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 No consensus; an MFD isn't the place to determine to see if a project is still alive or not. This should take place at the CVU talk page, which it is now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE:This is the 4th nomination, see prior MFD's here: (speedy keep) (To DRV) (Relist from DRV) (keep)

Reason 1: it's virtually inactive; reason 2, it's completely redundant to Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol - the useful text of the 2 is 99 percent the same; reason 3, it doesn't actually do anything (certainly nothing useful that I've ever seen); reason 4, it's a piece of instruction-creepy excess bureaucracy, because reason 5; vandalism is something to be reverted and vandals are people to be blocked and ignored - we simply don't need an entire organisation to do this; reason 6, this has for far too long given rise to a paramilitary mindset amongst vandalwhackers - "Must...slay...vandal!"; reason 7, subtle vandalism problems brought to our attention can be dealt with either here or here. Option 1; delete altogether; option 2, Esperanzify (please no), option 3 (preference) turn it into a redirect (locked or otherwise) to somewhere more useful, such as here, option 4, tag as rejected. Moreschi ^Talk 09:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been wanting to see this go for a long while. Delete per everything Moreschi said. Things like this just increase the battle mindset some Wikipedians seem to have which encourages biting of newbies, etc. It's largely useless now. Kamryn · Talk 09:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. To address the "reasons" above:
  1. It is not inactive, as a quick look at the talk page will illustrate.
  2. It is not redundant, any more than any other project page that points to and/or replicates policies , guidelines and tools elsewhere in Wikipedia.
  3. Do any Wikiprojects do anything of themselves? No, but their members do. CVU is exactly the same.
  4. Evidence please. I see no instruction creep on the project page, just instructions, guidelines and links to other relevant resources.
  5. Using that logic, uncategorised articles should be categorised by Wikipedian, so let's disband WP:CATP since we don't need an organisation to do that. It's the job of all Wikipedians to improve articles, regardless of their subject, so let's disband all of the topic-related Wikiprojects. It's the job of all Wikipedians to carry out maintenance, so let's disband maintenance Wikiprojects.
  6. Again, evidence please. If you think the name causes problems, the name can be changed - the place to propose that is on the project talk page. The role of the project, just as any other wikiproject, is to encourage users to get involved in its work and to guide them as to how to do that. New users getting overexcited and making mistakes as a result are not limited to the CVU, nor indeed to counter-vandalism as a whole. Just check out special:newpages.
  7. Again, problems with editing any article on any topic could be taken to WP:EA instead of the Wikiproject related to that topic, so let's shut down all the wikiprojects, shall we? This is ridiculous. Waggers 09:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Does it do anything? Anything concrete? No? Then it's inactive.
2. All it does is replicate RCP. Then it's redundant.
3. WikiProjects do do things of themselves: see the top of here. This does nothing. In addition, the vast majority of avid vandal-reverters have nothing to do with the CVU.
4. You've completely skewed my logic. You don't need a bunch of paras to coordinate vandalwhacking. It's superflous. WikiProjects are there for coordination. This does not do that. It doesn't do anything, coordination least of all. Vandalism can simply be reverted. Yes, articles can simply be copy-edited, but something such as Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors actually provides a good place to find a copy-editor. Here, there's no need for anything else. Copy-editing, or providing references, or writing well about opera or chemistry or whatever, requires specialist skills. Reverting vandalism requires a click of the "undo" button.
5. Look at this comment on the talk page: "If "they" trying to disband us then obviously we are doing something right." -that's exactly the kind of broken mentality that's so wrong.
