Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fraud Protection Unit

Wikipedia:Fraud Protection Unit

Disruptive project that duplicates the function of many other forms of dispute resolution and vandalism reversion. Nakon 22:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per my reasoning on the ANI thread about this. This seems overly bureaucratic, and probably redundant. (See the Counter Vandalism Unit and Long Term Abuse). I don't see a need to centralize anything here: if someone has a habit of make bad edits, warn, then if needed RBI. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Not a very auspicious start: Warning a long-term editor today for an edit made in 2005 just smacks of bad faith here. Besides that, the OP is right that this is unnecessary duplication of other processes we have in place already. -- Kesh (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a completely honest diff as it was toned down even before the user saw it. BVande (talk) 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You still made the edit. Nakon 22:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, ugly, and badly executed. Not worth marking as historical as, well, there's no history. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep No place in WP keeps attract of a possible pattern of willful misinformation. The page has been up less than 1 hour and already 2 pieces of wrong information has been reported. There is no bureaucracy, you just volunteer. We still AGF and probably excuse a few errors but we will notice if a lot of errors are made suggesting sneaky vandalism. BVande (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Fraud_Protection_Unit&action=history, you are the only editor of the page, if we ignore Nakon's AfD notice. Would you please provide the diffs of the the two reports. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There were TWO reports but one of them was reverted by the nominator even though it has clearly wrong information. BVande (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

And both reports were stale and added by you. Nakon 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as stale. There was wrong information and in both cases, it persisted for over 2-3 years. However, you win. I give up. I do not agree with "delete" and will not change my vote but I will cease to add comments. Cruxify me, keep adding comments, and twist the sword in my stomach if you will, but please don't. BVande (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So someone creates an article, and you draw up a report on them? From the initial state of the article, it's presumably one of the editors first edits (given that they signed the page). This is pretty much the definition of assuming bad faith. A quick look at their contributions shows that this is clearly a good faith editor. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonsense on stilts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this bureaucratic hilariousness, if only to help protect the reputation of its author. You're warning someone for an edit in January 2005? Grandmasterka 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As above, besides, I kinda like WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - User:BVande's first edit was 8 days ago. MickMacNee (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Whats the benefit of keeping a dossier on trivial factual errors? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)