{"thread":{"id":"24689","subject":"Johannes misbehavior in the wiki, and a request for admin rights (was: wiki \"abuse\")","startedAt":"2010-08-10T10:18:01Z","lastAt":"2010-08-10T18:45:34Z","messageCount":14,"participants":["Felipe Contreras","Michael J Gruber","Ramkumar Ramachandra","Amir E. Aharoni","Sverre Rabbelier","Avery Pennarun","Michael Witten"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"147619","messageId":"AANLkTinYqFMZe=ahgyaW-cYJXuBanvCU1A6AYVcVcrPB@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24689","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Johannes misbehavior in the wiki, and a request for admin rights (was: wiki \"abuse\")","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-10T10:18:01Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T10:18:01Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Johannes Schindelin\n wrote:\n> As for the accusation that there was no explanation: this is false.\n\nWhere is the evidence that you warned the user _before_ banning him?\n\nThe policy in wikipedia is to notify through the user talk page:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Notifying_the_blocked_user\n\n> I did\n> not want to address this accusation because it is so plainly ridiculous,\n> but it seems that everybody and her dog thinks \"yes, Dscho is such a nasty\n> person, he would do that, so let's assume that the other guy did not lie\".\n\nI'm not assuming anything, I'm just looking at the evidence, and the\nevidence shows you blocked not only Amir, but a bunch of other people,\nand any attempted discussion through the user talk pages has been\ndeleted by you.\n\nSo the evidence has been suppressed.\n\n> In effect, all who keep this thread alive, reinforcing the accusations,\n> getting emotional and stuff, are feeding the troll. And making sure that\n> the task of keeping the Git Wiki clean is as undesirable as [censored].\n>\n> So, sure, keep on going with this thread. I'm done.\n\nI find this behavior unacceptable in an admin.\n\nI'd like to propose myself as sysop in order to make the wiki more\nhospitable. I've done stuff in wikipedia, and have been involved in\nsome conflict resolutions. Some of the things I would like to do is:\n\n 1) Encourage the use of user talk pages (not to be confused with user\npages) in order to foster communication within the wiki to have more\ncivilized and transparent conflict resolution\n 2) Allow users to search deleted pages (if possible)\n 3) Revisit old deleted pages, unblock accounts if appropriate, and apologize\n 4) Add a patrol group[1], and encourage users to join it in order to\nget rid of spam in a collaborative manner\n\n[1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Patrolled_edits\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"147626","messageId":"4C613DFC.40006@drmicha.warpmail.net","threadId":"24689","inReplyTo":"AANLkTinYqFMZe=ahgyaW-cYJXuBanvCU1A6AYVcVcrPB@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Johannes misbehavior in the wiki, and a request for admin rights (was: wiki \"abuse\")","fromName":"Michael J Gruber","fromEmail":"git@drmicha.warpmail.net","sentAt":"2010-08-10T11:54:36Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T11:54:36Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"git@grubix.eu","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/233215?v=4"},"body":"Oh, pleaaaze, no (on the subject line). No need for more fuel in this topic.\n\nFelipe Contreras venit, vidit, dixit 10.08.2010 12:18:\n> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Johannes Schindelin\n> wrote:\n>> As for the accusation that there was no explanation: this is false.\n> \n> Where is the evidence that you warned the user _before_ banning him?\n> \n\nThe evidence is that Dscho says so.\nThe counter evidence is that Amir says otherwise.\n\nKnowing Dscho, I consider an occasional rash of quick-shooting possible;\nI consider it impossible that he's dishonest with us here.\n\nNote that what is an \"explanation\" to one person may not be one to\nanother one, especially across two language and culture barriers. In\nparticular, my statement about Dscho's credibility does not imply any\nstatement about Amir's.\n\n[...]