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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drew R. Smith/Vandalism Patrol[edit]

Procedural nomination. A previous version of this page was undergoing an MFD when the subpage was requested to be deleted by the hosting user. I performed the deletion per WP:CSD#U1 and closed the MFD. A deletion review was requested by a contributor to the page. I closed the DRV as unnecessary, restored and transuserfied the page to the filer with the suggestion to improve it to meet userpage guidelines and noted that I would bring a new MFD to see if the repurposed page is acceptable to the community. And here we are. –xeno^talk 20:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per KC in the previous, with fire and brimstone. The last thing we need is yet another gaggle of barely-teens running around giving each other pseudomilitaristic medals and titles because they had the enormous skill to click 'undo' to 'BUTTS LOL'. → ROUX ₪ 21:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  comment Barely teens? Nice try, I'm 20.Drew Smith What I've done 02:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Missed that before, you've a point. Roux, let's leave people's actual ages out of this, we can stay focused on whether this is the sort of dignified, mature sort of award system we want to have projected to outsiders looking in at the project... It isn't. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not about age, it's about maturity (or the lack of;), and the image the project projects. Jack Merridew 08:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, I was referring to metaphorical age. → ROUX ₪ 03:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  we know ;) no worries. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold If we hold AEE because of ongoing discussions, this one is a twin. Collect (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The purpose of wikipeda is to collaboratively build an encyclopedia, not engage in "Worlds of Wordcraft Online" which neither fosters the collaborative environment required nor builds the encyclopedia. -- Avi (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Avi, and the fact that, well, we're not an online role-playing game. Unitanode 21:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Avi, per this not being like WP:AEE, per WP:ILIKEIT vs WP:NOT ( "As for keeping score, you may not like it. Other people do. Go spoil someone elses fun." ...) and per being someone who thinks we're here to build an encyclopedia, not keep score. I suppose if this gets deleted there may well be some vandalism of various pages again, but I suppose that's the price to pay. ++Lar: t/c 22:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment WP:AEE is completely different. They're trying to create power where no power was granted. Vandalism Patrol does not. And yes, my actions after the MFD of programmer13's version of the page were wrong, but they weren't vandalism. They were WP:Points being made.Drew Smith What I've done 02:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So you should have been blocked, or no? How about the second time you did it? ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Those edits were vandalism out of pique. Jack Merridew 08:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  How is Drew R. Smith's block log clean after that spate of nonsense? Unitanode 00:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocks are preventative not punitive, and it wasn't noticed till well after the fact. He was warned against repeating it. Also per WP:BITE. Plus I'm a big softie? Oh, and my favorite critic reminded me I forgot to say what I actually think should be done (although it's obvious from the reasons, no?) so... delete ++Lar: t/c 00:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I was wondering why he wasn't blocked back then to prevent him from continuing his disruption. Unitanode 01:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Presumably, wasn't noticed till after the fact, I am guessing? I didn't notice it till several days later, and the kind person who reverted the first two edits may just have felt a warning was enough. Tend to agree warnings are a good way to go on first reversions. Twas me who did the second set and I'm a big softie, besides being personally involved so I just warned again and let it be. Perhaps you could ask Drew himself why he wasn't blocked, as a budding expert vandal fighter, he presumably should have a pretty clear idea about what's appropriate, one would hope. ++Lar: t/c 02:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As per Collect, defer deletion to resolution of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Self electing groups. In the meantime, redirect to the RFC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• del wikipedia shouldn't be treated like a MMORPG. Viridae^Talk 00:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per recent MFD of Service Awards. This page is no different. If this goes, service awards does too.Drew Smith What I've done 02:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (particularly the "what about X?" and "All or nothing!" sections) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ++Lar: t/c 03:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Lar, roux; all the deletion-minded above have good points. Back in the day, this idea garnered the nick; WikiProject Penis Measuring. I've had a fair amount of dialogue with Drew and the others involved in this whack-a-vandal game and they don't get it. They are not listening. So, it goes away, again, and maybe they'll learn from that. This is part of what has informed my opinion concerning the current request at RFAR; not the same littluns, but it's the same inappropriate mindset. I've been in ur wiki a lot longer than most all of you; the perennial Bad Ideas™ go down in flames regularly.
  —Sockpuppet First Class, Jack Merridew 08:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Try these on for size.

• keep, it is not an article.
• Keep We have Barnstars, Userboxes, etc.
• Keep ...although maybe we mark it as "humour" seeing as quality and not quantity really matter. We don't want people thinking the goal is lots of vandalism reversions
• Keep.. most essays in the project space aren't "appropriate for an encyclopedia" either, should we delete them too?
• Keep, for the same reasons we have barnstars. It's encouraging to be rewarded for your hard work.
• keep - far from harming the project, they encourage people who are into awards to help the project by editing it. I think it should be kept.
