> On 05/09/06, Matt Brown <morven@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>It seems that we constantly assume 'Vandal!' in this case.
> How do we get across to the CVU that they can't vote amongst
> themselves to dispose of Assume Good Faith? Which is, ahh, a *policy*.
> Telling them they can't has had no effect.
I don't think username blocks is something we can blame CVU for.
CVU tends to stand for tolerance of bureaucratic nonsense, inexperience,
unfamiliarity with the goals of Wikipedia, militarism, and general
Cluelessness. All Bad Things, I agree, but they point to a completely
different issue: the phenomenon is of users who don't know how Wikipedia
works or should work but think they know better than the rest of us
because of their CVU "experience".
The admins involved in CVU tend to be either, a) Clueful people who
signed up for reasons which escape me but which I trust made sense to
them; or b) the "CVU admins", who passed RfA on the strength of their
perceived vandal-w ability but don't yet know what they're doing.
In my experience, 'a' is no problem, and 'b' may be overly officious
or process-oriented but don't go out of their way to set up Kafka-esque
username traps for newbies.
I'm more concerned about longer-term admins who've become burnt out
and decided they couldn't be bothered providing reasoning for exceeding
 Excuse me, I had some leftover flowery rhetoric burning a hole in my
 In this specific case ...
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: