Misplaced Pages

:Miscellany for deletion/Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism Unit (2nd nomination) - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John254 (talk | contribs) at 03:30, 10 September 2006 (removing comments made by banned user after he was banned per Misplaced Pages:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits -- see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr Chatterjee). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:30, 10 September 2006 by John254 (talk | contribs) (removing comments made by banned user after he was banned per Misplaced Pages:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits -- see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dr Chatterjee)(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 Reasoning: 1. This is not a vote. Arguments do count. 2. CVU was never an officially recognized wikiproject. 3. There's WP:VAND for starters, and there's a whole wiki out there for information and gathering, www.countervandalism.org 4. IT's bait. 5. The frenode vandalism channels are not affiliated with wikipedia (that's why they aren't called #wikipedia-something like the others). Therefore, the pages do not belong to wikipedia. Ergo. Delete -- Drini 21:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism Unit

Dr Chatterjee 01:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Previous nomination at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit. ~ PseudoSudo 01:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Meh. Trying to counter vandalism in general has perhaps 'generated' those vandals. Other than that, the same one has attacked that page a few times in the last few months. Also, by the same token, ANI gets hit by vandals "like moths to a flame." There's better ways to channel your anger about vandals if you take deny recognition to heart. Kevin_b_er 01:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep! This is a NEEDED group! Myself and other members of the CVU help fight vandals and prevent the damge to articles on Misplaced Pages. Æon EA! 01:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    What you have described nothing different than what I and many other unaffiliated Wikipedians do each day. I'm not sure how this justifies the existence of the CVU. --Carl 02:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. In that it helps to coordinate efforts against vandalism, I can't really see any reason to delete it. It's not spawning vandals. alphaChimp 01:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
They are going to come ANYWAYS. We need something like this inorder to coordinate effort not everyone has access to IRC so something like this is needed. Æon EA! 02:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Some do! And some also need a project like this in order to fight the vandals (To give them info, programs and tools to do it). Æon EA! 02:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, those are exactly the people I dont want fighting vandals. Getting to those tools is something that happens as you explore, become familiar with policy and grow as a wikipedia. I want them to be slightly hard to find so that I know that most of the users will have knowledge beyond learning-level of wikipedian. That shows a bit of dedication to the community, more then the edit count restrictions placed on those tool do (quick learners would get there faster, but mostly be engaged and knowledgable about it, slower learners would get there with higher edit counts then the standards, and hopefully be informed enough.) a centralized place to get powerful tools is a recipe for diaster. -M 02:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record, Blu Aardvark has demonstrably nothing to do with the CVU. ~ PseudoSudo 02:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Huh? I don't think that there was any implication to that effect. I think the point was being made that because the CVU has drawn attention to vandalism, notorious vandals such as Blu Aardvark have popped up because they know they'll get recognition for it. --Carl 02:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
My point was simply that Blu Aardvark is not a notorious vandal. ~ PseudoSudo 03:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Then why is he #6 on the CVU's list of persistent vandals? --Carl 03:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm; sorry, that's news to me. ~ PseudoSudo 04:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Funkyzeit 02:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Unneeded The CVU has their own wiki and IRC channels to cordinate (here and #vandalism-en-wp on freenode) so this page seems unneccesary and focus's vandals. That said, I feel a delete vote is unneeded, its more of a move to their own wiki, perhaps a cross-wiki redirect left? -M 02:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The up swing in vandalism can be attributed to the pouplarity of Misplaced Pages as a whole and not because of one group. We have grown ALOT since last year when I joined plus the Wiki has gotten a lot of press time since then. You can't blame one group or a few pages on the vandalism when we have become one of the most popular sites on the web. Æon EA! 02:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, in the current state of affairs, Misplaced Pages is negatively affected more by unorganized vandalism than organized vandalism. ~ PseudoSudo 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it is not the CVU's fault in fact many of use give up lots of hours just to fight vandals. Æon EA! 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, with note. I will defer to any judgement Coolcat makes on this issue, otherwise count this as a delete. The CVU is a little bit too ego-pushing and militaristic/badge-driven/ego-pumping for my tastes, and is borderline poisoning-the-well. It tends to attract the newest members of our culture who at least fairly often get too much pleasure carrying a nightstick. At the same time, it does do some good. In the past, I worked with CoolCat to try to reform the group, which unfortunately did not work (although I gained a lot of respect for Coolcat for the effort). I believe it is time for this project, as it is now, to end. --Improv 02:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While I understand that the CVU promotes the countering of vandalism (which is laudable), my general experience with what I term "watchdog" task forces is that in going about their business, they often find themselves in the way of individual users who are attempting to do the same thing. There are existing