting of vandalism was generally done well. I don't have a vendetta, personal or otherwise. I support the removal of the page because I think CVU, despite the good "members", was damaging the community, and moving it off wiki and/or deformalising it so everything happens back within the community proper without a separate group will fix things. I'm not talking about the bots -- if they help deal with vandalism, that's great, and I hope they keep doing it, just not as part of CVU which needs to go away. --Improv 15:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who supports keeping the deletion as it was done is a complete moron. The actions of Drini are completely irreprehensible and are exactly what turn good editors into vandals. You can't delete something against a keep consensus just because you feel like it! And there are several good reasons to keep the CVU:

  1. The often cited fact that the CVU became a major vandalism target is a good thing. There is a finite amount of vandalism that can be committed, so isn't it better for you that vandals should target the CVU instead of articles?
  2. Vandal fighting is rather tedious and somewhat undesirable work. Why not have a "club" to make it more fun?
  3. The CVU is a good place for links to anti-vandal resources and discussion. Yes, this can be done elsewhere, but the CVU provides a central location.

So why is a vandal in favor of keeping the CVU around (I'm TJWhite and Orange Rocks)?

  1. Because the CVU is good at eliminating the blatant, childish vandalism that I dislike as much as you.
  2. The CVU provides someone to discuss issues of interest to both vandals and legitimate issues with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange Fever (talk • contribs) NOTE: THIS USER'S SOLE PURPOSE FOR BEING HERE IS TO VANDALISE, AS HIS CONTRIBUTIONS SUCH AS THIS ONE PROVE.
First, I don't exactly appreciate being called a moron. Second, as has been said numerous times, a head-count does not constitute consensus. Third, I don't remember saying (nor the others saying) that the CVU itself has been a target for vandalism. I remember saying that the presence of the CVU encouraged vandalism because it gave vandals something to work for and against. Fourth, no one said the CVU had to disband necessarily. This is just removing the Wikipedia store front, as it were. Fifth, I personally like being able to type WP:V to get to the Vandalism page, where I can navigate by links to the necessary anti-vandalism pages and tools. Sixth, isn't all vandalism childish? Seventh, from what I understand, the CVU has off-wiki means of communication. They don't need a Wikipedia storefront, and I personally have discussed vandalism with other major editors on articles where we have engaged in reverting serious vandalism. --Carl (talk|contribs) 21:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: On Ignore All Rules: The concept is important to Wikipedia. The nature of the concept makes it fundamental to the working of Wikipedia. It has a long tradition, and deep and subtle meaning.

In other words, the capability of not doing everything by-the-process is fundamental to wikipedia. That's why it's a pillar. But again, that's only crazy jimbo opinion -- Drini 16:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not a pillar. Our inability to outgrow such a practice that made sense when Wikipedia wasn't as popular doesn't make it a pillar now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agian, it IS a pillar, it is policy, and it has been so for years. Your refulsa to acknowledge it doesn't change the fact that it's policy and one of the core ones. WP:5P -- Drini 16:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept its policy, as much as I'm going to continue to work to change that. Your interpretation of it as one of the major pillars, however, is disturbing, and causes me to question your ability to be an administrator with this context.

--badlydrawnjeff talk 16:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fifth pillar is that there are no firm rules, and one of the points in the Simplified Ruleset (under conduct) is the ignore all rules statement. --Carl (talk|contribs) 16:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, there's a first part to WP:IAR that you seem to persistently omit: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality..." (emphasis mine). I've seen a lot of highly questionable assertions about how the CVU was redundant, unnecessary, etc.; but you have failed to provide a single reason why leaving the discussion open for a few more days would "prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality". Kirill Lokshin 16:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SHould it be decided by DRV so be it. Meanwhile I state it because people only focus on the process not on the substance that is behind. And DRV is much more focused on process. -- Drini 16:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOw I'll tackle your points.