\n> I'd like to propose myself as sysop in order to make the wiki more\n> hospitable. \n[more detailed proposal cut out]\n\nLooking at the history of our wiki I don't see any need to overshoot as\na result of this mostly singular incident. It should suffice to\n\n- reactivate Amir's account\n- make a clear statement about user pages (limit, discourage or disable)\n\nMichael\n\nP.S.: wiki discussions should stay on this list to avoid the type of\ndis-association which has happened with git-scm.com and whatever names\nitself \"The Git Community Foo\".\n"},{"id":"147628","messageId":"AANLkTimqCKVEeDqUFe0mF+hHoBEPhyGuRzvX2OMJvfkA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24689","inReplyTo":"4C613DFC.40006@drmicha.warpmail.net","subject":"Re: Johannes misbehavior in the wiki, and a request for admin rights (was: wiki \"abuse\")","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-10T12:31:30Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T12:31:30Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Michael J Gruber\n wrote:\n> Oh, pleaaaze, no (on the subject line). No need for more fuel in this topic.\n\nThis is a separate topic; IMO we need another admin.\n\n> Felipe Contreras venit, vidit, dixit 10.08.2010 12:18:\n>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Johannes Schindelin\n>> wrote:\n>>> As for the accusation that there was no explanation: this is false.\n>>\n>> Where is the evidence that you warned the user _before_ banning him?\n>\n> The evidence is that Dscho says so.\n> The counter evidence is that Amir says otherwise.\n\nThat's not evidence in my book.\n\n> Knowing Dscho, I consider an occasional rash of quick-shooting possible;\n> I consider it impossible that he's dishonest with us here.\n>\n> Note that what is an \"explanation\" to one person may not be one to\n> another one, especially across two language and culture barriers. In\n> particular, my statement about Dscho's credibility does not imply any\n> statement about Amir's.\n\nNote that Johannes is playing with words: \"As for the accusation that\nthere was no explanation: this is false.\"; there's a difference\nbetween explaining why somebody has been banned, and warning somebody\n_before_ banning him. I suggested the latter didn't happen, Johannes\nreluctantly reassured the former.\n\nI'm not interested in begging Johannes for a detailed explanation of\nwhat happened, that's what the user talk pages are for.\n\n> [...]\n>> I'd like to propose myself as sysop in order to make the wiki more\n>> hospitable.\n> [more detailed proposal cut out]\n>\n> Looking at the history of our wiki I don't see any need to overshoot as\n> a result of this mostly singular incident. It should suffice to\n\nI don't think having more than one admin is overshooting.\n\n> - reactivate Amir's account\n\nWho is going to do that? Johannes apparently already said his last\nwords on that topic.\n\n> - make a clear statement about user pages (limit, discourage or disable)\n\nThat is a separate topic.\n\n> P.S.: wiki discussions should stay on this list to avoid the type of\n> dis-association which has happened with git-scm.com and whatever names\n> itself \"The Git Community Foo\".\n\nI disagree.\n\nIf the wiki followed the git workflow, then the changes would have to\nbe proposed as patches to the mailing list, and a maintainer would\nreview and apply them to the wiki. Obviously that's not how wikis\nwork; anyone can contribute to the wiki, and such contributions don't\nhave to touch the mailing list. The wiki and the mailing list are\nindependent.\n\nSimilarly, there's no need to cause noise in the mailing list about\ndisputes in the wiki. For example: \"Why did you revert my change in\npage FooBar?\"; the mailing list doesn't know about page FooBar, nor\nthe changes that are happening there, so any dispute will catch the\nmailing list out of context.\n\nMoreover there are people interested on the wiki, but not on the mailing list.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"147630","messageId":"20100810123349.GA3921@kytes","threadId":"24689","inReplyTo":"4C613DFC.40006@drmicha.warpmail.net","subject":"Re: Johannes misbehavior in the wiki, and a request for admin rights (was: wiki \"abuse\")","fromName":"Ramkumar Ramachandra","fromEmail":"artagnon@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-10T12:33:52Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T12:33:52Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"r@artagnon.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/37226?v=4"},"body":"Hi Felipe, Michael, and Amir,\n\nMichael J Gruber writes:\n> Oh, pleaaaze, no (on the subject line). No need for more fuel in this topic.