policies for dealing with vandalism. What I read on the CVU page is stuff that is either covered in the official policy (and links on that page) or should be integrated into the official policy. For me, consolidation of information is preferable to having a group that appears to be almost a central clearinghouse for anti-vandalism activities. I also agree with the comments made concerning the glorification of vandalism. The best way to deal with a pest is to stop giving it attention. In this case that means quietly going through and reverting, warning and reporting. By creating a counter-vandalism unit, it calls attention to the act of vandalism and sends the message that if someone wants attention and fame (even if it's infamy), all they have to do is cause widespread vandalism. --Carl 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Vandals are always going to find a reason to vandalize things regardless of whether there is a CVU. At least if it exists, it provides an organized way to handle vandalism. --Cswrye 02:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
We are not a vigilante group Doctor. And as to the vandals that are noted on the page those could be edited out if consenus is reached on it. Æon EA! 02:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The arguments I've seen for keeping it are that it is a necessary group to Misplaced Pages -- and? It's been pointed out that CVU has its own page. I agree with the general "glorification" consensus. This is why major web sites do not have "Defacer Resistance Squads" on their pages; it's practically an invitation to deface. --JStalk 02:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I say keep, because unfortunately vandals are going to target any page. They can easily change any page they wish, which is sad, but just because they target one article more than another should NOT be grounds for the page's deletion. It should be locked from editing or something. Vandals may target any page at any time. This one is no different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuke monster (talk • contribs)
For frame of reference, review this poster's talk page. --JStalk 03:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I fail to see any valid reasoning. The idea that this may bring forth vandals is merely a personal theory and not any sort of valid deletion criteria. The group maintains a laudable function. IrishGuy 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Bobby is most likey WoW. Cyde convinced other SYSOPs of this and the Airport vandal may be WoW as well the CVU can't be blamed for his/there vandalism. Æon EA! 03:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Bobby isn't WoW, and neither is Airport. It's just something Cyde and the Sysops made up to take away Bobby's glory and bore him out of vandalizing. For the most part, it seems to have worked. By a similar token, taking away the CVU will give vandals nothing to strive for, and no possibility of notoriety, and hence will eventually bore the attention-seeking vandals out of the business. Dr Chatterjee 03:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how that would help! All it is going to do is possibly delete a needed project form wikipedia. Æon EA! 03:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
How is it "needed," though? You keep saying it's needed, but you haven't specified why. What purpose does it serve beyond providing the tools users can find elsewhere, such as on the official Misplaced Pages Vandalism page? That page has everything the CVU has, is an official wikipiedia policy page, and does not glorify the vandals it seeks to contain. It's everything the CVU does, and better. Dr Chatterjee 03:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I have many times. Keep it because it helps Orginize counter vandal operations, has all the tools listed and the info on what to look for. Æon EA! 03:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Whatever happens, I wish they'd sort out of they want to be "official" or not. If not, they should stop using Misplaced Pages and especially Wikimedia's logo and "Wikimedia Foundation" on their frontpage. If so, they need to get permission. Either way, the notice about such should be farther up the page than buried under "What CVU is not", halfway down. I asked this on their talk page, but apparently they're too busy fighting vandals... -- nae'blis 03:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    I just went and read Wikimedia's style guidelines for the presentation of the Wikimedia logo. It would seem that the CVU logos would violate a couple of the guidelines. Specifically, I'm seeing potential issues with the use of additional colors in the logo, the presentation of the word "Wikimedia", and the use of a margin (or lack thereof) around the logo itself. --Carl 03:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Aeon has returned. WATCH IT VANDALS! I'M BACK!!!!!!!!" (from AEon's userpage). This is the kind of inflammatory stuff Dr Chatterjee is talking about. If I were a vandal, I'd see that as an "oh really!?" kind of invitation to deface him. The defacement counter on his user page is probably evidence of that. The motivation of this MfD is the inflaming of vandals through any means, this page not the least. I feel the same way about "I've been vandalized 20 times!" (a prospective vandal might want to vandalize you to see if she becomes 21). --JStalk 03:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
And I have removed it for those reasons today (on my own with out promting I do however HATE vandalism) as I realised that it could be taken as such but how ever the CVU is not about baiting the vandals it is abot stoping them. Æon EA! 03:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, the CVU page still acts like bait. Persistent vandals are rewarded with a listing! --JStalk 03:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
And to above the defecment was because of my counter vandal efforts not because of siad warning. If you revert over 700 vandals you get some fire back at you. Æon EA! 03:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
And, from the discussion on my user page -- I could assert that all of those vandals know you are insanely proud of your work, and rub it in their faces every chance you get (700 reverts! wow!) I know if I were a vandal, I'd take that kind of self-lauding as an invitation to vandalize just to spite you.
That's what this MfD is all about, dedicating a page to "how good Misplaced Pages is at crushing vandals" is really, as Dr has pointed out, an invitation to vandalize more. Criminals regularly act out of spite.