  1. The often cited fact... Yes I agree this isn't the issue. And I've said it many times here.
You miss my true point there. What I'm saying is that vandalism of the CVU is a good thing: a reason to keep it, so that the vandals (myself included i suppose) spend time on the CVU page rather than going after your precious articles. Orange Fever 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Vandal fighting is rather tedious and somewhat undesirable work. because noone is forcing you to do so. There is alread ya "club" at VCN pages. The issue is not wether have it or not, but if CVU should be it.
Why shouldn't the CVU be it? Why should you have to leave Wikipedia to interact with other people interested in fighting vandalism? Orange Fever 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The CVU is a good place for links to anti-vandal resources and discussion. Yes, this can be done elsewhere, but the CVU provides a central location.. The are already other central locations. There are good places for the link.s. So your same argument supports the deletion by redundancy.
Please name one such location. Cleaning up vandalism, for example, deals only with cleaning up vandalism not broader anti-vandal issues. Orange Fever 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Because the CVU is good at eliminating the blatant. NO!! CVU does not elimiate vandalism, it's the people (coordinated by VCN not CVU). CVU has a negligible (as organization) result on the vandalism cleanup. So again. CVU is not good at eleiminating vandalism.
Now you're just making things up. The sense of community fostered by the CVU encourages many to fight vandalism, and that sense of community belongs inside Wikipedia, not forced to the outside. Furthermore, the knowledge that so many others are fighting vandalism boosts morale. Orange Fever 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The CVU provides someone to discuss issues of interest to both vandals and legitimate issues with. Again per redundancy, this is not needed. People wanting to discuss have proper places.
But what's the harm in having another place for the discussion? That's the real problem here, all arguments for deletion are in essence rephrasings of "the same stuff happens other places" and "it glorifies vandalism". Redundancy is not a problem. Isn't it better to have more ways to get involved in anti-vandal activity? As for vandal glorification, WP:LTA does far more in that line than the CVU. Orange Fever 20:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Drini 16:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Yes, it was prematurely deleted. But it was heading for a deletion anyway. No need to run it through yet another discussion – Gurch 17:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Closer's comments above amount to opinion which he can raise as an editor in the deletion debate and leave closure to a disinterested editor. The notion that the "delete" arguments were stronger than the "delete" arguments, hence early closure, is complete bong. That's why we run debates for multiple days, to give both sides time to offer their best arguments. There's any number of XfD's where an argument or evidence brought on the second days swayed the public opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 17:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or transfer - Everything it contains is redundant; a list of vandal-fighting software can be transfered elsewhere, and discussion about vandal activity can take place at WP:LTA. Sadly, the page's only unique feature is that it serves to glorify vandals by treating them like terrorists or something and giving them the impression that they are feared and/or highly regared "opponents".--Lorrainier 17:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think that the fact that vandals such as that Orange Fever above want the CVU page to stay is proof that it should be deleted.--Lorrainier 17:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless of course, I'm expressing support for the CVU so that you think vandals want it and thus delete which was my original goal in the first place, making vandalism easier. Which do I really want? Remember, you can't trust a vandal Orange Fever 02:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Closing was grossly out of line: first of all, it was closed way too soon. Second of all, the closing admin did not summarize the arguments or note the vote totals. His closing summary took no account whatevever of the counter arguments. His closing summary would have been appropriate for a commentor, but not for a closing admin. Bad, bad close. Herostratus 17:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As a user who has engaged in vandalism myself, I always found this page to be a great jumping-off point for determining how best to attack Wikipedia. The argument that the Counter Vandalism Unit (and also the LTA subpages given to vandals) glorify vandalism is quite valid. Without such pages on Wikipedia giving me a "fanbase", as it were, for my operations, hell, vandalism just isn't as much fun anymore. At heart, most vandals are simply trolls, and such pages are excellent troll fodder. I see nothing wrong with a group of users coordinating to fight persistant vandals, but this is something which is better handled off-wiki. --72.160.103.208 17:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Some people don't login every 24 hours and would have been unable to vote in this. The administrator responsible is misusing the policy to ignore due process to justify his actions. Fighting vandalism is monotonous and stressful and any people gathering to do so should be commended and allowed to do so, not disbanded. --Username132 (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