\n\nI agree with Michael. Please don't do this- it's quite\ndistasteful. Johannes might have had a bad day and acted a little\ninappropriately, Amir might have done something to trigger it, or it\nmight have been a combination of several other things. None of that\njustifies all the time we're wasting on this issue.\n\n> > I'd like to propose myself as sysop in order to make the wiki more\n> > hospitable. \n> [more detailed proposal cut out]\n> \n> Looking at the history of our wiki I don't see any need to overshoot as\n> a result of this mostly singular incident. It should suffice to\n> \n> - reactivate Amir's account\n> - make a clear statement about user pages (limit, discourage or disable)\n\nRight. There was ONE distrubing incident on a Wiki. Let's not blow it\nout of proportion and waste our time digging up dirt on one of our\nown contributors.\n\nAs part of the community, let us take the reponsibility for this\nmistake and work towards becoming more friendly towards foreigners as\na community. Michel has already suggested some quick steps to take to\nbury this discussion quickly- I'm in favor of doing it as soon as\npossible and personally seeing my inbox fill up with patches\ninstead. Not at all to say that we should take the issue lightly, but\nI never thought we'd discuss it at this length.\n\nAmir: We as a community are sorry that you've been treated\nunfairly. Thanks for letting us know; we'll make sure that this\ndoesn't happen with others in future.\n\nThanks.\n\n-- Ram\n"},{"id":"147635","messageId":"AANLkTik_chgd7iPE1p9iYSP5UuWDu4f0C5-F+faDV5Ed@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24689","inReplyTo":"20100810123349.GA3921@kytes","subject":"Re: Johannes misbehavior in the wiki, and a request for admin rights (was: wiki \"abuse\")","fromName":"Amir E. Aharoni","fromEmail":"amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il","sentAt":"2010-08-10T13:44:55Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T13:44:55Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/fde52c4c839906a156f92b08c987b3139b5b5b72cb895f0a46e9dfdabf268b27?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"2010/8/10 Ramkumar Ramachandra :\n> Amir: We as a community are sorry that you've been treated\n> unfairly. Thanks for letting us know; we'll make sure that this\n> doesn't happen with others in future.\n\nJohannes has just unblocked me and apologized.\n\nI, on my behalf, sincerely apologize for the inappropriate language\nthat i used on that user page that i created. I was trying to vent\nsome frustration and i have clearly done it in the wrong place.\n\nI believe that i have positive things to contribute to the Git wiki\nand to the Git community in general and that this incident will be\nsoon forgotten.\n\n-- \nאָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי\nAmir Elisha Aharoni\n\nhttp://aharoni.wordpress.com\n\n\"We're living in pieces,\n I want to live in peace.\" - T. Moore\n"},{"id":"147637","messageId":"4C6158C7.3060003@drmicha.warpmail.net","threadId":"24689","inReplyTo":"AANLkTik_chgd7iPE1p9iYSP5UuWDu4f0C5-F+faDV5Ed@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Johannes misbehavior in the wiki, and a request for admin rights (was: wiki \"abuse\")","fromName":"Michael J Gruber","fromEmail":"git@drmicha.warpmail.net","sentAt":"2010-08-10T13:48:55Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T13:48:55Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"git@grubix.eu","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/233215?v=4"},"body":"Amir E. Aharoni venit, vidit, dixit 10.08.2010 15:44:\n> 2010/8/10 Ramkumar Ramachandra :\n>> Amir: We as a community are sorry that you've been treated\n>> unfairly. Thanks for letting us know; we'll make sure that this\n>> doesn't happen with others in future.\n> \n> Johannes has just unblocked me and apologized.\n> \n> I, on my behalf, sincerely apologize for the inappropriate language\n> that i used on that user page that i created. I was trying to vent\n> some frustration and i have clearly done it in the wrong place.\n> \n> I believe that i have positive things to contribute to the Git wiki\n> and to the Git community in general and that this incident will be\n> soon forgotten.\n> \n\nThanks, Amir & Dscho!