[WikiEN-l] You're magically made an admin. I'd just leave.

[Gallagher Mark George]

G'day geni,

> On 5/10/07, Pedro Sanchez <pdsanchez at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Meh, I've nominated the WikiDefcon to deletion a couple of times...
> > and I'm still alive :P
> 
> Yes. Given the stream of attacks they've taken the Various CVU people
> remain remarkably good natured.
> 
> Although I admit the time a buch of anti-CVU people teamed up with a
> WOW sock to try (and briefly out of process succeed) and delete the
> CVU was rather funny in a black humor sort of way.

I'd like to differentiate between types of attacks on CVU.  Your example is, I gather: people who dislike CVU because they're opposed to co-ordinated vandal fighting efforts.  (We don't "fight vandals", not really, not if we do our jobs properly.  We *clean up* vandalism and block vandals.  We're not electronic cops.  We're volunteer firies who put out fires and have the power to confiscate matches from teenaged troublemakers.)

There's also those of us who are alarmed at the earnest incompetence of so many CVUers, at the ease with which people who have consistently messed up are able to pass RfA ("Yeah, saw him at CVU, he's really dedicated to whacking vandals"), at the increasing unfriendliness of Wikipedia towards outsiders ... and who find CVU trinkets like WikiDefcon really fucking funny.

I'd like to think I belong in the second category, and that my attacks on CVU (calling them clueless) are more productive than the attacks you refer to (trying to destroy them).


Cheers,


-- 
[[User:MarkGallagher]]