XfD's are not votes. We donot vote on wikipedia. Æon Insanity Now!EA! 18:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • they are not being "disbanded." The CVU has other off-wiki means of communicating and gathering, and there are other groups for vandal-fighting which have offered a less militaristic approach to the subject, such as VCU. It is best handled off wikipedia because it allows vandal-fighters to coordinate efforts without necessarily including the vandals themselves, as the on-wiki CVU pages are open to public inspection. I do not have a problem necessarily with the CVU's existence. I do have a problem with the way it is presented and advertised on Wikipedia. I have a problem with the way it seems to think that there are no other central repositories of vandalism-fighting tools and techniques. I have a problem with the use of official Wikimedia logos in a way other than prescribed by Wikimedia's image use policy and as the symbols of a group that does not actually hold official Wikimedia and Wikipedia standing. I do not have a problem with people dedicating their time and effort in reverting vandalism. I don't have a problem with those same people congregating to coordinate anti-vandalism efforts. I do have a problem with the paramilitary feel of the CVU and the general unfriendliness it exhibits. --Carl (talk|contribs) 18:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - A group that's been around for this long at least deserves a full discussion. There are a lot of people who are invested in this project, and even if the end result is to delete, they should have an opportunity to let their reasonings be heard. I get the impression that the decision has already been made to delete it regardless of the support it garners, but at least hear out what people have to say on a fair MfD nomination. --Cswrye 20:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment its been pointed out that DRVs should be about wether or not the delete was legitimate, NOT wether the page should be deleted or existant; i'd like to point out that the majority of the votes to 'delete' have been MfD style votes (ie, people expressing their oppinion that the page should be deleted, not that the delete was legit), whereas most of the votes to overturn the deleteion have been comments on the validity of the delete, not MfD-style 'keep' votes. in fact, a few of the 'delete' votes seem to acknoeledge that the delete was out of process. in addition, as the article is temporarily undeleted, and we're arguing about its future anyway, i'd suggest that, pragmatically, the best and easyest cource of action would be to simply fully-undelete and imediately relist it for deletion. --DakAD 22:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep undeleted. Deserves a full discussion. Yes, admins should look at arguments presented rather than just tallying recommendations - but it follows that we must give people time to marshal the arguments. Haukur 00:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, do NOT allow renomination for deletion for the next three months -- Deletion of longstanding, popular project page, against consensus, less than 24 hours after the initial Miscellany for deletion nomination is completely unjustifiable. Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit has existed since August 2005, and does not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. No explanation whatsoever as been offered as to why Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit really needed to be speedily deleted, and the deletion couldn't wait for the full 8 day discussion. Furthermore, closure of a Miscellany for deletion discussion against numerical consensus for keeping the page, based on the alleged weakness of the arguments advanced for retention of the page, is particularly inappropriate when the discussion has been curtailed to less than 24 hours, and the opportunity to advance arguments for retention of the page has been correspondingly limited. Additionally, the premature deletion of Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit has impaired the ability of both this deletion review, and a subsequent Miscellany for deletion discussion (if any) to truly consider the whether there is consensus for this deletion, since it appears that the initial deletion has driven most members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit away from the page: very few members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit have commented at this deletion review, which stands in stark contrast to the strong showing exhibited at the initial miscellany for deletion discussion. In my opinion, an equitable solution would be to restore Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit, and to prohibit any further Miscellany for deletion nominations of this project page for the next three months. John254 01:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and express a strong desire to beat everyone turning DRV into XFD to a bloody pulp. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 02:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely speedy undelete, totally inappropriate close. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overtun and undelete. I understand the wish to limit the number of "anti-vandalism" pages, and I think this page is ultimately redundant with WP:AIV and related pages which work pretty well without this. As such, I think Drini is right that the page should be retired. However, the history shows that this has been a serious amount of anti-vandalism work carried out with this page, and that it has had use in the past. The correct way to retire pages like this is not to delete them, but to tag them with {{historical}}. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist on MfD Yes preferably it would stay undeleted but that's not what's up for discussion at the moment. The MfD should have been allowed to run it's full course as many users were not able to have their arguements voiced. If it ran it's course I'm fairly certain more users would accept a descision of "delete" if it were the concencus. Canadian-Bacon t c e 07:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page has been up —and active— for all this time, and suddenly there's no time for a propper MfD? El_C 07:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I'm really not sure whether Drini was right to delete the page or not; however, in a case as reasonably controversial as this speedy-closing (either as keep or delete) seems inappropriate. Let us have 8 days of debate, as is usual (will keeping this around for 8 days really be a problem?), and then let the admins weigh up the arguments. (I wouldn't mind a close against weight of votes as long as the closing admin states why the situation has occured.) Also, I agree with Sjakkalle that it is usual to mark such pages historical; WP:DENY (disclamer: WP:DCEATCTAITWP) is the only reason I can think of for outright deletion, and that only gathered 2/3 support in a straw poll (second disclamer: WP:VIE). --ais523 10:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn, I don't have any feelings about this particular page but it sets a bad precedent for an admin to dismiss the discussion at hand and delete a page based on his own strong opinions. Drini should have expressed his thoughts in the MfD rather than closing it. — GT 12:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. All that happens when the opportunity for discussion is withdrawn unfairly is that frustration and anger boil over. I'm disturbed by Drini's wiki-lawyering to the early posters on this DRV regarding process. I'm suggesting that Drini excuses himself from closing the relisted MfD. Clappingsimon talk 12:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist (or reopen the closed MfD). As the length of this drv shows, this is an issue that needs a full discussion. The closing rationale may not be invalid, but the early closure did not give time to everybody interested to show up and comment and provide arguments in favour or against. (Liberatore, 2006). 13:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. We really don't need these silly paramilitary things. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or at least mark {{historical}}. --Chris (talk) 17:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With regard to marking the CVU "historical," I think that defeats one of the primary purposes of a deletion: namely, to keep vandalism unglorified, and to deny recognition of it. By marking the CVU historical, we keep the page around for vandals to see, and we do more harm than good. Also, to consider a page like the CVU "historical" is to imply that it's had some sort of central, historical impact on Wikipedia. I don't believe that to be the case whatsoever. It's had a significant impact on the free time of its several hundred members. But it hasn't had any significance re: the formation or growth of Wikipedia as a whole. It's a fun little game that a tiny minority of Wikipedians played, but that's about it. Dr Chatterjee 18:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist MfD was improperly closed. Whispering(talk/c)
  • What the... As of almost 48 hrs ago, it has already been undeleted to "let people merge it on other pages". I am really curious what you've all been going on about during that time. I guess we:
    • Copy some of its contents elsewhere first, then we
    • Re-delete it, and
    • Allow this deletion review debate to reach its full time and conclude that:
      • The reasons for deletion were good, but
      • It was done wayyy out of process, so we
    • Re-undelete it, and we
    • Re-re-relist it at XfD, and
    • Allow that debate to reach its full time and conclude that:
      • The reasons for deletion are good, so we
    • Re-re-delete it. 192.75.48.150 18:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have already basically completed the merge.--Lorrainier 23:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete, and take the CVU to the ArbCom if necessary. Trying to shut down a group by deleting its page will only upset the group. It may spawn an International Society of Vandals like what Bobby Boulders was trying to build because the CVU's members would feel betrayed by the sudden deletion. I am not a member of the CVU, but I lived most of my life in Alabama, whose history is full of lynchings, and I do not think that turning the CVU into a vandalism mob by deleting its page is a good idea. If the CVU is already acting like a dangerous mob already, taking it to the ArbCom sounds like a better idea to reign it in than deleting its user page. If it is not doing much damage, leave it alone. Its page also is a good honeypot, because it generates many enemies with vandals, causing them to waste their time vandalizing it instead of Jimmy Wales, for example. Jesse Viviano 23:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is pretty silly, but I'll say one thing: if the CVU is really as thin a line away from being a bunch of raucous vandals as you claim it is, then that's all the more reason for keeping it deleted. We don't need to cater to that sort of element; we need to rid ourselves of