\n\nNow back to work :)\n\nMichael\n"},{"id":"147640","messageId":"AANLkTi=4fhCMPGvO_zd_hmwXSG3wckJA8vTYwWFMEstx@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24689","inReplyTo":"20100810123349.GA3921@kytes","subject":"Re: Johannes misbehavior in the wiki, and a request for admin rights (was: wiki \"abuse\")","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-10T14:16:16Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T14:16:16Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra\n wrote:\n> Michael J Gruber writes:\n>> Oh, pleaaaze, no (on the subject line). No need for more fuel in this topic.\n>\n> I agree with Michael. Please don't do this- it's quite\n> distasteful.\n\nHow having more than one admin is distasteful?\n\n> Johannes might have had a bad day and acted a little\n> inappropriately, Amir might have done something to trigger it, or it\n> might have been a combination of several other things. None of that\n> justifies all the time we're wasting on this issue.\n\nExactly, and he might have another bad day again, and in order to\navoid this issue in the future it's useful to have other people as\nadmins.\n\n>> > I'd like to propose myself as sysop in order to make the wiki more\n>> > hospitable.\n>> [more detailed proposal cut out]\n>>\n>> Looking at the history of our wiki I don't see any need to overshoot as\n>> a result of this mostly singular incident. It should suffice to\n\n> Right. There was ONE distrubing incident on a Wiki. Let's not blow it\n> out of proportion and waste our time digging up dirt on one of our\n> own contributors.\n\nI don't think it's a single incident:\nDscho blocked Amire80 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Spamming\nlinks to external sites)\n\nDscho blocked Happypeter (infinite, account creation blocked) (adding\nrandom non-information on user pages)\nDscho blocked Jheena789 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Spamming\nlinks to external sites)\nDscho blocked AlmaBailey (infinite, account creation blocked, e-mail\nblocked) (Spamming links to external sites)\nDscho blocked Vsimon213 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Spamming\nlinks to external sites)\nDscho blocked Gaylechris (infinite, account creation blocked)\n(Spamming links to external sites)\nDscho blocked Xuebao (infinite, account creation blocked) (Spamming\nlinks to external sites)\nDscho blocked Gentleman Flying (infinite, account creation blocked)\n(Spamming links to external sites)\nDscho blocked Flying Gentleman (infinite, account creation blocked)\n(Spamming links to external sites)\nDscho blocked Smart (infinite, account creation blocked, e-mail\nblocked) (Spamming links to external sites)\nDscho blocked Kimclarkkiss (infinite, account creation blocked)\n(Spamming links to external sites)\nDscho blocked Chandller (infinite, account creation blocked)\n(Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages)\nDscho blocked David80 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Spamming\nlinks to external sites)\n\nHow many of these people have been wrongly banned? It's impossible to\nknow because only Johannes (the only admin), can see the deleted\nentries.\n\n> As part of the community, let us take the reponsibility for this\n> mistake and work towards becoming more friendly towards foreigners as\n> a community. Michel has already suggested some quick steps to take to\n> bury this discussion quickly- I'm in favor of doing it as soon as\n> possible and personally seeing my inbox fill up with patches\n> instead. Not at all to say that we should take the issue lightly, but\n> I never thought we'd discuss it at this length.\n>\n> Amir: We as a community are sorry that you've been treated\n> unfairly. Thanks for letting us know; we'll make sure that this\n> doesn't happen with others in future.\n\nHow exactly? How do we as a community ensure that Johannes is not\ngoing to ban people unfairly? I haven't seen any acceptance of bad\nbehavior, nor have I seen any hint as to what he will do the next time\nsomething like this happens.\n\nI say we need *at least* another admin, anyone.