Okay, I'll make one now: invite-only IRC chats don't seem like the right way to take actions with sufficient transparency and goodwill.
Apparently you haven't done your research: Invite-only was recinded within 48 hours of implementation.
And I'm not a fan of the invite-only status either; I forget whose decision it was, but it was unilateral and makes everything a lot more cumbersome than it needs to be.
It was my decision, the decision of the channel owner. Freenode policy says: Channels on freenode are owned and operated by the groups which register them. I registered it, I own it. It does not belong to the CVU, or to Wikipedia, it belongs to me, and I set the policy for the channel. If you register your own channel, you'll be able to set whatever policies you like for it.
The reason the channel is no longer open to unconfirmed users is to prevent the discussions in the channel (discussions about current vandalism to Wikipedia, about how vandals are able to vandalize the site, information that is practically a bootcamp for would-be vandals) from being used against Wikipedia. Established Wikipedia users are still welcome in the channel, and no user with an established Wikipedia account has been denied access to the channel. Any user who is denied is welcome to appeal the denial directly to me; the how-to page makes that quite clear.
As for unilateral, wrong. The decision was mine to make, and I was not required to consult with anyone, but I did consult with the high-access-level long-term users of the channel, and we agreed on how to proceed. As for cumbersome, anyone who finds taking 10 seconds to write "My IRC nick is XYZ. ~~~~" too cumbersome to bear is welcome to use #wikipedia-en-vandalism2, where the same bot reports can be found, without the chatter.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just one disgruntled user looking for something to criticize. It has been one thing after another; when one baseless criticism is deflated, another takes its place. Allow me to deflate the most recent one: How I run my channel is quite frankly none of your business. If you're so worried about it, feel free to take the bot source (which is freely published) and start your own channel. Now, I'm sure you have a new baseless criticism to hurl, please, be my guest.
Essjay
-- Essjay ----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia http://www.wikipedia.org/
All I can say about the text below is that if one is to quote multiple people, it would be nice to indicate who said what.
And I'm not sure what essjay's getting upset about, but pranayama might help.
On 2/4/06, - Essjay - essjaywiki@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, I'll make one now: invite-only IRC chats don't seem like the right way to take actions with sufficient transparency and goodwill.
Apparently you haven't done your research: Invite-only was recinded within 48 hours of implementation.
And I'm not a fan of the invite-only status either; I forget whose decision it was, but it was unilateral and makes everything a lot more cumbersome than it needs to be.
It was my decision, the decision of the channel owner. Freenode policy says: Channels on freenode are owned and operated by the groups which register them. I registered it, I own it. It does not belong to the CVU, or to Wikipedia, it belongs to me, and I set the policy for the channel. If you register your own channel, you'll be able to set whatever policies you like for it.
The reason the channel is no longer open to unconfirmed users is to prevent the discussions in the channel (discussions about current vandalism to Wikipedia, about how vandals are able to vandalize the site, information that is practically a bootcamp for would-be vandals) from being used against Wikipedia. Established Wikipedia users are still welcome in the channel, and no user with an established Wikipedia account has been denied access to the channel. Any user who is denied is welcome to appeal the denial directly to me; the how-to page makes that quite clear.
As for unilateral, wrong. The decision was mine to make, and I was not required to consult with anyone, but I did consult with the high-access-level long-term users of the channel, and we agreed on how to proceed. As for cumbersome, anyone who finds taking 10 seconds to write "My IRC nick is XYZ. ~~~~" too cumbersome to bear is welcome to use #wikipedia-en-vandalism2, where the same bot reports can be found, without the chatter.
As far as I'm concerned, this is just one disgruntled user looking for something to criticize. It has been one thing after another; when one baseless criticism is deflated, another takes its place. Allow me to deflate the most recent one: How I run my channel is quite frankly none of your business. If you're so worried about it, feel free to take the bot source (which is freely published) and start your own channel. Now, I'm sure you have a new baseless criticism to hurl, please, be my guest.
Essjay
-- Essjay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia http://www.wikipedia.org/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The Cunctator wrote:
All I can say about the text below is that if one is to quote multiple people, it would be nice to indicate who said what.
And I'm not sure what essjay's getting upset about, but pranayama might help.
Essjay is quoting no one - that is all his own writing.
And I think he's probably upset since you are attacking an organisation he has played a major role in administrating.
Chris
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
Essjay is quoting no one - that is all his own writing.
Ignore the above, on reading through again I see that it does indeed have two quotes. My apologies.
Chris
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
All I can say about the text below is that if one is to quote multiple people, it would be nice to indicate who said what.
And I'm not sure what essjay's getting upset about, but pranayama might help.
Essjay is quoting no one - that is all his own writing.
And I think he's probably upset since you are attacking an organisation he has played a major role in administrating.
Chris
I don't know where to start, so I suppose this is the best place. I don't have a real problem with the CVU -- if people want a shiny badge to stick on their userpage, it's not like we can stop them short of causing much anguish. I don't see a real point to it, however. I fight vandalism just as effectively without being a CVU member. I don't see the point in joining. Unless there's *real* organisation -- doling out of edits to check and/or revert, for instance -- it doesn't serve much purpose. Fighting vandalism is rather solitary, and you don't need a hierarchy or list of members to write a script that lists potential vandalism edits. I think the main problem is that some people see the CVU as a bunch of jackbooted thugs (probably not even close to being true; it might have the same amount of truth as the accusation that AfD is populated with insane deletionists) and/or being an organisation that right now doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose. If it were forcibly disbanded today, we could still use the bots and IRC channels to find vandalism edits.
John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]])