On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com
wrote:
how should this be solved?
To me it's saying that no matter who is informed, the WMF can never expect
that their work won't be overruled.
That is problematic (regardless of who has the final authority)
A
Hoi,
David, who is the community and how do you get members of the community
recognise and respect the decisions it does not like that are taken on
their behalf by its representatives. We do not have one community, we
have many. The interests people aim for are diverse and all too often
Erik
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:32 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is why on all major sites, you see a gradual ramp-up of a new
feature, and continued improvement once it's widely used. Often
there's an opt-in and then an opt-out to ease users into the change.
But once a
FYI, Lila had chosen to engage in discussion on her meta talk page.
Numerous editors are commenting there. Discussion also continues on the
meta RFC and on the English Wikipedia arbitration workshop page.
Pine
On Aug 14, 2014 12:03 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Erik
On Thu,
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:41 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Is there anything that the German Wikipedia could do to convince you to
disable MediaViewer there? Some percentage of active users showing up to
say so? Some percentage of users (logged-in or otherwise) disabling the
feature?
Erik,
I'm impartial about the mediaviewer, but I have the feeling that this is a
recurring a pattern:
1) contributors ask for some change to improve their experience or the
reader's experience
2) their request is ignored because either it doesn't fit in the big
picture, or there is no mechanism
On 14 August 2014 13:56, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be more sensible to let contributors participate in the tech
roadmap in more formal and empowered way than now, because without that
early participation there is no possibility for later consensus.
A pattern we see over
On Aug 14, 2014 3:58 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 5:41 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Is there anything that the German Wikipedia could do to convince you to
disable MediaViewer there? Some percentage of active users showing up to
say so? Some
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:35 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
A pattern we see over and over is that the developers talk at length
about what they're working on in several venues, then it's released
and people claiming to speak for the community claim they were not
adequately
On 08/14/2014 02:36 PM, David Gerard wrote:
So locally-editable site JavaScript, for locally-important gadgets and
so forth, is in fact something that's needed.
That seems reasonable, but it's less clear to me that this should be
bundled with / part of the 'editinterface' right, at least as it
On 14 Aug 2014 14:50, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 3:35 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
A pattern we see over and over is that the developers talk at length
about what they're working on in several venues, then it's released
and people claiming
On 14/08/14 16:07, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
This is actually not correct. Take pending changes on the English
Wikipedia as an example - people used to complain a lot on how RfC's
were closed, but this is the business of the community. I have never
heard anybody complaining that the trial
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, at 23:35, David Gerard wrote:
On 14 August 2014 13:56, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be more sensible to let contributors participate in the tech
roadmap in more formal and empowered way than now, because without that
early participation there is no
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, at 09:47, svetlana wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, at 23:35, David Gerard wrote:
On 14 August 2014 13:56, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be more sensible to let contributors participate in the tech
roadmap in more formal and empowered way than now,
On 8/14/14, 3:35 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 14 August 2014 13:56, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be more sensible to let contributors participate in the tech
roadmap in more formal and empowered way than now, because without that
early participation there is no possibility for
On 13.08.2014 02:48, svetlana wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, at 10:46, svetlana wrote:
this community thinks that its power structures allow to tromp onto
other people
sysops aren't even held accountable
they are elected once for an infinite term
nobody reviews their contribution in position
On 13.08.2014 05:57, Pine W wrote:
Two points I have heard off list are that 1. While it may be that
disabling
MV by default for logged-in users can be done, disabling it for those
not
logged-in is effectively another major UI change which a study shows
likely
will make some of them leave and
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, at 12:01, Romaine Wiki wrote:
2014-08-13 2:46 GMT+02:00 svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au:
[..]
[...]
instead of talking properly
then the superprotect wouldn't exist at all
you seeing the problem there? whose problem is it?
desire to act out of the blue
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:27 AM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, at 10:53, Pete Forsyth wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:46 PM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au
wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, at 23:42, Romaine Wiki wrote:
That the community reacts the way
On 08/13/2014 01:31 PM, Trillium Corsage wrote:
[...] that he has affronted the community.
I've spent no small amount of years involved in the various layers of
administrative/governance/meta aspects of the English Wikipedia and from
this I learned one lesson:
Whenever someone says 'the
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
wrote:
There is no such thing as the community; we have a huge collection of
communities joined loosely over a number of ambigously shared principles
that often - but not always - move in more or less the same direction.
13.08.2014, 01:46, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au:
if the community was not so willing to use force (ie a js hack) against the
other party
instead of talking properly
then the superprotect wouldn't exist at all
you seeing the problem there? whose problem is it?
desire to act out
On 13 Aug 2014, at 21:12, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
wrote:
There is no such thing as the community; we have a huge collection of
communities joined loosely over a number of ambigously shared principles
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
In favor of the Media Viewer software is a bunch of inquiry and analysis
Restoring the default state of the software to the state that worked for
the last decade is a clear precondition for healthier discussion of a
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
But the idea that WMF
always must slavishly execute the result of a poll or vote is neither
rational nor sustainable,
While there may be some who suggest that WMF should do so, I am not one of
them -- and nor are many of
On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, at 00:50, Pete Forsyth wrote:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 3:27 AM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote:
[...]
Surely this issue can be solved by talking without force: if you don't
think so, you get force applied to YOU; you started a fight, and lost it.
I have
Erik Moeller wrote:
This is why on all major sites, you see a gradual ramp-up of a new
feature, and continued improvement once it's widely used. Often
there's an opt-in and then an opt-out to ease users into the change.
But once a change is launched, it very rarely gets rolled back unless
it's
Erik,
I'll be writing a longer post on the Meta RFC later, but can you confirm
whether the idea is to superprotect key interface pages like
[[Mediawiki:common.js]] on a permanent basis, or will this feature only be
used to lock pages temporarily in the case of wheel warring or other
circumstances
Straniu, Jimbo's comments in his keynote about forking concerned
encouraging competent editors who can't work cooperatively with other
people to fork in a way that would be better for everyone in the long run.
I don't believe this disappointing confrontation between the WMF and
volunteers were
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Craig Franklin
cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
I'll be writing a longer post on the Meta RFC later, but can you confirm
whether the idea is to superprotect key interface pages like
[[Mediawiki:common.js]] on a permanent basis, or will this feature only be
Has it ever come to the mind that something is going wrong on how the
community is approached?
Has it ever come to the mind that some software implementations have gone
to hastily with negative effects?
That the community reacts the way it does now, is because they care very
much about the site
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 6:54 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:01 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
wrote:
Before this, there was no expectation that a
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, at 23:42, Romaine Wiki wrote:
That the community reacts the way it does now, is because they care very
much about the site and they notice something is terrible going wrong on
WMF side and too less is done to fix those problems/issues!
if the community was not so willing
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014, at 10:46, svetlana wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, at 23:42, Romaine Wiki wrote:
That the community reacts the way it does now, is because they care very
much about the site and they notice something is terrible going wrong on
WMF side and too less is done to fix those
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:46 PM, svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, at 23:42, Romaine Wiki wrote:
That the community reacts the way it does now, is because they care very
much about the site and they notice something is terrible going wrong on
WMF side and too
If the WF wasn't so willing to use force (i.e. pushing unwanted changes)
against the other party
instead of talking properly
then the superprotect wouldn't exist at all
you seeing the problem there? whose problem is it?
desire to act out of the blue instead of collaborating
they didn't
2014-08-13 2:46 GMT+02:00 svetlana svetl...@fastmail.com.au:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, at 23:42, Romaine Wiki wrote:
That the community reacts the way it does now, is because they care very
much about the site and they notice something is terrible going wrong on
WMF side and too less is done to
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, at 08:42, Tomasz W. Kozłowski wrote:
Someone is definitely forgetting that Wikimedia wikis are not the
Foundation's personal playground.