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"147644","messageId":"AANLkTini7xKkncXxjv=p32PupR4W2FP3Rqm2atnsV1Q_@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24689","inReplyTo":"AANLkTi=4fhCMPGvO_zd_hmwXSG3wckJA8vTYwWFMEstx@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Johannes misbehavior in the wiki, and a request for admin rights (was: wiki \"abuse\")","fromName":"Sverre Rabbelier","fromEmail":"srabbelier@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-10T14:35:39Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T14:35:39Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"srabbelier@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/3098?v=4"},"body":"Heya,\n\nOn Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:16, Felipe Contreras\n wrote:\n> How having more than one admin is distasteful?\n\nNo, the way you are treating this is.\n\n> I don't think it's a single incident:\n\nI do. Dscho has been keeping the old wiki clean for I don't know how\nlong. He has done the same for the new wiki. I am confident that those\nother bans are for good reasons.\n\n-- \nCheers,\n\nSverre Rabbelier\n"},{"id":"147645","messageId":"AANLkTinktAhPz_zp6Hf7yanxbn4FougPZwQj9msAXUvk@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24689","inReplyTo":"AANLkTini7xKkncXxjv=p32PupR4W2FP3Rqm2atnsV1Q_@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Johannes misbehavior in the wiki, and a request for admin rights (was: wiki \"abuse\")","fromName":"Avery Pennarun","fromEmail":"apenwarr@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-10T14:49:33Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T14:49:33Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"apenwarr@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/20592?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:\n> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:16, Felipe Contreras wrote:\n>> I don't think it's a single incident:\n>\n> I do. Dscho has been keeping the old wiki clean for I don't know how\n> long. He has done the same for the new wiki. I am confident that those\n> other bans are for good reasons.\n\nI also find the subject line distasteful; there is no evidence of\nmisbehaviour, and the subject line implies that there is. I'm\nhesitant to change the subject line and break the thread, however.\n\nHowever, the best advice I ever got about trust is: \"Trust, but verify.\"\n\nRight now, whether or not Johannes has done the right thing has been\ncalled into question and is resulting in such an angry thread *only*\nbecause it's impossible to verify what has actually been done. When\npeople can verify what happened - which in this case just means\nlooking at the deleted pages - then trust is possible and easy.\n\nMost social problems come from the social environment, not individual\npeople's actions. In this case, the social environment (wiki\nsettings) have been configured explicitly to cast doubt on Johannes.\nIt was an accident waiting to happen, and it finally happened.\n\nThe proposal to add a second admin to the wiki - or at least make\ndeleted pages visible to one other person - is not about Johannes.\nIt's about creating a healthy social environment that allows people to\nrelieve their suspicion before they let it get out of control.\n\nSo far, all the counterarguments have been of the form, \"But Johannes\nis a good guy, so we don't need to check on him.\" That's an invalid\nargument, because the real proposal (modulo the stupid subject line of\nthis thread) is not about Johannes at all. Checking on him isn't\nabout preventing him from being an idiot, it's about preventing\neveryone else from being an idiot. Which I think we can all agree at\nthis point, would have been nice.\n\nHave fun,\n\nAvery\n"},{"id":"147658","messageId":"20100810161940.GF3921@kytes","threadId":"24689","inReplyTo":"AANLkTinktAhPz_zp6Hf7yanxbn4FougPZwQj9msAXUvk@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Johannes misbehavior in the wiki, and a request for admin rights (was: wiki \"abuse\")","fromName":"Ramkumar Ramachandra","fromEmail":"artagnon@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-10T16:19:43Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T16:19:43Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"r@artagnon.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/37226?v=4"},"body":"Hi Felipe, Sverre and Avery,\n\nFelipe writes:\n> I don't think it's a single incident:\n> Dscho blocked Amire80 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Spamming\n> links to external sites)\n\nOkay. I hope you get the point- we didn't have Johannes being pulled\nup like this before, atleast after I joined the community.