For...the...love...of...God.
How many times do we have to go through this? This is at least the fourth round of "The CVU is the most evil creation since Willy on Wheels," and I for one am getting sick of it. People didn't like that we had directors, so we got rid of our directors. People didn't like that there was an implication that the Foundation might possibly on a rare Tuesday in May if it is raining approve of the work that we do, so we added a disclaimer to show that we aren't Foundation supported. People didn't like the way our logos looked, so we redesigned them. Now that we've been willing to accomodate on everything else, we're taking fire because we have two images out of dozens of unsanctioned derivatives (yeah, that includes things like the COTW's logo) when we actually took the time to ask for the Board's input on them.
If you don't like the images, IfD them. If you don't like the CVU, then MfD us. However, you'd better be fair: You'd better IfD every other image that fits the same criteria, and you'd better MfD every other page that smells anything like us.
I for one, as the last Director of the CVU, appreciate the support that has been expressed for us: Thank you all for recognizing what we are about and supporting our desire to make Wikipedia a better place.
Finally, it has been asked whether we're actually making Wikipedia better; I'd like to ask the contrapositive: Is alienating a dedicated corps of recent changes patrollers what you were looking for? Were you trying to make us feel unappreciated? Will Wikipedia be a better place if we decide to stop doing RC patrol? If that isn't what you were going for, then you failed to look ahead, because that is exactly what this is doing. Everytime we have to stop our RC patrol work and defend ourselves, it is one more time that we have to ask ourselves: "Is it worth doing this when we keep taking fire at every turn?"
Essjay -- Essjay ----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia http://www.wikipedia.org/
On 2/3/06, - Essjay - essjaywiki@gmail.com wrote:
For...the...love...of...God.
How many times do we have to go through this? This is at least the fourth round of "The CVU is the most evil creation since Willy on Wheels," and I for one am getting sick of it.
Maybe there's a good reason, eh?
People didn't like that we had directors, so we got rid of our directors. People didn't like that there was an implication that the Foundation might possibly on a rare Tuesday in May if it is raining approve of the work that we do, so we added a disclaimer to show that we aren't Foundation supported. People didn't like the way our logos looked, so we redesigned them. Now that we've been willing to accomodate on everything else, we're taking fire because we have two images out of dozens of unsanctioned derivatives (yeah, that includes things like the COTW's logo) when we actually took the time to ask for the Board's input on them.
If you don't like the images, IfD them. If you don't like the CVU, then MfD us. However, you'd better be fair: You'd better IfD every other image that fits the same criteria, and you'd better MfD every other page that smells anything like us.
MfD? WTF? Sheesh. Miscellany for Deletion. What a mess.
I for one, as the last Director of the CVU, appreciate the support that has been expressed for us: Thank you all for recognizing what we are about and supporting our desire to make Wikipedia a better place.
I fully support that desire.
Finally, it has been asked whether we're actually making Wikipedia better; I'd like to ask the contrapositive: Is alienating a dedicated corps of recent changes patrollers what you were looking for? Were you trying to make us feel unappreciated? Will Wikipedia be a better place if we decide to stop doing RC patrol?
Quite possibly.
If that isn't what you were going for, then you failed to look ahead, because that is exactly what this is doing. Everytime we have to stop our RC patrol work and defend ourselves, it is one more time that we have to ask ourselves: "Is it worth doing this when we keep taking fire at every turn?"
Good.
Now, if you're able to not take this personally, I would suggest that you try to understand what my criticism is. Working to discourage bad edits needs to be done in a way that creates as little antagonism and "us against them" mentality.
Calling yourselves the "Counter Terrorism Unit" doesn't do a good job of that.
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe there's a good reason, eh?
Doubtful someone would have said what it was by now.
MfD? WTF? Sheesh. Miscellany for Deletion. What a mess.
Compared to the event that triggered it's creation. Not really.
Quite possibly.
I'm on the helpdesk mailing list. We get a lot of emails complaining that page x y or z has been vandalised. I'd rather that number didn't increase. These days we have to consider the reader as well as the editor. Strangely we recive few complaints about the actions of the CVU.
Good.
Now, if you're able to not take this personally, I would suggest that you try to understand what my criticism is. Working to discourage bad edits needs to be done in a way that creates as little antagonism and "us against them" mentality.
Feel free to do this. Lead by example.
Calling yourselves the "Counter Terrorism Unit" doesn't do a good job of that.