It is becoming one for a long time now.
svetlana
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines
Erik, I wonder, did you have discussion with other staff and moreso,
the technical staff before you went ahead and implemented this and
also something most of us are wondering, just because dewiki did not
accept your enforcement of MediaViewer, did you abuse your authority
and force the technical
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, having observed that not only user Eloquence (aka Erik Moeller)
himself engaged in the enforcement of superprotect right on de.wp
[1] but soon after a workaround was published a change was deployed
[2, 3] as counter
And what happens when said admin is overwhelmingly reelected by the
community?
This is not the way forward. WMF can't continue to treat its volunteers in
this manner.
On Aug 11, 2014 12:01 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Brian Wolff
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:01 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
wrote:
Before this, there was no expectation that a page could be protected
such that sysops could not alter the content of the superprotected
page.
This is false.
Now, the devs/ops have attempted to introduce that
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:01 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
wrote:
Before this, there was no expectation that a page could be protected
such that sysops could not alter the content of the
Hi folks,
Admins are currently given broad leeway to customize the user
experience for all users, including addition of site-wide JS, CSS,
etc. These are important capabilities of the wiki that have been used
for many clearly beneficial purposes. In the long run, we will want to
apply a code
Hi Erik,
I understand you reasoning, but you couldn't have communicated and timed
this in a worse way. You might be doing the right thing, but because of
this ill communication and timing, this will be completely overshadowed.
That saddens me. Good luck with the shit storm :-(
Erik Moeller wrote:
Admins are currently given broad leeway to customize the user
experience for all users, including addition of site-wide JS, CSS,
etc. These are important capabilities of the wiki that have been used
for many clearly beneficial purposes. In the long run, we will want to
apply a
On 10 August 2014 15:51, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
You'd been threatening to implement super-protection for a long time. I
see you finally made good on this very bad idea. This is certainly bold,
but also incredibly reckless. Your response to being told we don't like
your software
David Gerard wrote:
On 10 August 2014 15:51, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
You'd been threatening to implement super-protection for a long time. I
see you finally made good on this very bad idea. This is certainly bold,
but also incredibly reckless. Your response to being told we don't
On 10 August 2014 16:08, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
He instigated the arbitration case on the
English Wikipedia
That's *definitely* a claim needing actual evidence, considering he
didn't bring it. I assume you can produce something.
- d.
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 10:08 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 10 August 2014 15:51, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
You'd been threatening to implement super-protection for a long time. I
see you finally made good on this very bad idea. This is certainly bold,
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi folks,
Admins are currently given broad leeway to customize the user
experience for all users, including addition of site-wide JS, CSS,
etc. These are important capabilities of the wiki that have been used
for many
This is, by far, the most disgusting and disrespectful action
undertaken by the Foundation that I have ever witnessed. The 2012 mass
desysopping of volunteer administrators on the WMF wiki and the past
threats of desysopping users re: VisualEditor and MediaViewer do not
even come close to this.
It is clear to me that the Foundation has agreed on this sneaky change
behind closed doors while some of the most outspoken Wikimedia
volunteers were (and still are) gathered in London.
It's interesting you mention Wikimania, because one of the things I took
away from the conference was the
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 6:29 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
As this has wide-ranging implications, I have started an RFC on meta
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Superprotect_rights
With that done, I'd like to ask that discussion on this topic be
continued
The show must go on.
To ensure that no German Wikipedia administrator deletes
MediaWiki:Common.js to cancel the super-protection, the WMF has just
merged https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/153345/ and deployed it to
Wikimedia wikis as a matter of emergency after a personal request from
Erik
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Tomasz W. Kozłowski
twkozlow...@gmail.com wrote:
Someone is definitely forgetting that Wikimedia wikis are not the
Foundation's personal playground.
You should be ashamed of yourself, Erik, and you should resign or be fired.
And all volunteers should make
56 matches
Mail list logo