\n\n> How exactly? How do we as a community ensure that Johannes is not\n> going to ban people unfairly? I haven't seen any acceptance of bad\n> behavior, nor have I seen any hint as to what he will do the next time\n> something like this happens.\n\nThe current issue is solved. Johannes apologized, Amir apologized and\nI apologized on behalf of the community. Everyone is happy. The first\nstep towards correcting a problem is recognizing it- we have succeeded\nin doing that and resolving it amicably.\n\nSverre Rabbelier writes:\n> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:16, Felipe Contreras\n> wrote:\n> > How having more than one admin is distasteful?\n> \n> No, the way you are treating this is.\n\nIt's okay to have another admin- I don't think anyone opposes the\nidea. Just that I think it's a little inappropriate to have a proposal\nfor it in an email with the current admin blamed in the subject\nline. If the need for another administrator is felt, we can start a\nnew thread with some suitable candidates and decide amicably keeping\nJohannes in the loop. The purpose of the administrator should not be\nto \"attack\", but rather work with Johannes, helping him cope with the\nwork load. I'm sure Johannes would be happy to have someone else\nworking with him as well :)\n\nAvery Pennarun writes:\n> Right now, whether or not Johannes has done the right thing has been\n> called into question and is resulting in such an angry thread *only*\n> because it's impossible to verify what has actually been done. When\n> people can verify what happened - which in this case just means\n> looking at the deleted pages - then trust is possible and easy.\n\n:)\n\n> Most social problems come from the social environment, not individual\n> people's actions. In this case, the social environment (wiki\n> settings) have been configured explicitly to cast doubt on Johannes.\n> It was an accident waiting to happen, and it finally happened.\n\n> The proposal to add a second admin to the wiki - or at least make\n> deleted pages visible to one other person - is not about Johannes.\n> It's about creating a healthy social environment that allows people to\n> relieve their suspicion before they let it get out of control.\n\n> So far, all the counterarguments have been of the form, \"But Johannes\n> is a good guy, so we don't need to check on him.\" That's an invalid\n> argument, because the real proposal (modulo the stupid subject line of\n> this thread) is not about Johannes at all. Checking on him isn't\n> about preventing him from being an idiot, it's about preventing\n> everyone else from being an idiot. Which I think we can all agree at\n> this point, would have been nice.\n\nVery nicely put- I have to agree. We have to stop blaming Johannes and\nstart blaming ourselves and work towards a solution together; example:\nhave one more admin.\n\n-- Ram\n"},{"id":"147663","messageId":"AANLkTin9Pnugt4NS_gwHoUsKvFur7CvowdR9Aqkuu6h7@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24689","inReplyTo":"20100810161940.GF3921@kytes","subject":"Re: Johannes misbehavior in the wiki, and a request for admin rights (was: wiki \"abuse\")","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-10T17:54:45Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T17:54:45Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra\n wrote:\n> Felipe writes:\n>> I don't think it's a single incident:\n>> Dscho blocked Amire80 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Spamming\n>> links to external sites)\n>\n> Okay. I hope you get the point- we didn't have Johannes being pulled\n> up like this before, atleast after I joined the community.\n\nThat doesn't mean there aren't other cases like this. The affected\nusers might have decided to give up, instead of contacting the mailing\nlist (possibly understandable considering the heat Amir received).\n\n>> How exactly? How do we as a community ensure that Johannes is not\n>> going to ban people unfairly? I haven't seen any acceptance of bad\n>> behavior, nor have I seen any hint as to what he will do the next time\n>> something like this happens.\n>\n> The current issue is solved. Johannes apologized, Amir apologized and\n> I apologized on behalf of the community. Everyone is happy. The first\n> step towards correcting a problem is recognizing it- we have succeeded\n> in doing that and resolving it amicably.