it. And besides, even if your doomsday scenario played itself out -- and all the former CVU members turned into vandals overnight -- they'd still be shot down, one by one, pretty quickly. It's not like 200-odd random people vandalizing is any different from what happens on a given day at Wikipedia. Dr Chatterjee 02:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is based on the fact that people do irrational things when they get betrayed, like what happened here. I do not believe that it is silly. I feel that the VCN, a group that is nearly completely unknown, is using procedure (and the wrong one, too) to shut down a apparently useful group because it wanted to score a coup, similar to coups in some countries in the world destroy legitimate governments. I have never heard about the VCN before I saw this deletion review, and it looks just like FARC trying to take over Columbia because the VCN, like FARC, is not a popular group, is trying to eliminate a legitimate organization. (I know that FARC is not popular except among drug cartels because it is a narcoterrorist group trying to conquer Columbia to turn it into a communist country and that it uses drugs to finance itself, and that VCN is not popular because it is a relatively unknown group; but the analogy still stands because someone that is not popular is trying to destroy a legitimate organization that is popular. By the way, the site mentioned above, http://www.countervandalism.org/, requires people to be established CVU members before they get basic privileges on it [1]. Jesse Viviano 17:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete- If two heads are better than one, then numerous Wikipedian anti-vandalism heads will do much more than one vandal hater. bibliomaniac15 00:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. This was not a good example of WP:SNOW. Metamagician3000 01:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - DRV is about the process, not about the content, and I'll repeat drini's caution that this is not a second MFD. The issue here is "was the deletion carried out following process"? Is anyone seriously suggesting it was? I think an answer of yes requires there to have been some extraordinary circumstance warranting a tremendously premature close. I'm not seeing it. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist, per Metamagician3000. In case this isn't overturned, I just want to say the "pseudo military" argument is unfounded. The only things that support this are the two user boxes and a category. We have stuff like WP:SNOW, WP:DICK, and WP:IAR. I think the name of the page is acceptable. We all need to lighten up. --ZsinjTalk 02:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While it has been pointed out that this is not an MfD, we (self included) have effectively turned it into one, as we have mostly focused on content and not process. Procedurally, I'm starting to agree with the overturn group. However, as we have turned this in to a practical MfD, I would suggest that if the deletion review succeeds (as it probably will, if only process-related arguments are considered by the closing admin), the delete/keep arguments presented here should be counted as part of the subsequent MfD. If this review is allowed to go a full week, I would somewhat suggest that this be the MfD and that an additional admin close this as an MfD. While this isn't exactly according to policy, I would point out that most, if not all, of the arguments to be raised at the next MfD will have probably already been hashed out here. --Carl (talk|contribs) 02:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed completely. You could overturn this deletion on process technicalities, relist it for MfD, and have that MfD last for 800 days if you wanted to. All that would happen is that people would rehash the same arguments they've brought out under the original MfD and here. And if those arguments are any indication, there is STILL no good reason to keep the CVU around. It's time we faced the fact that it's just not that no one has had time to bring up a good pro-CVU argument; it's that there IS no possible good pro-CVU argument to be made. Dr Chatterjee 03:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Whether or not the original deletion was valid under the conditions of WP:SNOW, I would argue that it now certainly fits the bill. It's pretty clear that, if re-listed for MfD, the same result would happen at the end of the debate: the arguments for deletion would overwhelm the arguments against deletion, and all that would change is that we'd have wasted 8 days "discussing" the inevitable. In the >24 hours (however long it was) that the CVU's MfD lasted, there were nearly twice as many pro-CVU "voters" as there were pro-deletionists. One would think with those kind of odds, the pro-CVU contingent would have had plenty of time and opportunity among its majority of people to marshall a convincing argument against deletion -- if such an argument even existed. The fact that that many people in that much time didn't bring up any good arguments in favor of the CVU is evidence enough that the CVU should remain deleted. Dr Chatterjee 02:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment 1/ this should not be treated as a second MfD, nor predictive of the outcome of a second MfD, simply because very few arguments against a delete have been presented here, presumably because those in favour of keeping have been focusing on arguments against the procedure of the delete, which obviously won't count as 'keep' arguments. 2/ the entire point is that 20 hours is not ample time for arguments to be put forth; i dont see why 8 days should be ample time in most cases, whereas, for this progect page, 20 hours is apparently enough. 3/ if your so sure that the article would be deleted anyway, why not just accept relisting, let it have it's full 8 days, and then watch it be deleted again? surely it'd be less time-wasting than the current argument, and 4/ reguarding your dismissal of the contributions of people who mainly/soley revert vandalism, whilst i agree that there are detrimental ways to go about this, the act of only reverting vandalism is not, in and of itself, bad. what if there were groups whos members only fixed typos, or only fixed double-redirect? would their contribution be bad, because it's all that they do? --DakAD 03:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. The CVU is an increasingly myopic organization that misunderstands its relationship to the community, to policy, and to vandalism. It was a nice idea, but it has consistently proven more interested in generating warning templates and instruction creep than in demonstrating concretely its use in vandal fighting - something we were not exactly failing at prior to its creation. Phil Sandifer 03:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case it's at all relevant to this deletion review, I'm copying over an excerpt from my talk page from a few days ago regarding a violation of the sockpuppetry policy at the MfD we're discussing (the three accounts in question were arguing for deletion):
    I have to be rather firm about this one: Assume good faith is not an excuse to turn the other cheek at blatant sockpuppetry.
    I assure you that none of them are newcomers; they all belong to one single user. In times like these when accurately measuring the consensus of the community is extremely important (especially in the situation we have here with the page on DRV), letting other users become aware of sockpuppetry is crucial. ~ PseudoSudo 22:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~ PseudoSudo 03:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my prior vote to Speedy Undelete and Relist. After considering the actual question at hand, I don't think the timing of the MfD closure can be adequately justified by WP:IAR and WP:SNOW. Therefore, because this is a review of the process, not of the outcome, it should probably be overturned on that basis. I am fairly confident, however, that if this were put up for another MfD, the outcome would be the same. If we were to wait until the appropriate time to close this deletion review and then go another week on another MfD, it would draw out the process unnecessarily. So, I move for a speedy undelete and immediate relisting, just so that no one can complain that procedure was not followed, whatever the outcome. --Carl (talk|contribs) 03:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted please. — Dan | talk 03:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Argument in favor of retention of the Counter-Vandalism Unit:

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 04:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong support for UNDELETE of the CVU. Restore the WP:CVU at once, and then please leave us alone to do our job. The first I heard of the MfD on my topmost (and favorite) user group was when the "membership icons" suddenly vanished off of my user page, and the links to CVU had "gone red". Some of us who spend half of our wiki-time searching for and reverting vandalism need to have an official banner or "badge" to show to the vandals and trolls that we mean business, and are acting on the behalf of the Wikipedia. Nevermind whether the CVU has any real "power" or "authority" under the "banner" - just the appearance of a CVU badge is enough to scare off the "rookie" vandals and set them (hopefully) on the straight and narrow. Anyway this sudden deletion has all the appearance of a shameless act by a rogue vandal, who happens to be hiding under the flag of an adminship; and IMHO, this sort of abuse by an administrator should be brought up for a review for possible revocation, regardless of the "reasons" the admin comes up with to explain his/her actions. --T-dot 13:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this isn't a second MfD, and I'm trying to restrain myself from getting into MfD-type discussions (I haven't always been successful in that regard, but neither have most people here, evidently...). But at any rate, this post is ridiculous. "Some of us...need to have an official banner or badge to show vandals and trolls we mean business." First of all, the CVU is not and never was "official." That's half your problem right there. The misconception that you were on any sort of official business is indicative of the problematic and misguided nature of the CVU. Secondly, "showing the vandals and trolls you mean business" does nothing but incite them to more vandalism and trolling. It shows that a) they can get a rise out of you, and b) if they keep it up, you'll spend half your time talking about them and giving them cute little names and discussion areas. Don't feed the trolls. Furthermore, your accusation that the closing admin (Drini) is a "rogue vandal" in disguise would be funny, were it not borderline offensive. Dr Chatterjee 14:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. I very much like this group. It's no different than a WikiProject or the Birthday Committee to me: a group of Wikipedians who like a particular subject. This subject happens to be cleaning up Wikipedia. Works for me.