• Keep - This is no different than userboxes or barnstars, and those pages have lasted for years. Nothing has suddenly changed in the policies and made this page unacceptable here. If we get rid of this, we might as well delete navigation templates or user pages or all of the other things the average encyclopedia doesn't have.
• Keep They do nothing to detract from the encyclopedia.
• Strong Keep: May I inquire upon what policy grounds the Delete proponents advocate their stance? I see nothing in deletion policy citing vandalism reversion counts as a violation of Wikipedia policy, nor has nom proffered any explanation of why he feels this is "inappropriate".
• Keep: These awards are fun. Like the kid says in the "Cat In the Hat" movie, "Go have NO FUN somewhere else."
• Keep - This is nonsense. These awards are completely harmless, and help give editors a sense of accomplishment.
• Keep: Comparable to barnstars;
• Strong keep. Useful in building community.

Drew Smith What I've done 08:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what policy are any of you actually using to support you're delete votes? All I'm seeing is a bunch of "little kids" this, and "editor" did that. Name one policy that outright bans this kind of thing. Then go right ahead and delete it. And Service awards, and barnstars, and most userpage content, and userboxes.Drew Smith What I've done 10:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (particularly the "what about X?" and "All or nothing!" sections) and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. (yes that's a repeat of what I said before, which you failed to address. So add in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for good measure... ) ++Lar: t/c 13:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Lar, I did see it the first time. And those policies say nothing about keeping a count of vandalism reversions, or giving medals for it. With all due respect, try again.Drew Smith What I've done 02:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you need to try reading them again, and again, until you get the point being made. A policy that says please realise that "Keep Y because X, which is like Y, exists" is not a valid argument, nor is "delete Z because we already deleted Q, which is like Z" nor is "if we delete R, which is like T, we have to also delete T"... for any values of X, Y, Z, Q, R and T you care to name doesn't have to name of any particular type of thing. So, I'd say you are either not reading carefully enough, or you are in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT mode. I'll not explain this again but I can assure you that any closing admin is going to discount your arguments of this sort (or find themselves at DRV fairly quickly). ++Lar: t/c 17:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - I understand that this editor is currently experiencing difficulty in his personal life, and I really hate that we are essentially "kicking him when he's down" with this discussion. Personal matters aside though, these awards seem like a bad idea to me for many of the reasons cited above. Specifically, this isn't what the encyclopeida is about, we already have Barnstars to recognize contributions, and frankly this just isn't the kind of image we want to project. Drew, you have my respect and best wishes, but I hope you'll be willing to drop this and move on. Doc Tropics 17:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have modified my original "Delete" to a "Weak Delete". The principles cited by myself and others are sound, but I see much more serious problems than this everyday, and occasionaly I've even been one. Principals aside, I guess it's no skin off my back if people want these things...Doc Tropics 20:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I voted weak keep for the previous incarnation, and this modified one without the WP:BURO concerns seems even more harmless. –xeno^talk 17:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Totally harmless. Exactly the same as the service awards or vandalism userboxes. If you think it's silly, don't participate, but who cares if some users want to tally their wack-a-vandal skills? Fences&Windows 20:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just found this, which seemed somehow relevant to this particular page. Unitanode 03:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Avi, Unitanode and, Lar. They've got it right, as do most of the other delete votes. Perhaps take this to Facebook or some other social networking site? Javert ^{(T · C)} 03:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a game. Gigs (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my previous rationale, which is probably already known here, since I'm cited in the first delete, but putting it here for the head counters anyway. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  ok; teh puppy's been around longer than I have ;) Cheers, Davenbelle 08:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a game, not a web host. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, encourages fast rather than accurate dealings with vandalism. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I hadn't thought of it in this way, but this could be a significant problem. Many edits that at first look like vandalism, actually turn out to be helpful edits, or at least honest, good-faith mistakes. This kind of rank-gathering would hurt, rather than help, in such cases, as it would encourage speed over accuracy, and quantity over quality. Great point, Stifle. Unitanode 16:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for bringing that one out Stifle. We certainly don't want to encourage game-like behaviors. "Haste makes waste", "slow and steady wins the race", "measure twice, cut once", and all that. ++Lar: t/c 17:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am emphatically an EMer, and in general I've not the strong objections to insular, game-like task forces, even as they're, as Roux, et al., note, often populated by Manichean MySpacers (the bellicosity is usually subtle, at least; that there are explicitly 23 military ranks-cum-medals here boggles the mind), that some do, recognizing that they tend to encourage behaviors the net effect on the project of which is positive (and to encourage to stay editors who, if sometimes problematic, do more good than harm), if for the wrong reasons, and even if I elect not to partake of what seems to me a bit silly. Here, though, per Stifle and Jack Merridew, the risks plainly outweigh the rewards; I cannot imagine, in fact, that anything good should come of this. Joe (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think Stifle and Jack Merridew have pointed out the problems that this would be likely to create. I do not this this would be beneficial to Wikipedia. As Joe says, "the risks plainly outweigh the rewards". Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion[edit]

