The result of the debate was keep for the following reasons :
- Mailer Diablo 00:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Relisting per WP:DRV Cowman109Talk 05:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Cool Cat:The CVU is an organization of Wikipedians that not only want to counter vandalism, but want to find better and systematic ways of catching vandals. They provide innovative discussion on the topics of vandalism and collaborate when neccessary on the best way to deal with vandalism. In a sense, it is a think tank and a watchdog group that is beneficial to Wikipedia and is different from the RCpatrol. It does not just look at recent changes, it looks at purposely added incorrect information and other more-difficult-to-find forms of vandalism. It is a team with a positive purpose with positive results and should remain as a page. The CVU does [not] interfere with Wikipedia's workings, nor does it cause cause any harm; it has many members that are dedicated to these principles. There is no logical reason for its deletion.
Viridae:To my knowledge, Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit was never moved off wiki... As for www.countervandalism.org, I do not know who they are nor do I care. We arent going to delete startrek wikiproject simply because memory-alpha exists. Furthermore that wiki seems very inactive compared to the en.wiki counterpart. It isnt a valid argument to suggests that we were able to deal with vandalism w/o this wikiproject. Of course we were. We also had decent anime and manga related articles before that wikiproject existed. See Wikipedia:Wikiprojects to see why we have wikiprojects.
and myself:On the topic of the actual page, I believe it is useful contact for those interested in RC patrol and others. The argument that it could incite vandals also applies to every vandal warning template (like ((test3)) for instance) but it is not appropriate to remove them either because they serve a purpose among the community.
John254 05:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)The Counter-Vandalism Unit does serve the same general purpose as Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism. However, the Counter-Vandalism Unit's unique style is well-suited to the recruitment of users who would not otherwise participate in RC Patrol. Members of the Counter-Vandalism Unit clearly participate in a significant portion of the RC patrol that occurs on Wikipedia today. For this reason, it is probable that the Counter-Vandalism Unit has increased participation in RC patrol, thereby enhancing the integrity of Wikipedia.
Furthermore, WP:DENY, even if accepted, does not justify the elimination of all counter-vandalism resources. I fail to see the relevance of WP:BEANS. John254 21:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent all significant views fairly and without bias.
Yes it can be claimed to be slightly militaristic because it has the words "Counter" (As related to Counter-Terrorism) and "Unit" in the name, but then that's not a great argument for its deletion.
"Cops and Robbers" seems to be another branded title, but it’s merely another extension of the rhetoric. Admins or reversers will pursue and check up on vandals or continual vandals, whether they have a "CVU" badge on their user page or not. With names like "Vandal Fighter" around, even without the CVU, there is still that small basic "military/police feel".
However this pursuit has become excessive in some regards (Sometimes to the extent it breaks WP:BITE), not because of the Counter-Vandalism Unit but because simple newbie tests and new users are getting hit straight away with templates from WP:VAND, which are poorly defined: i.e. ((subst:blatantvandal)). The warning is seemingly used more often than "test" these days, when it can be difficult to tell the difference between simple vandalism and newbies. The effect is that new users get the impression that this isn't a nice place to be, that the people aren't been friendly to them and aren't looking to help them help the project and gives an oppressive militaristic impression, which has rubbed off on the CVU.
What needs to be done is that the CVU needs to be reformed to harness what good points it has, along with a general rethought on the application of anti-vandalism in general. I have a few suggestions and ideas I have on changes that could help. Let’s face it, its going to fail this deletion anyway, so we might as well all try and find a middle ground.
When the "Unit" was founded, it was a community involving exercise. People who needed help applying WP:VAND or with not-so black-and-white vandals could get help without searching through numerous noticeboards and project pages to find the correct place to get help. example . The new CUV board sets things out in a way that suggests all vandalism is the same and must be dealt with in the same way. If there is a problem or vandalism varies in some way, who do people, mainly new community anti-vandalism helpers turn to? The great omnipresent members of the...errr...dealing with vandalism board? Getting help from friends and people in the same position in a "unit" is much better in a human-approachable way than some lifeless project page, which users needing help are less likely to ask for and where experienced Wikipedia Users are going to visit less frequently (Due to it being mostly common knowledge for them).
Please see: talk page
In essence, Dr Chatterjee is advising us to cower in fear of the vandals, lest we should provoke them, and to disrupt our Counter-Vandalism efforts, because the vandals might not like them. By contrast, I support bold, decisive Counter-Vandalism efforts, as they are essential to maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. John254 16:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Avoid the temptation to loudly congratulate oneself or others in their vandalism-correcting efforts. When possible, do not bestow anti-vandalism barnstars or similar accolades upon others unless extremely well deserved. Even then, try to avoid doing so. A well-decorated "vandal fighter" is an easy and inviting mark for a vandal or troll.
Since we provide barnstars for excellence in editing that doesn't involve the reversion of vandalism, how does Dr Chatterjee's advice not constitute cowering in fear? John254 16:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)When possible, do not bestow anti-vandalism barnstars or similar accolades upon others unless extremely well deserved. Even then, try to avoid doing so.
I think that we should reward editors for their anti-vandalism contributions, and we should not be paralyzed with fear of what the vandals might do if we dare to speak of them. John254 21:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Avoid the temptation to loudly congratulate oneself or others in their vandalism-correcting efforts. When possible, do not bestow anti-vandalism barnstars or similar accolades upon others unless extremely well deserved. Even then, try to avoid doing so. A well-decorated "vandal fighter" is an easy and inviting mark for a vandal or troll.