Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous 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 discussion was Already marked historic and removed from WP:CVU, but maintained for historic purposes. An WP:INVOLVED close, yes, but this discussion seems to have reached a mutually agreeable conclusion Achowat (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Task Force

[edit]
Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Task Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
That was actually the 2nd nomination, the first nomination is at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Task Force and was closed keep. Monty845 00:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Monty, you are correct. Dan653 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As someone who had, until recently, been a very active member of the New Look CVU and had personally run the reorganization of the entire Project, I can say that there is not now, nor has there ever been a functional use of this Project Page. The page was created because of an MFD of the entire CVU in an attempt to "prove" the Project was still active. There have been other attempts to find something useful for this page to do, but they've all failed. Deletion is the correct course of action. Achowat (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Achowat. Anything created just to spite an MFD probably shouldn't be around. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the first MfD. Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 17:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looks like the page should be moved to Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Member list. There doesn't seem to be a clear task that the Task Force performs on behalf of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - It's not true that there's never been a functional use of the page. :) I used to use it myself to find assistance when I was dong vandalism patrol. Mind you, it's changed a lot since back in the days when it not only listed people but also told us who was actively online and even if they could be presently found in IRC (for example; the more advanced template that used to be transcluded to later versions of the page has since been deleted after - I believe - the function that made it work stopped working). (You can see more about the ideas behind the page at its earliest creation.) It had a higher purpose, and it briefly served it. I don't know if it has that purpose anymore. While I was once an active member of CVU, I turned my attention to copyright problems some time ago and have been dwelling in that black hole of ever-growing need ever since. :) But I'm curious: is there some kind of rationale for deletion other than "per this redlink"? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there is. The redlink was originally a link to Dan's original nomination, which has since been deleted as it was filed in error. This is simply a refile of this. Here's the discussion that spurred it, although we had talked on the IRC prior to that. Basically, in a nutshell, we're trying to get reorganized at the CVU - and the task force currently performs no task on behalf of the CVU - it is simply a list of users. As Achowat said, "there is not now, nor has there ever been a functional use of this Project Page." And I think that sums it up. Theopolisme TALK 12:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, but that's wrong. :) There was a functional use of the project page; it was in fact a pretty handy little system of locating urgent assistance. In the absence of status auto-updating, its original function is impaired. But CVU has been around and active for more than half a decade; it has evolved in that time, as have the systems it uses. If the page is no longer of any use, deletion may be appropriate, but I'm not comfortable with arguments that don't reflect the historical usage of the page. It seems to do a disservice to the people (not me) who put all the work into developing the system. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you're in favor of retaining it as a historical page? Because it doesn't seem like getting the page back up and running is in our near future.. unless of course, you'd like to come back from copyvio-land and re-enter the twisted fields of counter-vandalism? Theopolisme TALK 12:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • As much as I would sometimes love to leave copyvio-land, I'm afraid it won't let me go. :) Personally, I do prefer to retain information of historical interest, and project membership lists have value in and of themselves (I use them when trying to run down project members for various reasons). If I were active in the project still, I'd probably be recommending a rename and retention for that reason. But since I'm not active in the project, I'm not recommending either retention or deletion. My main goal is keeping the record straight on what the page was all about. :) It was a clever idea, and it worked well for a while. During the first MFD, I argued that it should be kept because I was at the time actively using it. That hasn't been true for a long time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as historic - The member list on the page has been replaced by Category:Wikipedians in the Counter-Vandalism Unit and the page doesn't appear to have a present use for the project. However, the August 2007 link noted above by Moonriddengirl,its earliest creation, provides some history behind the Counter-Vandalism Unit as may other revisions. If we delete the page, it's unlikely it will ever be restored. However, in ten, twenty, fifty years, some editors working at the Counter-Vandalism Unit may be interested in it's early history. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So the correct solution may be to Mark as Historic and then de-list from the CVU Homepage. Achowat (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    After hearing (reading) others points, I've changed my vote (above) to Keep and Mark as Historic, as well as de-list from the homepage. Theopolisme TALK 13:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Dan653 (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2012 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Task_Force_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1138701738"