--Mike Selinker 14:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. This article was deleted incorrectly assuming that there would be no more discussion. (Comment: 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 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.) --TinMan 15:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this point in time this discussion has more or less devolved into a second MfD, whether we wanted it to or not. I think an admin should step up and take the next step at this point: consider all the arguments at hand, and make a decision -- whether to overturn and relist, or keep deleted. Whatever it's going to be, let's pull the trigger. It's obvious that we've lost any semblance of a process discussion here, and given the way things are going, it'll probably keep trending that way. Dr Chatterjee 17:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A smack in the face to those who followed proper procedure, refraining from citing their opinions of the page in this discussion, will not be done. ~ PseudoSudo 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? I'm talking about FOLLOWING PROCEDURE and making a decision here: are we going to re-list this, or not? Somebody step up and make the call at this point. It's obvious that we're getting nowhere by keeping this in the DRV phase forever. When I said "pull the trigger," I meant "make a decision either way." It was not meant to imply "deletion." Dr Chatterjee 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Without taking on the issue of whether to delete the CVU or not (DRV is not MfD). I think that Drini should be held accountable for his perversions of the Wikipedia process and his "rogue" actions. While I do not call him a vandal (that would probably be a personal attack), it is unacceptable to have an administrator on Wikipedia who disregards policy, tradition, and consensus. While there are generally high standards for administrator recall, ask yourself this: if Drini somehow lost admin status and had to go through another RfA, what would you do? I think the simple answer is that 50% or more of participants would vote "oppose". In light of this, I believe that Drini should be removed from his position. If you support this, please drop me a note on my talk page so that we can decide how to precede (arbitration, etc.). ShortJason 18:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC) I am temporarily removing this comment. ShortJason 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Calling him a vandal might be a personal attack, but more than that it would be an effective way to broadcast that you have no idea what the word means. The good-faith nature of Drini's actions is quite apparent to me. I disagree with his judgement in this case: I think he generated more DRAMA!! by closing the discussion early than was worth it (which is why early closures are almost always a foolish idea), but his conclusion seems correct to me. MfD isn't a vote, and the arguments for deletion were clearly much stronger than the arguments for keeping. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it. I'm a pretty new user who stumbled on this. My first article just finished going thru AfD so I can sympathize with people who don't want their work deleted. But, I think that we should get rid of the CVU for all of the reasons that other people have said. It definitely glorifies vandals. I don't know about all of your policies (I have read some), but it seems like we shouldn't give vandals attention. That's what they want after all. Forever Old 18:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted There seems to be a presumption that fighting vandalism is an end all of its own and I feel that this is distracting from the actual objective - to write an encyclopedia. Instead of getting all tied into process why don't we all go and write an article or do some RC patrol or something actually useful to the project? I don't like the slightly sinister conotations of the CVU and we are much better off with this completely off wiki. --Spartaz 21:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This debate has inspired me to author the essay WP:HERO, which I feel is apropos in several ways here. Namely, quite a few people on either side of this debate are arguing from -- or appealing to -- a purely emotional standpoint. It doesn't matter how fond of, or attached to, the CVU you've grown over the last year. Try to come at this from a standpoint of logic, reason, and impartiality. Dr Chatterjee 21:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete Investigate Drinis behaviour. This was entirely inappropriate and personally I'm tired of seeing process trampled on by people who feel they know better.--Crossmr 00:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete/keep Page seems to be there, I dont know what the hell hapened but I do not like this campaign against a wikiproject. --Cat out 01:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To my knowledge, Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit was never moved off wiki. I am not up to date because Essjay banned me from -vandalism related irc channels. So far he hasnt informed me exactly why.
    • 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 [2] 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.
    --Cat out 01:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per above reasons. —Khoikhoi 01:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist utterly out of process. Having a controversial MfD run for one day is naive at best as this DRV clearly shows. 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. ViridaeTalk 03:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: CVU has been relisted at WP:MFD. Cowman109Talk 05:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit&oldid=1147963533"