I also feel that Misplaced Pages:Most_vandalized_pages should be deleted too, for similar reasons to this one. It's practically a list of targets... --JStalk 03:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I;m proud of reverting the vandals so that others may be able to edit this wiki without seing among other things, Vulgar images, Personal Attacks, having there work Blanked ect. I help defend the wiki. and I am proud of that. Æon EA! 03:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say you shouldn't be. That's great! WP needs a lot more people like you.
However, publicly being proud has a tendency to inflame people. That's what this MfD is all about, and the entire reason I brought up your user page -- it reflects the general attitude of members of CVU as a whole. Being publicly proud of your accomplishments is, in most cases, an invitation to spite you. That's why I support this MfD.
I think CVU should work as quiet as possible, even just not to give people ideas -- I'm sure there are masses of people who come across this page and say, Wow, that's really a problem! (not knowing vandalism was a serious problem before they looked). And to some people, this might feed them ideas. I know, cynical, but true, and I completely agree with Dr on this. --JStalk 03:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I still see a "watch out" warning to vandals. And there happens to be a list of vandals you've reverted on your user page as well. Reminds me of a fighter pilot who marks all his kills on the side of his plane. Yeah, he's good, but he's also made himself into a huge target. --Carl 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
REmoved it (Thought I did when I added something) thanks for pointing that out. And as for the list it is for me to kep track and if needed find easily a revert that should not have been done (I find having a link there useful). And I have not been that big of a target. 16 hits is not that much compared so some other pages. Æon EA! 04:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. I didn't mean to malign you (really!), I meant to show the general "crack squad of anti-vandal soldiers" attitude that's prevalent with many members of CVU, you included. While it isn't a bad thing to be proud of crushing vandals, it does feed their fire when posted publicly. --JStalk 04:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't think you did lol you made a good faith comment I just disagree with you. Now let me poit something out reverting them spins them up wonderfully and some of them love to get back on teh Reverter and mess up the page. And my Counter Vandal page has yet to get hit. Now my main page well that happens from time to time as will as my talk page I expect it when I warn a vandal. Æon EA! 04:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no good out of deleting it. While I do see a tool to encourage vandal fighting if it is kept. Maybe it could use a name change and a logo change. But the project is valuable.--Konstable 03:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although the CVU may do some harm by being visible, it does more good by increasing awareness -- yes, there are many users who fight vandalism without being part of the CVU, but nevertheless it does increase awareness! I might support some membership guidelines (e.g. established editors only, ala Esperanza's requirements, but deletion is an overreaction. --Ginkgo100 03:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That could also be said for the SYSOP box, and several others. I still Doc don't see how the CVU it could create copycat vandals. And vandalism dosen't work. It is reverted quickly. I agree with Ginkgo that this is a bit of an overreaction to the bigger proplem that is Vandalism Æon EA! 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It's called putting a bullseye up the size of the vandal's computer screen. This also isn't a matter of whether the Sysop box and other boxes contribute more or less to the inadvertant promotion of vandalism. This is strictly about CVU. --Carl 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Then a simpler soultion is the removal of the vandals that are on the page not the unit itself. Æon EA! 04:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes we do because the vandals have been hitting and hitting more often now (especialy right after the Colbert Report about the elephants I remember that week). It is not the CVU sensationalizing it. And if that is what you are conred with tehn a revamp of the CVU page would take are of most of that. As I have said VAndalism is nt going to go away becuse you get rid of one group. It is going to get worse as Misplaced Pages grows. It is a fact of teh wiki so you need people like me who are willing to go after them so others can edit in reltive peace. Æon EA! 04:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Let me get this straight, you believe the deletion of CVU will defer vandalism? Um, no, vandalism can be defered but the people truly intent on damaging Misplaced Pages don't give up and have their own little circles to discuss their actions or vent their rage. Sure, there are some posts on the talk page that may feed the trolls and fighting vandalism is one of the most unattractive aspects of a Wiki, this is a problem severe enough to need some kind of an organized effort to attempt to cease the problem. Have you read WP:FAC? It gets really heated over there and people object heavily on somethings that baffles others and creates fierce disputes. Should we delete that page because it causes general unhappiness? The same thing with AfD? You should try to make alot of people happy, but it's simply impossible to try to make everyone happy and not fail. Yanksox 04:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether it makes anybody happy. The fact that other pages have really heated debates is also not relevant to this deletion; I believe Dr's original goal with the MfD was that having a CVU page gives vandals not only an antagonist, but also a target and a purpose. We're not saying the page makes anyone unhappy, we're saying its mere presence is detrimental to the effort (the same cannot be said of the pages you reference). --JStalk 04:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There target and purpose is Vandalising Misplaced Pages not ust one section of it. Æon EA! 04:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The question in my mind is, does the CVU offer a benefit to the Misplaced Pages community above and beyond what exists officially? I think the answer is no. All the informative content is available through official channels -- including tools. Does the CVU make vandal-fighting more efficient? I doubt it. Since membership in the CVU does not offer extra benefits with regards to vandal-fighting, an unaffiliated user has the potential to do as much vandal-fighting as a CVU member. Regarding FAC and AfD, there is a difference between things which are official functions of Misplaced Pages and an unofficial item such as the CVU. --Carl 04:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Granted, it could be feeding the vandals, but there is a needed center for information about what is occuring for a serious issue. But, CVU is not their antagonist...