\n\nYes, the original problem has been resolved, but it's not clear what\nwill happen the next time. There have been many constructive\nsuggestions, and I haven't seen Johannes comment on any of them.\n\nI've just created a page for people to comment:\nhttps://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/WikiIdeas#Stop_immediate_blocking\n\n> Sverre Rabbelier writes:\n>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:16, Felipe Contreras\n>> wrote:\n>> > How having more than one admin is distasteful?\n>>\n>> No, the way you are treating this is.\n>\n> It's okay to have another admin- I don't think anyone opposes the\n> idea. Just that I think it's a little inappropriate to have a proposal\n> for it in an email with the current admin blamed in the subject\n> line. If the need for another administrator is felt, we can start a\n> new thread with some suitable candidates and decide amicably keeping\n> Johannes in the loop. The purpose of the administrator should not be\n> to \"attack\", but rather work with Johannes, helping him cope with the\n> work load. I'm sure Johannes would be happy to have someone else\n> working with him as well :)\n\nI think it's not healthy for the second maintainer to always pat in\nthe back the first maintainer; constructive criticism is needed.\n\nEven Johannes has accepted that he misbehaved, so I don't think I did\nanything wrong on pointing the truth.\n\n> Avery Pennarun writes:\n>> Right now, whether or not Johannes has done the right thing has been\n>> called into question and is resulting in such an angry thread *only*\n>> because it's impossible to verify what has actually been done.  When\n>> people can verify what happened - which in this case just means\n>> looking at the deleted pages - then trust is possible and easy.\n>\n> :)\n\nI'm not going to go into details as why I think no warning was issued,\njust that we need this:\nhttps://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/WikiIdeas#Allow_users_to_see_deleted_pages\n\n>> Most social problems come from the social environment, not individual\n>> people's actions.  In this case, the social environment (wiki\n>> settings) have been configured explicitly to cast doubt on Johannes.\n>> It was an accident waiting to happen, and it finally happened.\n>\n>> The proposal to add a second admin to the wiki - or at least make\n>> deleted pages visible to one other person - is not about Johannes.\n>> It's about creating a healthy social environment that allows people to\n>> relieve their suspicion before they let it get out of control.\n>\n>> So far, all the counterarguments have been of the form, \"But Johannes\n>> is a good guy, so we don't need to check on him.\"  That's an invalid\n>> argument, because the real proposal (modulo the stupid subject line of\n>> this thread) is not about Johannes at all.  Checking on him isn't\n>> about preventing him from being an idiot, it's about preventing\n>> everyone else from being an idiot.  Which I think we can all agree at\n>> this point, would have been nice.\n>\n> Very nicely put- I have to agree. We have to stop blaming Johannes and\n> start blaming ourselves and work towards a solution together; example:\n> have one more admin.\n\nDefinitely:\nhttps://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/WikiIdeas#More_admins\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"147664","messageId":"AANLkTinNnchHQHvN6FnqF_E5NCVxQvE+T_gOD0z2-MUY@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24689","inReplyTo":"AANLkTin9Pnugt4NS_gwHoUsKvFur7CvowdR9Aqkuu6h7@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Johannes misbehavior in the wiki, and a request for admin rights (was: wiki \"abuse\")","fromName":"Avery Pennarun","fromEmail":"apenwarr@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-10T18:03:57Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T18:03:57Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"apenwarr@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/20592?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Felipe Contreras\n wrote:\n> I'm not going to go into details as why I think no warning was issued,\n> just that we need this:\n> https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/WikiIdeas#Allow_users_to_see_deleted_pages\n\nKeep in mind that 99% of the unwanted crud that gets posted to a wiki\nis spam and absolutely doesn't deserve a fair warning before it gets\ndeleted. Just based purely on the list of usernames that was posted\nearlier, it looked mainly like spammers to me.