G'day David,
On 05/09/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com 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-whacking 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[0] for newbies.
I'm more concerned[1] about longer-term admins who've become burnt out and decided they couldn't be bothered providing reasoning for exceeding their mandate.
[0] Excuse me, I had some leftover flowery rhetoric burning a hole in my literary pocket.
[1] In this specific case ...