Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (3rd nomination)

message: Page refactored, thanks to /ref/ tags.  The discussion about how and what to glorify, and how to reward active contributors along different dimensions, is of general interest -- I'm not sure how to start that kind of discussion, but it should be had.  In particular, I have heard a few suggestions of creating an actual WP video game environment, and one of the primary elements of such an environment would be good 3D vandal-fighting interfaces and stats tracking.  Would this be useful?  harmful?
I believe that if we focus on making editing (and cleanup) fun for everyone involved(even for thwarted vandals :)  "You've been blocked by User:Aschrm for spamming.  Bored?  Try categorizing or geotagging entries near where you live, something you can do even while blocked.", rather than fighting over tactics -- we will be closer to that ideal of a frictionless information commons.   I like the comparison of CVU with Wikipedia:Typo... which is clearly done in a spirit of (rather rote, but still genuine) fun.  +sj + 00:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

message: I pulled out some stats from the 16/8/2006 database dump, as always with such stats they need to be taken with a pinch of salt. And of course are subject to error on the part of the idiot who runs the extract (me).
Using the revision table, look for all edits with summaries like:
*Reverted%edits by%
*Revert to revision%popups%
*%Reverted vandalism%
And by converting to lower case first
*rvv
*rv%vandalism%
This should cover a good number of vandalism reverts (though possibly includes non-vandalism as well). It should cover most of the main vandalism reversion tools, whilst excluding the reversion bots. This won't be all vandalism reverts but should hopefully be equally biased for CVU and non-CVU reverts.
CVU Reverts are considered all those in :Category:Counter-Vandalism Unit members though it is of course possible that some of those members are also neutral or supportive of deletion.
For the month of July.
*Total reverts: 100733
*Reverts CVU: 24679
Along similar lines I've also considered edits to WP:AIV, again this has it's own problems such as often admins will deal with multiple vandals and then do one edit, whilst others don't, some will do a null edit to add the "List empty" type edit summary...
For July
*Total Edits: 6382
*CVU Edits: 2018
--pgk 12:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats 

message: User:Frosty0814snowman aka. FrostytheSnowman, has voted twice. Just a note. I didn't strike one or another. feydey 23:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first time, he voted "Keep." The second time, he changed his mind and voted "Delete." It's up to him whether to strike his original comments, but for the record, his second vote explains that he no longer believes the way he did during his first vote. Dr Chatterjee 16:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dual user vote 

message: Can we keep the talk page from spilling over and becoming another branch of this MfD debate? I realize I'm barred from further participation in the MfD, but I'm just saying...  Dr Chatterjee 16:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The talk page is not a second MfD 

message: What Would Jimbo Do? This page is such a polarising issue, with respected Wikipedians on both sides of the debate. Any decision made either way (keep, delete, or merge/redirect) will cause a lot of outcry. I'd really like to know what Jimbo would think of this... --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably won't know until you ask. My mental Jimbo would say keep, but since Jimbo is actually a person, so I don't think we are allowed to make claims on his behalf like that. --tjstrf 17:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWJD 

message: ... this whole MfD was a bad-faith attempt by Bobby Boulders (under the sock name Dr Chatterjee) to disrupt Wikipedia.  See Dr C's last edit to his talk page before I protected it: this. NawlinWiki 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A rather superb stunt by bobby/whoever it is: he's managed to graduate from grafitti to instigating riots. So kudos, Bobby...you've made yourself into a precendent setter! Now go find youself something constructive to do, eh? --SB_Johnny | talk 19:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep.  Booby targeted the CVU because we have stoped him several times in the past.  Æon Insanity Now!EA! 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wonder how this plays into the whole honeypot theory. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, but shouldn't this mean that deleting the page would be against the WP:DENY principle, since a vandal was attempting to make a mark by deleting the page? --tjstrf 17:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, a lot of people do. Notice the sudden absence of LTA pages and all the votes against the CVU here that are based on WP:DENY?--tjstrf 18:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, many people are following the ideal this suggested policy is supposed to uphold, but not because of the policy. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just so you all know... 

message: Unless somebody objects, I am going to close this discussion/vote within a few hours in accordance with WP:SNOW. - Mike Rosoft 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The result of this discusion was: Keep, obvious and blatant bad-faith nomination. The originator of the previous nomination (which resulted in the page's deletion despite an overwhelming consensus to keep) was found to be a sockpuppet of a known vandal. Even before the discovery, the count was 29 to delete vs. 45 to keep (with 11 more afterwards). There is no way this page would achieve a consensus to delete.
Since there has been an objection, I am going to wait a day or two. (The normal length is 5 days, correct?) And regarding GTBacchus's comment: no, I don't think a valid reason has been given to delete the project. There have been fair arguments against the project as it exists now, but they would be best brought to its talk page, not to a request to delete. - Mike Rosoft 08:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it may be a conflict of interest for you to close the case, Mike, as you yourself are a member of the counter-vandalism unit. People might bring that up to deletion review whatever the outcome of this case, so it's obviously a sensitive issue :). Cowman109Talk 12:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: there is nothing much to lose by letting it run it's full length before closeing it as keep.Geni 13:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing

message: For the record, if people really want to go by the numbers, there were about 52 keeps and 24 deletes and a few scattered 'renames' and 'merges', which is not really a supermajority, but I went through the list and took votes that actually gave valid reasoning and discounted sockpuppet votes, and came up with 16 reasonable keeps and 16 reasonable deletes here. Cowman109Talk 13:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already addressed that, Cyde :). Oh, and Chodorkovskiy, I didn't even look at who was making "votes" except when I looked for the Willy on Wheels sockpuppets. I only looked at the reasoning. This is just my interpretation of the deletion debate, as I've said before. You're more than welcome to interpret it in your own way, of course. :) Cowman109Talk 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. As you wish. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Cyde, the DRV was a (nearly procedural) review of the speedy close of the MFD started by Dr Chatterjee. ~ PseudoSudo 22:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Counting votes with arguments isn't any better than just counting votes... all it really shows is that the person wieghing in happened to have a minute or two to be wordy, rather than saying "keep, this MFD is rediculous." (My vote (which you counted) was in part just a long-winded way to say "keep, this MFD is rediculous"). One could just as easily add to and break up my comment into 10 good arguments as one could make 10 sockpuppets to put them foreward (if they were the sort of person who likes having sock-smelly hands),  but it wouldn't mean that those 10 different arguments were necessarily good ones, and just because there was 10 of them doesn't mean they're better than just one, even if the one was "this MFD is rediculous". --SB_Johnny|talk|books 23:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since this isn't a straight up or down vote, 1 not-vote with ten arguments is pretty much the same as 10 not-votes with one argument each...good or bad. I'd say based on the number and validity of the arguments the closing admin would be justified in closing this as a delete. Whether s/he will or not is probably based more on wiki-politics then the actual reasoning behind the debate. It's been a while since I've been active, but Wikipedia seems to be moving away from strict vote counting. Issues like this is probably one of the reasons why. 208.42.140.43 17:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike the sock puppet accounts, it's harder to expose anons as being vandals. I suspect 208.42.140.43 is likely just a troll. It's not uncommon to just strike that which comes from anons and brand new accounts, especially with the extremely high level of sock/ vandal activity on these pages. I don't see this comment as providing any useful information, just flawed speculation (even if I was on the pro-delete side this is clearly a non-consensus case). -- Ned Scott 21:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, why would you assume he/she is a troll? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I have good reason to assume bad faith by anons on this particular page? Just look at the edit history. Not only that, but you can be right or bring up a good point and still be a troll (not that I agree with his logic, at all). We're semi-protected now, so it won't matter for the rest of the debate. -- Ned Scott 03:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supermajority?