Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Rollbacker and Reviewer Cabal

 __NOINDEX__
 * 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 per WP:SNOW  Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  17:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Rollbacker and Reviewer Cabal


This new cabal seems to be a community project for vandal fighters, yet we already have the Counter-Vandalism Unit. Nothing that this cabal does is new or could not be done at the CVU. There also seems to be elitist attitudes developing in the cabal. Posts such as this and edits such as this exhibit an attitude completely opposed to the principles of Wikipedia. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I had a guessing that this MfD was coming soon. I have also clarified my comment on its talk page. The page was created by an editor who lacks an understanding of "The Pillars" . the aggressive/rude attitude of the self proclaimed coordinator only adds fuel to the fire. the page was created for the Elitist of the editors will only be a place to harbor more Drama. It would be much appreciated if the concerned editors had participated on WP:CVU which was created exactly for this purpose rather than creating another page just to get the title of the Chairman and have subordinates. -- D Big X ray   13:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Dan653 (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note the rapidly waning members list. Dan653 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - no real benefit, elitist attitudes, redundant to CVU and RCP, and have not even mentioned Half of their stated purpose (specifically, the Reviewer Userright). Snuff this out quickly. (A note on full disclosure...Dan653, ItsZippy and myself are all active in the Counter-Vandalism Unit, and the closing admin should weigh that in hir closing decision). Achowat (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Either revise the project completely or delete/userfy. Some criticisms that have been made:
 * Cabal: see Cabals.
 * Elitist membership and pseudo-hierarchy.
 * Attitude of the self appointed coordinator ("revocation of membership" of DBigXray)
 * Goals: none that cannot be implemented via already existing projects.
 * Vandalism info template: redundant to wdefcon which is automated (anyway, wdefcon works on extensions, why not just create another extension?)
 * — benzband  ( talk ) 16:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * — benzband  ( talk ) 16:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sorry, this serves no purpose that I can see, and the open claims of elitism aren't exactly encouraging either. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. per Zip Darkness Shines (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. We don't do this sort of exclusionism here, especially as retaliation ("You dared comment unfavorably on a project I like, I'm hereby kicking you out"? Really? "If you don't comment within X time, I'm staging a hostile takeover of this project"? REALLY??). I see nothing in this project that's not already in places like CVU - except a sense of malice and elitism, which has no place on Wikipedia - and given the flow of "members" jumping ship in the face of the elitism, there's not likely to be much of a ship left to this "cabal" anyway. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete, no way is this staying around. The elitist attitude is so permeating here that IMO it should get speedied. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do not see anything here that the CVU cannot do. Reviewers and Rollbackers can still collaborate at CVU, as can the tips be put at CVU. There is also an elitist attitude, which I do not like. The fact that the coordinator can remove a member without consensus just because he disagrees with them is appalling. I kind of feel awkward since Jeffwang, the coordinator, is my CVU instructor, but I'll still vote Delete neverless. Just being bold.  Thekillerpenguin     (talk)   01:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I see no purpose in this. We already have the CVUA. Also, the CVU lets anyone in, regardless of user rights. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The Coordinator, Jeffwang, has semi-retired, so he might not be here to comment. Just a heads up.  Thekillerpenguin     (talk)   01:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can't see a reason how an elitist cabal could benefit wikipedia. Every listed purpose can be/is being fulfilled by the CVU. This cemented my opposition to this wikiproject, as explained in my comment there. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 02:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Good grief. This is a terrible idea. Strong delete. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  07:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Well, the social exclusionism is a problem. We don't want to have cliques. Even if this were rectified, it's probably best to keep anti-vandalism and reviewing efforts centralized. As mentioned, there are already relevant wikiprojects and project pages. NTox · talk 10:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of keeping Rollback and Reviewing centralized. Rollback is about Vandalism, almost exclusively. Reviewing (right now, at least) is about user-feedback and helping new users. They really don't seem all that connected. Achowat (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I appreciate the good intentions, and I encourage all the participants in this "cabal" to continue their participation on Wikipedia, both in terms of vandalism control and any other work they want to undertake. However, this group in its current form has unfortunately become a distraction and divisive. Please also note that the word "cabal" as used on Wikipedia, except in humorous contexts, has a severely negative connotation. Finally, I respectfully suggest that some of the members of this group might possibly benefit from reading and considering the advice offered at Guidance for younger editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.