Can we see some policies please?Drew Smith What I've done 23:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia:UP#Games, WP:NOTWEBHOST WP:NOTSTUPID. Javert ^{(T · C)} 00:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Drew, you seem to have some idea that WP:NOT should list every possible bad idea. It explicitly says that that will never be the case. That this sort of "leveling up" isn't explicitly forbidden does not mean that we are bound to allow it. Wikipedia itself is not a game. Gigs (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact, this seems to be the exact type of thing that WP:NOTSTUPID was meant to deal with: not every bad idea can be covered. Unitanode 01:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You think it's stupid, others don't. So you just don't like it. That's not a good reason to delete something. As for the "game" accusation, this isn't a game. It's a record of vandalism fighting. It has no rules or regulations, and it doesn't say anyone should do anything, it is merely a recognition of what has been done already. And the "web host" argument is equally weak - this project isn't acting as a web host for anything: "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia". This vandalism patrol is relevant to working on the encyclopedia. These arguments are really scraping the barrel. Fences&Windows 19:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't call it stupid, I wrote that WP:NOTSTUPID (did you read that link?) seemed to particularly apply. This is a particularly bad idea, that the link I provided seems to be applicable to. Unitanode 19:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I read it. Why would you think I hadn't, other than assuming that I'm lazy? It's hardly a very complex argument. To me "a particularly bad idea" or "a terrible idea" is "a stupid idea", hence the name of the redirect to that section being WP:NOTSTUPID. What, pray tell, is the difference? So you think it is a bad idea - but if it doesn't contravene any other policies, which it doesn't, then invoking WP:NOTSTUPID amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You've failed to convince me and others that "there is a good reason that the idea is terrible." Fences&Windows 20:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you hadn't read it, because you assumed that I was calling the idea stupid because I linked to it. WP:NOTSTUPID is not the equivalent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, no matter what you might think. As for who has convinced who, and of what, that doesn't matter particularly, but I'll leave it up to the closing admin to divine which way the winds blow at this MFD. Unitanode 20:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Javert: Thank you for finally providing a policy that addresses this. While I don't see this as a game, I see how the policy could be interpreted to include this. Now lets go MFD service awards! Next we'll get barnstars and userboxes! After that, we can do away with userpages completely! C'mon guys, lets go!Drew Smith What I've done 07:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Those are not the subject of this MfD, and I would guess that if you were to bring a bunch of pointy MfDs after this one closes, it would probably not be looked upon favorably. Especially given your userpage vandalism spree after the last one, I'd highly recommend stepping back from this, and reassessing things after this one closes. Unitanode 13:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Drew R. Smith's hypothetical point is exactly correct. Service awards and userboxes differ from this in no significant way. So if this is deleted, it would be reasonable to apply precedent and delete the service awards and userboxes. What is it the distinguishes those from the vandalism patrol? I'd highly recommend you find something more important to do on Wikipedia than deleting harmless projects and let this drop. Fences&Windows 19:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars and service awards, by their long existence and common usage throughout the community, have generally been considered to have achieved community consensus and approval. The results of this AfD will largely determine whether the "Vandal Medals" have that same level of approval or not. Therein lies the difference. Doc Tropics 20:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So because this is new and some editors think it is "a terrible idea" - without giving any real justification for why - it should be deleted? Please address the issue of why barnstars and service awards are OK and this isn't, rather than just saying that they have support and this doesn't, as that's a contentless argument. Fences&Windows 03:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The real point that I was trying to get at, which obviously missed the mark, is that any attempt to delete Barnstars will almost assuredly be unsuccessful. It would be an extremely pointy waste of time, and many editors would probably consider it a bad faith nomination. If this "Vandal Patrol" page has merit and contributes value to the project, then it might well achieve the same status as Barnstars. That is exactly what will be determined by this AfD. However, it seems most of the arguments to keep amount to "it's not hurting anyone", which is qualitatively different from "adding value". Doc Tropics 03:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And most of the delete votes amount to "i don't like it". Whats the difference?Drew Smith What I've done 04:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely agree that an attempt at deleting barnstars or service awards would be stupidly pointy. OK, a positive argument for this Vandalism Patrol - it will give editors recognition for an important Wikignoming task and it will give some advertisement of the importance of acting against vandalism in maintaining the quality and integrity of Wikipedia articles, which may encourage other editors to join in the Recent Changes Patrol or other anti-vandal activities. Fences&Windows 15:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks F&W, I can respect "recognition of wiki-work" as a valid "keep" argument, your point being that the recognition itself is the value that is added to the project. While I don't agree with the value-added concept enough to change my !vote, I acknowledge that you certainly raised a positive argument. Thanks, Doc Tropics 17:42, 25 July 2009 (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.