\n\nIf you want to implement a huge big process before deleting/banning\nusers, you'll want to be sure what you're getting into.\n\nI personally don't think that anything that was done originally was\nnecessarily wrong, or that the wiki management itself needs to be\nfixed. If it were possible for people to simply look at deleted\npages, this thread would have been \"Hey, you deleted me and it was\nunwarranted!\" -> Someone checks it out -> \"No, it was warranted, don't\npost swearwords to user pages\" -> \"Oops, sorry\" -> Unbanned.\n\nThe thread went on as long as it did simply because verification was\nimpossible. Don't over-repair the system and thus introduce new and\nimproved problems.\n\nHave fun,\n\nAvery\n"},{"id":"147665","messageId":"AANLkTikEZ1DJSjSSE4o5XxMp_P0knT6e=874kRxkNypZ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24689","inReplyTo":"AANLkTinNnchHQHvN6FnqF_E5NCVxQvE+T_gOD0z2-MUY@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Johannes misbehavior in the wiki, and a request for admin rights (was: wiki \"abuse\")","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-10T18:37:29Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T18:37:29Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Avery Pennarun wrote:\n> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Felipe Contreras\n> wrote:\n>> I'm not going to go into details as why I think no warning was issued,\n>> just that we need this:\n>> https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/WikiIdeas#Allow_users_to_see_deleted_pages\n>\n> Keep in mind that 99% of the unwanted crud that gets posted to a wiki\n> is spam and absolutely doesn't deserve a fair warning before it gets\n> deleted.  Just based purely on the list of usernames that was posted\n> earlier, it looked mainly like spammers to me.\n\nSure, if it's clearly spam (as in created by a spam bot) it doesn't\ndeserve a warning, but as Amir's case demonstrates, not all of the\ndeleted content was like that.\n\n> If you want to implement a huge big process before deleting/banning\n> users, you'll want to be sure what you're getting into.\n\nThere's no big process: warn before you ban if the user is not a bot. Simple.\n\n> I personally don't think that anything that was done originally was\n> necessarily wrong, or that the wiki management itself needs to be\n> fixed.  If it were possible for people to simply look at deleted\n> pages, this thread would have been \"Hey, you deleted me and it was\n> unwarranted!\" -> Someone checks it out -> \"No, it was warranted, don't\n> post swearwords to user pages\" -> \"Oops, sorry\" -> Unbanned.\n\nThat can't be right because the reason wasn't that, but \"Spamming\nlinks to external sites\", and that hasn't even been decided yet.\n\nBut if that's what you meant, here's a more likely case:\n1) Join the wiki\n2) Fill the user page as requested\n3) Get blocked permanently\n4) Give up\n\nJust by having a *temporary* ban instead of a permanent one (when the\nuser is clearly not a spam bot) would not have only decreased the\nthread, but it wouldn't have happened in the first place and wouldn't\nhave caused the case I just mentioned.\n\n> The thread went on as long as it did simply because verification was\n> impossible.\n\nNo, it did because there was no admin willing to fix the problem: unban.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"147666","messageId":"AANLkTim8UCK7qXwWNHesnnM8RCTHFji-7xSTOZfk-8E+@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24689","inReplyTo":"AANLkTinktAhPz_zp6Hf7yanxbn4FougPZwQj9msAXUvk@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Johannes misbehavior in the wiki, and a request for admin rights (was: wiki \"abuse\")","fromName":"Michael Witten","fromEmail":"mfwitten@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-10T18:45:34Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T18:45:34Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"mfwitten@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/597101?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:49, Avery Pennarun wrote:\n> I'm hesitant to change the subject line\n> and break the thread, however.\n\nThe RFCs solved this issue with headers:\n\n Message-Id\n In-Reply-To\n References\n\nIt's a damn shame that they are so poorly used.\n"}]}