I really rather doubt that the vast majority of vandles have that level of awareness of the internal operation of wikipedia
-- geni
Calling yourselves the "Counter Terrorism Unit" doesn't do a good job of that.
I really rather doubt that the vast majority of vandles have that level of awareness of the internal operation of wikipedia
Anyone who does have that level of awareness about Wikipedia's internal operations and yet continues to vandalize us is not someone we're going to make friends with anyway until they realize that they're in the wrong and that we have every right to oppose vandalism.
On 2/3/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
Calling yourselves the "Counter Terrorism Unit" doesn't do a good job of that.
I really rather doubt that the vast majority of vandals have that level of awareness of the internal operation of wikipedia
Anyone who does have that level of awareness about Wikipedia's internal operations and yet continues to vandalize us is not someone we're going to make friends with anyway until they realize that they're in the wrong and that we have every right to oppose vandalism.
Calling oneself the "Counter Vandalism Unit" harms Wikipedia not, primarily, by changing the expectations of outsiders, but by changing the worldview of insiders.
I'm sorry, I just don't like paramilitary metaphors for elements of the Wikipedia community and I never will.
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Calling oneself the "Counter Vandalism Unit" harms Wikipedia not, primarily, by changing the expectations of outsiders, but by changing the worldview of insiders.
I'm sorry, I just don't like paramilitary metaphors for elements of the Wikipedia community and I never will.
the above would only make sense if there was a single wikipedia community. This is manifestly not the case.
-- geni
On 2/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Calling oneself the "Counter Vandalism Unit" harms Wikipedia not, primarily, by changing the expectations of outsiders, but by changing the worldview of insiders.
I'm sorry, I just don't like paramilitary metaphors for elements of the Wikipedia community and I never will.
the above would only make sense if there was a single wikipedia community. This is manifestly not the case.
Huh?
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Calling oneself the "Counter Vandalism Unit" harms Wikipedia not, primarily, by changing the expectations of outsiders, but by changing the worldview of insiders.
I'm sorry, I just don't like paramilitary metaphors for elements of the Wikipedia community and I never will.
the above would only make sense if there was a single wikipedia community. This is manifestly not the case.
Huh?
Yuo can only effect the world view if there is a broadly simular shared on in the first place. Wikipedia hasn't had a single community for quite a while.
-- geni
On 2/3/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe there's a good reason, eh?
Doubtful someone would have said what it was by now.
MfD? WTF? Sheesh. Miscellany for Deletion. What a mess.
Compared to the event that triggered it's creation. Not really.
Oh, do explain, please, or point me to a reference.
Quite possibly.
I'm on the helpdesk mailing list. We get a lot of emails complaining that page x y or z has been vandalised. I'd rather that number didn't increase. These days we have to consider the reader as well as the editor. Strangely we recive few complaints about the actions of the CVU.
Why is that strange?
Good.
Now, if you're able to not take this personally, I would suggest that you try to understand what my criticism is. Working to discourage bad edits needs to be done in a way that creates as little antagonism and "us against them" mentality.
Feel free to do this. Lead by example.
I have, often.
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, do explain, please, or point me to a reference.
Some things are better left alone.
Why is that strange?
Well it isn't consitant with your claims is it.
I have, often.
As far as I can tell none of your edits this year are consistant with RC patrol or simular.
-- geni
On 2/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, do explain, please, or point me to a reference.
Some things are better left alone.
If you're not going to explain, please don't mention it obliquely.
Why is that strange?
Well it isn't consistent with your claims is it.
Ack, you've stripped the context here. Other people have posted in this thread complaining that every so often people complain about the CVU. I'm evidently not the first.
I have, often.
As far as I can tell none of your edits this year are consistent with RC patrol or simular.
Nope! Try 2001-2002. There's a reason I was put on the arbcom. Actually, there are a bunch, mainly because I'm a pain in the ass about trying to figure out a better way to do things than the status quo.
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, do explain, please, or point me to a reference.
Some things are better left alone.
If you're not going to explain, please don't mention it obliquely.
Why is that strange?
Well it isn't consistent with your claims is it.
Ack, you've stripped the context here. Other people have posted in this thread complaining that every so often people complain about the CVU. I'm evidently not the first.
I have, often.
As far as I can tell none of your edits this year are consistent with RC patrol or simular.
Nope! Try 2001-2002. There's a reason I was put on the arbcom. Actually, there are a bunch, mainly because I'm a pain in the ass about trying to figure out a better way to do things than the status quo.
Nope! Try reading the "this year" part of the sentence. I highly doubt vandalfighting 3-4 years ago has much traction compared to the volume and strategies of vandals today. This is part of the problem, I think. The method of fighting it is attempting to change, but is being met with resistance because "We didn't do it that way when we were doing it!"
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On 2/4/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I have, often.
As far as I can tell none of your edits this year are consistent with RC patrol or simular.
Nope! Try 2001-2002. There's a reason I was put on the arbcom. Actually, there are a bunch, mainly because I'm a pain in the ass about trying to figure out a better way to do things than the status quo.
Nope! Try reading the "this year" part of the sentence. I highly doubt vandalfighting 3-4 years ago has much traction compared to the volume and strategies of vandals today. This is part of the problem, I think. The method of fighting it is attempting to change, but is being met with resistance because "We didn't do it that way when we were doing it!"
What are you saying "Nope!" to?
I think you should seriously consider that the behavior of vandals changes in response to the change in the behavior of those fighting them.
Remember that my only complaints have been about the name Counter Vandalism Unit and (secondarily) the invite-only irc channel. So I'm not quite sure what you're dragging into the conversation here.
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I have, often.
As far as I can tell none of your edits this year are consistent
with
RC patrol or simular.
Nope! Try 2001-2002. There's a reason I was put on the arbcom. Actually, there are a bunch, mainly because I'm a pain in the ass about trying to figure out a better way to do things than the status quo.
Nope! Try reading the "this year" part of the sentence. I highly doubt vandalfighting 3-4 years ago has much traction compared to the volume
and
strategies of vandals today. This is part of the problem, I think. The method of fighting it is attempting to change, but is being met with resistance because "We didn't do it that way when we were doing it!"
What are you saying "Nope!" to?
I think you should seriously consider that the behavior of vandals changes in response to the change in the behavior of those fighting them.
Remember that my only complaints have been about the name Counter Vandalism Unit and (secondarily) the invite-only irc channel. So I'm not quite sure what you're dragging into the conversation here.
I'll try to make this clear.
geni:
As far as I can tell none of your edits **************this
year****************
you:
Nope! Try 2001-2002.
2001-2002 is not this year, nor is it the past 365 days.
The behavior of vandals and of vandalfighters is going to and probably always will consistently change over time. What you're saying is that we should stop trying anything new, therefore the vandals won't think of any way to get around us because it's no longer a challenge. This is just inviting unstoppable vandalism, unstoppable because we can't evolve to fight it. To take it further, it's like saying Microsoft should release no more Microsoft Updates for Windows because virus makers will lose interest in making viruses.
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On 2/4/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I have, often.
As far as I can tell none of your edits this year are consistent
with
RC patrol or simular.
Nope! Try 2001-2002. There's a reason I was put on the arbcom. Actually, there are a bunch, mainly because I'm a pain in the ass about trying to figure out a better way to do things than the status quo.
Nope! Try reading the "this year" part of the sentence. I highly doubt vandalfighting 3-4 years ago has much traction compared to the volume
and
strategies of vandals today. This is part of the problem, I think. The method of fighting it is attempting to change, but is being met with resistance because "We didn't do it that way when we were doing it!"
What are you saying "Nope!" to?
I think you should seriously consider that the behavior of vandals changes in response to the change in the behavior of those fighting them.
Remember that my only complaints have been about the name Counter Vandalism Unit and (secondarily) the invite-only irc channel. So I'm not quite sure what you're dragging into the conversation here.
I'll try to make this clear.
geni:
As far as I can tell none of your edits **************this
year****************
you:
Nope! Try 2001-2002.
2001-2002 is not this year, nor is it the past 365 days.
When I wrote "Nope!" I was agreeing with geni's assessment that none of my edits this year were similar to RC Patrol, not disagreeing.
I apologize for not being clear.
I am cognizant of how the calendar works.
The behavior of vandals and of vandalfighters is going to and probably always will consistently change over time. What you're saying is that we should stop trying anything new, therefore the vandals won't think of any way to get around us because it's no longer a challenge. This is just inviting unstoppable vandalism, unstoppable because we can't evolve to fight it. To take it further, it's like saying Microsoft should release no more Microsoft Updates for Windows because virus makers will lose interest in making viruses.