6. Again, skewing my logic. My point is that subtle vandalism brought to our attention by "outsiders" is part of what places such as ASSIST (and the Help desk) are designed to deal with. This is not. Other WikiProjects are designed for subject-specific coordination: for stuff that cannot be done by every Tom, Dick and Harry. But vandalism can be reverted by anyone, so no need for this. Moreschi ^Talk 09:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand you seem to be saying that newbies should not be encouraged to fight vandalism as they become overzealous and on the other you're saying that anyone can do it. If nothing else, the CVU helps to bridge that gap. You're right, vandalism should be reverted on sight - that's why it's impossible for the CVU to have a "bit of vandalism of the month" or something of that ilk, any more than the categorisation project has a category of the month. On the same note, anyone can add categories, references etc., anyone can correct spellings, anyone can do any of the things these projects do, so why are you singling out the CVU? I'm not sure how a project with this many members and an active talk page could ever be described as inactive.Waggers 09:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because the talk page is filled with irrelevancies? I would hardly call that an active talk page, anyway. No, not everyone can copy-edit, not everyone can add the right references, not everyone can categorise correctly. This actually requires specialist skill. Hence the need for coordination. But anyone can fight vandalism. Newbies should do so, and they do - but what the CVU does is turn them into a bunch of paras. That's not what we need. Moreschi ^Talk 09:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a member of the CVU and I'm not a "para". The CVU does not seek to turn anyone into a "para" - do you have any evidence that states otherwise? The name can be misleading, granted, but I've covered that above. And regarding the "not everyone" thing - it can take skill and experience to detect the more complex forms of vandalism, so not everyone can do that. And above all, the CVU is a collection of people. Cleanup is a bit of a thankless task at times and belonging to something like the CVU gives users a sense of belonging that WP:RCP couldn't do. Waggers 10:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tag ((Inactive)) and soft redirect to Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol - less militaristic name, otherwise similar.--Addhoc 15:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no real reason to delete this. If it's truly inactive, suggest it be tagged historical. (And I would recommend contacting any listed members to see if they wish to revive the group before doing so). If you believe it's duplicative to another group, suggest the two groups unite. You could also try the same method if you're concerned about the name (though I think the name is a non-issue, as it's a matter of "coolness" rather than intent. It might be possible to have an offensive name, but this doesn't strike me as strongly offensive.) If you believe everybody should fight vandalism, so does this page. I don't even see where this CVU is actively encouraging a paramilitary mind-set, but if so, I think the best way to deal with that problem is to work with this CVU and work to encourage discretion and non-hostility in vandalism reversion. Sure, it's not the only way to do things, but since when did we need to be restricted to only *one* option? But ultimately, my view is, as long Wikipedia users want to identify in this way, it's appropriate to allow them to do so, as there is nothing inherently objectionable about their association. There is a reason why the freedom to associate is considered an important right, and I'd need a more compelling reason than any you've offered before I'd supported trampling on it. FrozenPurpleCube 10:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I would like to say that I feel the nominator was highly mistaken in making a speedy deletion of this page. That was not a well-considered action at all. Doing things unilaterally is sometimes acceptable, but this is an example of the overbold. FrozenPurpleCube 10:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we could tag historical and then leave a note about Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol. Addhoc 12:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could, but if there are active editors, or editors who want to be active, it'd be removed as inappropriate. FrozenPurpleCube 12:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tag as historical/inactive. I agree totally with Moreschi, but I don't see need to delete it when it can be tagged as historical. --Deskana (banana) 11:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Speedy keep like the last 4 times and do not tag as historical per User:Waggers. This WP is still active, not sure why people say that it is not. Leuko 13:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Respectfully request withdrawal of this nomination. Per WP:AN#Deletion_of_Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit and WP:AN#Durova.27s_latest_article_about_Wikipedia - please excuse any appearance of vanity because that's not the way I intend this, but CVU is linked to from an article that's gotten 765 Diggs in the past two days. 761 of those occurred before I (or, as far as I can tell, anybody else at Wikipedia) knew it was on that site. CVU is likely to be getting an unusually large amount of traffic right now and it's counterproductive to have it on the block at this time. Suggest suspending this nomination for one month to see how things develop. Durova^Charge! 14:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Or we could just redirect and put a notice at the top. Kamryn · Talk 14:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Second the motion to withdraw the nomination - in four previous xfd's, it's been kept (or speedy kept) every time. Leuko 15:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just tag as historical like every dead WikiProject and move along, no need for pointy deletions. — Moe ε 14:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag as historical/inactive per Deskana. ~ Wikihermit 15:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as initial discussion on the project talk page do not suggest it is inactive. If it has gone inactive project typically go from (active) --> (inactive)/(completed) --> (historical)/(deleted). Per Moe Epsilon's suggestion above, another MFd really isn't needed, if someone thinks it's inactive, that is what ((inactive)) is for, and if the project members don't show up and start working it, it can become ((historical)). — xaosflux ^Talk 15:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's not inactive and is an important part of getting users onto the anti-vandalism side of Wikipedia. Jordanhatch 15:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Keep Possible - It's not inactive. Just because the project page/discussion page is inactive, doesn't mean their members aren't. WP:CVU was my first major activity at Wikipedia, and if it wasn't for that, I probably wouldn't have stayed. Ironically, I was just about to click on recent changes when I got the notice that it was up for deletion. If it wasn't for RC Patrollers, this site would be rampant with vandalism, uncontrollable vandalism. Why can't we give ourselves, as RC Patrollers, a place to collaborate on anti-vandalism ideas, and current vandalism issues? Also, per Waggers. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 15:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol, which is essentially the same, just with a less militaristic title. --bainer (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, keep, keep. Notable project ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definitely not inactive. - TexasAndroid 16:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Withdraw of this nomination Per recent cited activity and the currently high exposure of the project.--Hu12 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Speedy Withdrawal of the nomination and Removal of the inactive tag You must be kidding about this project being inactive. The scope of the CVU goes far beyond that of just this page. The activities we engage in in regards to reverting vandalism and cleansing its' possible long standing effects are what this entire project is all about. Making this project "historical", "inactive", deleting it, or renaming it is completely unnecessary and I wonder why it was even called for. Come to think of it, doing so is just plain silly. I think the response to this drives the point home quite perfectly clear that the Counter-Vandalism Unit is alive and well. To be honest, considering all things, as long as there is a Wikipedia, there will always be a need for the CVU as there is always someone out there who is willing to engage in vandalism. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 17:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very useful and semi-active. - Patman2648 17:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please read this Keep per Cool Blue's excellent points, and per EvilGohan's also good emotional reasoning. As he said, the response to this is clear evidence that it is alive and kicking, and clearly not inactive. As well, per Cool Blue, CVU was one of the first projects I became involved with on Wikipedia, and was a strong reason I stayed. I met quite a few users who I remain quite friendly with, through my work there. It was WP:CVU that showed me about the IRC anti-vandalism channel, that helps keep out so much vandalism from the project. In short, I see the reasons to keep as many and varied, and the reasons to delete as "I don't like the title and the people aren't as active as I like". At the worst I could see it as acceptable to mark as historical, but deletion is just wrong.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Project has noble effort, is not what I would call "inactive" --MosheA 17:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and keep the existing name. It's an active project, as detailed above. And I don't think the promotion of a "paramilitary mindset" is grounds for deletion. A military structure is one of the most efficient working methods ever developed, and personally I find that a little military lingo lends an added satisfaction to the extremely dull task of reverting vandalism. Í recognise that some Wikipedians are antimilitarists (though I will never understand why), but they're under no obligation to join the CVU, and shouldn't denigrate all the good work it does for Wikipedia. Walton^{alternate account} 17:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong KeepIt is important to keep this project alive. Marco Alfarrobinha {chat}_{contributions} 17:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per Moshea RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 17:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Even though it is a loose banding, where would this project be without dedicated fighting vandalism? It would be a pile of garbage. I see absolutley no value in deleting this. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - This is an active project even if the page itself does not reflect. Look at the talk page and the members page. People (including myself) keep joining the unit.-MBK004 17:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Moshea, FrozenPurpleCube, and Durova. Nothing good comes about from deleting. It seems like the main argument for deletion is the fact that it 'sounds militaristic'. However, I contend that nothing on the page is militaristic at all; it contains a series of principles, and it notes several times not to bite the newcomers and to assume good faith. Furthermore, the title succinctly describes what WP:CVU does -- countering vandalism. What's wrong with that? The other objection is that WP:CVU is redundant. However, Wikipedia does have a problem with vandalism. As a member of both WP:RCP and WP:CVU, I can honestly say that there are several vandal edits every minute, and it's impossible for WP:RCP to catch them all. Vandalism is a persistent problem -- inherent to a wiki -- and it is one that cannot be resolved simply with WP:ANI and WP:EA. Firstly, everyone should revert vandalism, but not everyone can be an administrator. Secondly, WP:EA is not used for anti-vandalism efforts at all; it is used for, as its title states, editor assistance: a place for newer editors to ask veterans questions about policy, especially in ambiguous situations. Counter-vandalism needs its own space. It's a thankless task, but it needs to be done, and people do it. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 19:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, this is basically a wikiproject of a different name: people dedicated to combating vandalism, warning vandals, educating the masses on what is appropriate for wikipedia. Maybe it's not as organized as a wikiproject, but it is a taskforce of people who perform the necessary task of patrolling (hmm, just noticed the word troll in there...) wikipedia and without them (myself included) the community would turn into anarchy. I'm not saying that people wouldn't fight vandalism without being a member of or without the existence of CVU, but that little userbox with that anime girl holding a shield means something: I'm not some random guy fighting vandalism willy-nilly; I'm doing it for a reason. Also the tools and advice which CVU gives is invaluable to fighting against vandalism. Valley2city 18:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I don't know where the inactivity comes from. I do patrol recent changes and when I see outright vandalism I will delete it. And as stated before, editors are continually joining to help counteract the vandals. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 18:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Honestly can't see the problem here, no value in deleting whatsoever. Muchclag 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and if were possible, expand it in many different ways. We all agree against whatever that it means vandalism and nobody who enjoys or respects this project want it to be vandalized in any way, shape or form. When I referred to its expansion, I can see that the CVU could serve or could have an educational component into it, with presentations, and gatherings, inviting new users and other interested users, to partake in the process of protecting the Wikipedia against vandalism. CV can be fun sometimes, I remember laughing, reading about the nonsense of those editions, as it can be very demanding too. We all need to figure out how to make this task simpler and more effective. Here is were the CVU comes into play. Definitely, the CVU is alive, kicking and running, since there are many users who dedicate some of their time in combating vandalisms in one way or other. John Manuel^{CVU talk}
• Keep - Not inactive. Cheers, Lights 18:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The WikiProject is still active. ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 18:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The CVU is active. It is not as suggested, a paramilitary organisation but a simple wikiproject dedicated to cleaning up vandalism and encourages more people to fight vandals. As a result of the high number of vandal fighters, any vandalism is reverted almost immediately. However I do think that the name of the project could be changed as the current name implies that it has some sort of authority and only covers counter vandalism while many who revert vandalism also correct spelling/grammar or wikify parts of articles.Tbo ¹⁵⁷talk 18:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Certainly active. --Mschel 18:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dude, check the talk page of WP:CVU and its contributors. It is certainly active.--PrestonH 18:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the CVU. Project is active. It gets new users in to helping out the encyclopedia by removing vnadalism. --_{Hdt83 Chat} 18:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is starting to get asinine. For the fourth time? come on. I would go on a lenthy diatribe about this but its all been said above multiple times.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As far as I can see this is still an active project with older and newer users a like continuing to fight vandalism - this is a helpful WikiProject in co-ordinating this, as already said it has educational and expansion potential too. Even if this project does become obsolete, inactive or historical - it should be marked as such and not deleted. This project is similar, but not the same, as RCP - for example much of the vandalism I deal with is not "recent changes"; and RCP is not just about dealing with vandalism. Furthermore, if the name is such an issue the project can simply be re-named. Camaron1 | Chris 19:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Concur with the above. As the talk page and this one would show, the members of the CVU appear to be quite active. Maybe the group is similar to the RC Patrol - and I note that many editors (myself included) are members of both - but that is no justification for the deletion/removal of this project. If we had to, I'd say CVU could potentially focus on vandalism that slips past the RCP - how many times have you seen a "cocksdickslol" that's been in an article for more than a month? Some do slip by. CVU is a means to address the issue. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Reverting vandalism is not a military operation. Wikipedia: Recent changes patrol gives perfectly sufficient advice on how to revert vandalism. 71.185.52.142 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Esperanzify. This is a creepy, immature, essentially useless bit of social networking that is only an embasassment to this project. This Wikiproject isn't coordinating anything; it's just a glorification of "vandal-fighting." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - An active eye on vandalism helps discourage it. SanGatiche 19:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but change the tone of the page to be more collegiate and less aggressive. Andre (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for you to pretend to be Jack Bauer. Sean William @ 21:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - what does Wikipedia gain from deleting this group? --Turbothy 19:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The group was made for a perfectly valid reason: to fight vandalism. I have nothing against that. My second choice would be to sort of merge the CVU name and emblem into RCP. Singularity 20:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obviously this will be kept, but I personally feel it's redundant and only encourages a vigilante mindset among certain vandalism reverters. —Xezbeth 20:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded Mathiastck 20:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. It should be obvious by now that the project is not inactive. It is not redundant with recent changes patrollers, just because they overlap. And "encourages a vigilante mindset" is not a reason to delete a project. The project page links to "don't bite the newcomers" under it's "guidelines and policy section"; that some users choose not to heed these words is not a reason to delete the project. So, what's left? If this is really about the name, propose a change to the name! Charlie-talk to me-what I've done 20:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Yeah, it's pretty obvious why. カラム 21:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. By no means inactive, allows newer users to draw advice from more experienced antivandals. It is important, but perhaps a bit unorganized. Maybe if we could have some more organization in the CVU, it would be taken more seriously. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 21:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redundent does not equal bad.Mbisanz 21:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Relevant, useful, and active.--H-ko (Talk) 21:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Active, helpful group. There is no evidence for most of the claims made by the nominee, and the claims that do have evidence (e.g. it's redundancy) are not reasons to delete in and of themselves. The nomination, while I'm sure it was done in good faith, seems to come close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Chris (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag ((Historical)) and soft redirect to Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol, a variation on the suggestion by Addhoc. Crazycomputers may think the nom smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but the "keeps" sure seem to read like WP:ILIKEIT. Sean William pretty much said what I thought. I don't see why we need this overglorified wikiclub when there are other mechanisms in place to deal with vandalism. Agent 86 22:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I stated in my comment above, there is nothing that is like WP:CVU that's dedicated to reverting vandalism. The previous suggestions -- WP:ANI and WP:EA -- are inappropriate for this task, and should not be converted to handle vandalism problems as well. WP:RCP is nice, and handles a significant amount (perhaps even the majority) of vandalism, but it does not completely overlap with WP:CVU. Vandalism is a significant enough issue to merit this Wikiproject. --Ratiocinate ^{(t • c)} 22:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep...
  • Reason 1: it's active.
  • Reason 2: it's a Wikiproject with a cool name, but a Wikiproject all the same, and therefore it, and it's banners, barnstars, userboxes, etc. help to rally vandalfighters and allows for an easy means for them to find each other in case they need to.
  • Reason 3: the CVU symbol is a battle standard which our vandal fighters carry into battle. It helps encourage them and keep them focused
  • Reason 4: the page reinforces and emphasizes the importance of fighting vandalism everywhere on Wikipedia
  • Reason 5: the CVU symbol, which appears on User Pages all over the place is an extremely effective recruiting device to attract users to become vandal fighters
  • Reason 6: the CVU symbol also serves somewhat in the capacity of a barnstar, which you can give to yourself, to show your pride in your contribution to Wikipedia as an vandal fighter.
  • Reason 7: barnstars, banners, and userboxes in addition to their other purposes serve as recruiting devices and as such compete against one another for the attention of Wikipedians. In the midst of all these, the CVU banner stands out quite well, correctly representing the high priority of fighting vandalism on Wikipedia
  • Reason 8: vigilance is key in keeping vandalism under control. The CVU embodies this.
  • Reason 9: the CVU has been a strong contributing factor to the effectiveness at which vandalism has been countered on Wikipedia.
  • Reason 10: if something is working, don't fix it.

I see this whole conflict over the CVU as a left-side-of-the-brain vs right-side-of-the-brain issue. Left-brain-dominants who favor strategy and business as usual may not appreciate the need for a right-brained approach. The CVU is an application of emotional intelligence, and goes beyond mere instruction. That's why so many (younger/new) Wikipedians can identify with it. Please let the CVU do its job of guiding them to the worthy cause of fighting vandalism. Thank you. The Transhumanist    22:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep as per the last 4 times and The Transhumanist. Dfrg.msc 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although being a younger/new Wikipedian I don't necessarily agree that the CVU is an application of emotional intelligence. Nonetheless, I argue "keep" as per Ratiocinate, also being a member of both WP:RCP and WP:CVU. --Martian.knight 23:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As it is not inactive Reasons 1 and 3 are invalid; Reasons 4 through 7 are a matter of personal opinion and taste. You personally may not like someone else's project but this is not grounds for deleting it out from under them. NZ forever 00:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as the project is obviously active. Perhaps not as active as some other places on WP, but it's certainly got members who are out there reverting vandalism (many of the RC patrollers are CVU members) and generally being helpful. I see no valid reason to delete CVU or mark it inactive. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – To Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol and tag as ((inactive)) (per Addhoc). —« ANIMUM » 00:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Stongest keep ever - Even if it seems inactive, many people participate and make vandalism reverts based on that page. --Hirohisat ^Talk 00:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to something less militariain if we can't get rid. Nick 00:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[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.