(brace yourself) Misplaced Pages is their antagonist. People target the website for the nifty little edit this page link, CVU may add a little icing, but AN/I is much bigger and better place. Vandals have an issue with Misplaced Pages itself and the community, to be frank, they just don't care at all about CVU. Let's put it like this, if you are opposed to the policies of the United States Government are you going to target a sole branch of the government? No, you are looking at the whole picture and attempting a massive attack. Sorry for being semi-incohernet, it's late and I'm aghast at this MfD, there are much more important things that this. Yanksox 04:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree! Vandals could care less about the CVU. They are going to go after otehr targets first, such as Featured Articles (usually the article of the day), AN/I, AIV ect ect Æon EA! 04:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
That's right, most could care less about it. They care about causing as much havok as possible. Now, if you feel the page could be toned down, that may be entirely possible. But deleting a wikiproject is not the solution. Kevin_b_er 05:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
some have come up for MfD (I think WoW is going to get the axe) Æon EA! 07:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, the philosophy against vandalism presented here is a positive one, and as the encyclopedia grows we are only going to get more vandalism, rather than less - and this page ensures that we have more people fighting against it, too. It'd be nice if we could have all our anti-vandalism organisations in one place, and I don't feel that cutting them out is a way to do this. —Xyrael / 09:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't understand arguments such as this. So. Because vandals might be attracted to the page, we should delete the page? Doesn't that mean that we are bowing to them? No. --Woohookitty 11:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Rustag 11:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

And? Many people that just read the encyclopedia have opinions too. I was one of them, I only started editing recently. Why is the fact that perhaps this person one of them important to note? Because he provides a valid argument against yours? --JStalk 19:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Vandalism fighting is a chore, and if some members group together to do just that I don't see any reason why they should not be allowed to do so. Though I like the moths-flame analogy. Everybody knows what happens after the moth got attracted to the flame... CharonX/talk 14:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it encourages new'ish users to tackle vandalism, just because it is vandalised itself doesn't mean it should be deleted. I feel this Mfd is actually showing how successful you believe vandals to be. Vandalism won't go away by deleting this. If it's not this they target, it will be something else.--Andeh 14:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    Last I checked, our reason (at least mine) was not that the vandals target the CVU page for vandalism. They target other pages because the CVU publicizes vandalism so much. In my mind, it's the same reason a hardened criminal continues to commit crime - because he gets an ego kick out of seeing his name in lights. He doesn't go and commit a crime directly against the police station, he goes somewhere else to perpetrate the crime. The only difference is that the CVU isn't really the police. Except for those people who happen to be admins, CVU members have no real enforcement power against the vandals themselves (posting warning messages does not count as enforcement). The CVU is more on the order of a neighborhood watch group that acts like it's the police, while at the same time saying it's not. It just doesn't make sence. I'd say that at a minimum, the CVU has something of an identity crisis going on. --Carl 15:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
How do we pubilise vandalism? They come to Misplaced Pages see that it can be edited without logging in and do it. Most don't know of the CVU. We don't have a link on Main Page saying We Have A CVU. Also we don't feed teh trolls we deal with preventing, reverting and blocking Vandalism. With that logic warning and blocking feeds themÆon EA! 16:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Theoretical day in the life of a vandal: come to Misplaced Pages, see that it can be edited and do so with malicious intent - just 'cause they can. It gets reverted, with a warning left on the vandal's talk page. Vandal reads the warning and possibly gets a bit indignant at what appears to be the censorship of his contribution (speaking US-centrically here, it's a first ammendment right after all). Goes to the user's page (because the user signed it), and sees that the member is part of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Clicks the userbox link to the CVU and sees an organization devoted to censorship (their opinion, not mine). Sees that they've basically got a most wanted list of the most prolific vandals going. Decides to make a name for himself, so he registers and starts working. --Carl 17:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Mister Righteous 20:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep - how ridiculous. Lets also get rid of admins, and everyone's rollback feature as they also glorify vandalism right? There's no vandals names in bright lights there, nothing to glorify any vandal specifically at all. Im a big believer in WP:DENY but there's a difference between practical antivandalism measures and "glorification". Pullease. - GIen 21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - per kevin, alphachimp, zoe, cswyre, GIen, and others, and because these pages do not cause anyone to become vandals and it is a central location for all the information that is needed ST47 21:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
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.