Although I enjoy your extended metaphors, I never said people should stop trying anything new. You're defending against attacks I'm not making.
[But to reply to your metaphor: I certainly hope you're not intending to compare Microsoft software favorably to Wikipedia contributions. I'd rather, if we were to use this analogy, strive for something like Linux, BSD, or OS X where massive gaping security flaws aren't inherent in the system.]
To take it further, it's like saying Microsoft should release no more Microsoft Updates for Windows because virus makers will lose interest in making viruses.
Although I enjoy your extended metaphors, I never said people should stop trying anything new. You're defending against attacks I'm not making.
[But to reply to your metaphor: I certainly hope you're not intending to compare Microsoft software favorably to Wikipedia contributions. I'd rather, if we were to use this analogy, strive for something like Linux, BSD, or OS X where massive gaping security flaws aren't inherent in the system.]
Massive gaping security flaws aren't inherent in Wikipedia in regards to preventing vandalism? That's news to me.
On 2/4/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
To take it further, it's like saying Microsoft should release no more Microsoft Updates for Windows because virus makers will lose interest in making viruses.
Although I enjoy your extended metaphors, I never said people should stop trying anything new. You're defending against attacks I'm not making.
[But to reply to your metaphor: I certainly hope you're not intending to compare Microsoft software favorably to Wikipedia contributions. I'd rather, if we were to use this analogy, strive for something like Linux, BSD, or OS X where massive gaping security flaws aren't inherent in the system.]
Massive gaping security flaws aren't inherent in Wikipedia in regards to preventing vandalism? That's news to me.
It's not a bug, it's a feature!
...
Seriously.
[But to reply to your metaphor: I certainly hope you're not intending to compare Microsoft software favorably to Wikipedia contributions. I'd rather, if we were to use this analogy, strive for something like Linux, BSD, or OS X where massive gaping security flaws aren't inherent in the system.]
Massive gaping security flaws aren't inherent in Wikipedia in regards to preventing vandalism? That's news to me.
It's not a bug, it's a feature!
Oh, I agree that it's a necessary trade-off, but it's still what it is.
On 2/4/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
[But to reply to your metaphor: I certainly hope you're not intending to compare Microsoft software favorably to Wikipedia contributions. I'd rather, if we were to use this analogy, strive for something like Linux, BSD, or OS X where massive gaping security flaws aren't inherent in the system.]
Massive gaping security flaws aren't inherent in Wikipedia in regards to preventing vandalism? That's news to me.
It's not a bug, it's a feature!
Oh, I agree that it's a necessary trade-off, but it's still what it is.
Eh. I guess I don't see it as a security flaw. We should definitely continue to try to think about how to improve the system in as invisible ways as possible.
For example, one change that would be effectively invisible but would discourage vandalism would be to require summaries for all non-minor edits, which should happen anyway.
That's just one idea off the top of my head. More complex and ingenious methods, I'm sure, could be thought of.
I do think that it should be considered a community norm for everyone to do some kind of policing of incoming edits; I can think of any number of mechanisms for enforcing that norm.
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Ack, you've stripped the context here. Other people have posted in this thread complaining that every so often people complain about the CVU. I'm evidently not the first.
Every so often people complain about wikipedia what of it? I have never seen a complaint about CVU on the helpdesk. I wake up to quite a few complaints about vandalism each morning.
Nope! Try 2001-2002.
Things have changed. You experence at that point in time is irrelivant.
There's a reason I was put on the arbcom.
Jimbo's judgment when it comes to choseing arbcom members may be somewhat in question.
Actually, there are a bunch, mainly because I'm a pain in the ass about trying to figure out a better way to do things than the status quo.
Do you know what the status quo is?
-- geni
On 2/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Nope! Try 2001-2002.
Things have changed. You experence at that point in time is irrelevant.
How have they changed?
There's a reason I was put on the arbcom.
Jimbo's judgment when it comes to choseing arbcom members may be somewhat in question.
You're telling me! Jimbo's a little soft in the head sometimes.
Actually, there are a bunch, mainly because I'm a pain in the ass about trying to figure out a better way to do things than the status quo.
Do you know what the status quo is?
I'm trying to find out. How would you describe it?
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Nope! Try 2001-2002.
Things have changed. You experence at that point in time is irrelevant.
How have they changed?
