Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiDefcon

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 8 people explicitly arguing for a straight "delete", 8 people arguing for straight "keep", 4 arguing to either "delete or userfy", 2 arguing to "keep or userfy", 2 arguing for straight "userfy" and one abstain.

Even counting all the "delete or userfy" and the straight "userfy" votes as arguments against keeping in the Wikipedia-space, this fails to reach the minimum threshold for rough consensus.

This nomination was started on 30 Aug. It's been over 2 weeks. The discussion here petered out over a week ago. I'm going to call time on this discussion and close it as a "no consensus" but without prejudice against an immediate renomination if new evidence becomes available about how the vandals actually react. Rossami (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

WikiDefcon
The intent is to create an indicator of how much Wikipedia is under attack from vandals, and to raise this indicator e.g. when Willy comes around, so as to notify admins to get on the case asap. Proponents allege that it already has been instrumental in stopping a Willy attack. However, several people have mentioned on the talk page that they consider it a bad idea since it is basically a scoreboard for vandals, and we shouldn't be giving those any attention. Userfying has been suggested but the creators strongly disagree. So this seems the proper venue. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - an attention-getter for vandals, not to mention very juvenile. No vandal attack has ever caused us to lock the database; to even suggest such a circumstance gives the vandals a goal to aim for. &mdash; Dan | Talk 17:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, but userfication would be ok. By description this is redundant with WP:AN/I and WP:AIAV and does act as something of "hey lets go for DefCon-x". I saw it in the title of IRC, looked at the page and was none-the-wiser about what I should do to help out. -Splash 17:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep or userfy. I find it useful. Andre ( talk ) 18:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy or delete. I've moved it to User:Coolcat/WikiDefcon, as I don't think it would be eligible for deletion as a user page. Vacuum c 18:57, August 30, 2005 Agree with above. Vacuum c 22:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * You noticed that we've barely begun the discussion, that they don't want it userfied and that this page is specifically for debating things like user pages? -Splash 19:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyway, someone needs to delete the resultant cross-space redirect. -Splash 19:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoops, guess I was being a bit too bold this time. Sorry, I didn't read the whole comment above. I 'd the redirects. Vacuum c 22:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP It hasn't been 7 days since it was proposed. It is under developement and vote. A lot of people including Jimmy Wales himself is considering pros and cons. Wikiprojects and proposed policies should not be vfded at all instead they should be rejected/accepted, depending on concensus. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Argumentum Ad Jimbonem? Too easy, Coolcat. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:47, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not VFD. This is a process specifically for this type of thing. -Splash 23:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems just like VfD, though, doesn't it? -- Visviva 01:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In that it is a place where the deletion of pages is discussed and serves part of the purpose that used to be served by VFD, that similarity is entirely intentional. Uncle G 11:39:42, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Most of the participants in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiDefcon are in favor of userfying it. If there is discussion going on someplace else, especially if it represents a different consensus, please add a link here or in that talk page. FreplySpang (talk) 00:35, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete would also be okay with me, by the way. I object to the militaristic symbolism. FreplySpang (talk) 20:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep without prejudice to a renomination. At present, all arguments for and against this project are speculative (see Wikipedia talk:WikiDefcon).  If this page is persuasively linked to spikes in vandalism, then it should be deleted, not userfied.  But if it has no such impact, then it arguably provides a benefit to the community, and is therefore appropriate in Wikipedia: space.   -- Visviva 01:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It will certainly spike in response to vandalism: someone will change it! What do you mean, exactly? -Splash 01:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy, but I tend towards voting delete as it semi-duplicates WP:VIP. -Sean Curtin 01:55, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, discussion appears to be ongoing at the page. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:05, 2005 August 31 (UTC)
 * Delete as vandal magnet; agree with Kelly: WP:BEANS. &mdash; Davenbelle 07:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep It's not the purpose of VfD to delete this kind of thing. And I'm still waiting for someone to provide evidence that vandals regard this as a scoreboard. --Ryan Delaney talk 08:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Evidence. Dan100 (Talk) 17:58, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not VFD, and it is precisely the purpose of NFD to at least consider this kind of thing. Userfy or delete, has no business in mainspace. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:47, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy or delete. Encouraging vandalism is not helpful. Ambi 10:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vandal scoreboard - potentially rather harmful. (When I first saw it, I thought it was pretty cool. But then I thought more about it... and realised that, on balance, it has more potential for harm than good.) Dan100 (Talk) 17:56, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy to whoever is going to maintain it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC) Screw it, delete, since it will be ineffective and will be forgotten over time. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as it's a bad idea, but I don't see how our user space policy disallows it so I suppose anyone who wants to could recreate it in their user space unless there's huge community opposition to it (which there isn't). --fvw *  00:13, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A rare case where I agree with deletion of a policy-space page.  All this does is give organized vandals a thermometer they can use to measure the effectiveness of their attacks and coordinate them to achieve maximum effectiveness.  If someone wants to know whether they can help with vandalism, they should go to Recent Changes, and pick up their mop and bucket on the way. --Tony Sidaway Talk  02:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't necessarily even agree with the page, but why delete it?  It's a project that may actually gain some legs and turn into a useful vandal fighter.  (For example, the page could take its defcon level from a bot tracking Recent Changes, New Pages, and Deletion, Move and Block logs.  Let's give it a couple months.   ral  315  13:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, pending evidence that an increase in Defcon is followed by a further increase in vandalism. It might be better in user space, but I am not convinced it should be forced there. Septentrionalis 21:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep A demo of an obvious tool that should be given immediate developer attention.


 * All arguments that this will encourage vandalism are unfounded. You just don't know. You can't extrapolate from a vandalism counter on a user page. In that case, vandalism was relatively light to begin with; I can see how taking notice of it might encourage more. Vandalism is a constant problem for this site as a whole and the social effects of a warning system are, at best, unknown.


 * More to the point, it is foolish and naive of us to take as our anti-vandalism strategy don't take any notice and maybe they'll go away or perhaps  don't let them know we're watching. Police cars are marked (some of them); stores and homes have burglar alarms; and military bases have air-raid sirens. Whatever (unlikely) cost is associated with a warning system, it cannot outweigh its obvious benefits.


 * The true fear at the root of this nomination is that our Community lacks an effective deterrent to vandals. How true. But that lack is repaired by building defenses, not playing possum -- and this tool is an essential defensive element. &mdash; Xiong &#29066; talk * 02:53, 2005 September 3 (UTC)


 * Delete or userfy as an unnecessary scoreboard for vandals. - ulayiti (talk)   (my RfA)  13:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not useful, etc. - brenneman (t) (c)  01:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC) (And does it seem to anyone else we're still voting here?)
 * Abstain. I don't know. It's more likely that a built in software solution would be a better substitute rather than a Template. &mdash; Ambush Commander (Talk) 19:13, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. We already have a vandal scoreboard, it's called WP:VIP. The vandals are going to vandalize us anyways. My only concern is who is going to update it, because it seems like a thing a bot would do... but that isn't for discussion here. Give the page a few months as a trial and then let's see how it goes. Tito xd 07:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy as per my statements on the talk page. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:41, 7 September 2005 (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 article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.