Spambots and other vandle bots are more common. Page move vandlism. Shear quantity of vandalism. More memebers of the generaly public who don't want to edit reading so more complaints when we take more than 10 seconds to revert vandalism
I'm trying to find out. How would you describe it?
No one can be told what the status quo is they have to experence it for themselves.
-- geni
On 2/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
More memebers of the generaly public who don't want to edit reading so more
complaints when we take more than 10 seconds to revert vandalism
This is the big one. Many people who opposed semi-protection of [[George W. Bush]] weren't facing up to the reality that every time an anonymous vandal inserts information about the President's penis size, a whole heck of a lot of people could wind up reading the vandalism before it is reverted just 60 seconds later. I don't have the satistics at my fingertips, but I'd like to know just what they were.
Ryan
Finally, it has been asked whether we're actually making Wikipedia
better;
I'd like to ask the contrapositive: Is alienating a dedicated corps of recent changes patrollers what you were looking for? Were you trying to
make
us feel unappreciated? Will Wikipedia be a better place if we decide to
stop
doing RC patrol?
Quite possibly.
I'd love to know what you mean by this. Are you implying that the CVU's RC patrollers are somehow inferior to other ones? Is there something inherently wrong that corrupts every CVU member that makes them unfit for any job relating to vandals or administrative duties?
This statement may be completely false, but I kind of feel like some of the people bitching and moaning about the CVU haven't done a bit of vandalfighting in months, and somehow feel that because we're doing a job that they aren't, that we're a threat to their supremacy at... whatever. I'm not sure where I'm going with that, I just feel like the CVU is getting blasted not by other RC patrollers, or by users who've been slighted by them (of which I know none of), but by people who have nothing to do with the area of Wikipedia that the CVU deals with.
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
On 2/3/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, it has been asked whether we're actually making Wikipedia
better;
I'd like to ask the contrapositive: Is alienating a dedicated corps of recent changes patrollers what you were looking for? Were you trying to
make
us feel unappreciated? Will Wikipedia be a better place if we decide to
stop
doing RC patrol?
Quite possibly.
I'd love to know what you mean by this. Are you implying that the CVU's RC patrollers are somehow inferior to other ones? Is there something inherently wrong that corrupts every CVU member that makes them unfit for any job relating to vandals or administrative duties?
This statement may be completely false, but I kind of feel like some of the people bitching and moaning about the CVU haven't done a bit of vandalfighting in months, and somehow feel that because we're doing a job that they aren't, that we're a threat to their supremacy at... whatever. I'm not sure where I'm going with that, I just feel like the CVU is getting blasted not by other RC patrollers, or by users who've been slighted by them (of which I know none of), but by people who have nothing to do with the area of Wikipedia that the CVU deals with.
Wow, never realized I could imply so much with so few words.
You're rather touchy.
I'm not making any particular statements about the activities or actions of the members of the paramilitary-named Counter Vandalism Unit.
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.
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/3/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
Finally, it has been asked whether we're actually making Wikipedia
better;
I'd like to ask the contrapositive: Is alienating a dedicated corps
of
recent changes patrollers what you were looking for? Were you trying
to
make
us feel unappreciated? Will Wikipedia be a better place if we decide
to
stop
doing RC patrol?
Quite possibly.
I'd love to know what you mean by this. Are you implying that the CVU's
RC
patrollers are somehow inferior to other ones? Is there something inherently wrong that corrupts every CVU member that makes them unfit
for
any job relating to vandals or administrative duties?
This statement may be completely false, but I kind of feel like some of
the
people bitching and moaning about the CVU haven't done a bit of vandalfighting in months, and somehow feel that because we're doing a
job
that they aren't, that we're a threat to their supremacy at... whatever. I'm not sure where I'm going with that, I just feel like the CVU is
getting
blasted not by other RC patrollers, or by users who've been slighted by
them
(of which I know none of), but by people who have nothing to do with the area of Wikipedia that the CVU deals with.
Wow, never realized I could imply so much with so few words.
You're rather touchy.
I'm not making any particular statements about the activities or actions of the members of the paramilitary-named Counter Vandalism Unit.
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.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I was saying it was you who had implied that; that was more of a generalized rant and rave about in general how I feel about all this.
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.
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.
The Cunctator 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.
Your rather interesting method of improving Wikipedia notwithstanding, have a look at these two links: --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Off-wiki_policy_discussion_considered... --> http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-January/038101.html
Chris