{"thread":{"id":"24694","subject":"Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","startedAt":"2010-08-10T16:26:05Z","lastAt":"2010-08-21T12:26:08Z","messageCount":18,"participants":["Ramkumar Ramachandra","Felipe Contreras","Jakub Narebski","Sverre Rabbelier","Michael J Gruber","Miles Bader","Jan Krüger"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"147659","messageId":"20100810162602.GG3921@kytes","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Ramkumar Ramachandra","fromEmail":"artagnon@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-10T16:26:05Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T16:26:05Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"r@artagnon.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/37226?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nAvery has graciously explained why we need another Git Wiki\nadministrator here [1]. I'm starting this new thread so that people\ncan discuss the idea with the list and the existing admin (Johannes)\nand finally make someone an admin. In the worst case when nobody is\nwilling to become an admin, I can step in- I'll consider that my\nresponsibility since I started the thread.\n\nPlease tell us if you're willing/ capable of being a Git Wiki admin\nwith Johannes. Also, feel free to nominate/ suggest people for the\npost.\n\nThanks!\n\n-- Ram\n\n[1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/153114\n"},{"id":"147661","messageId":"AANLkTin5=KbTpYE7myewvYTUGEmim_BUu_OqS_HRAu3P@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":"20100810162602.GG3921@kytes","subject":"Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-10T17:03:53Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T17:03:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra\n wrote:\n> Avery has graciously explained why we need another Git Wiki\n> administrator here [1]. I'm starting this new thread so that people\n> can discuss the idea with the list and the existing admin (Johannes)\n> and finally make someone an admin. In the worst case when nobody is\n> willing to become an admin, I can step in- I'll consider that my\n> responsibility since I started the thread.\n>\n> Please tell us if you're willing/ capable of being a Git Wiki admin\n> with Johannes. Also, feel free to nominate/ suggest people for the\n> post.\n\nI propose myself.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"147693","messageId":"m3y6ce2kdz.fsf@localhost.localdomain","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":"20100810162602.GG3921@kytes","subject":"Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Jakub Narebski","fromEmail":"jnareb@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-10T22:06:18Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T22:06:18Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jnareb@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2706?v=4"},"body":"Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:\n\n> Avery has graciously explained why we need another Git Wiki\n> administrator here [1]. I'm starting this new thread so that people\n> can discuss the idea with the list and the existing admin (Johannes)\n> and finally make someone an admin. In the worst case when nobody is\n> willing to become an admin, I can step in- I'll consider that my\n> responsibility since I started the thread.\n> \n> Please tell us if you're willing/ capable of being a Git Wiki admin\n> with Johannes. Also, feel free to nominate/ suggest people for the\n> post.\n\nI propose myself.\n\nI had (some) admin rights on old (former) MoinMoin based git wiki at\nhttp://git.or.cz/gitwiki/ (you can see it in history). I am not sure\nif I would have that much time nowadays for spam preventing, but\nI would try.\n\n-- \nJakub Narebski\nPoland\nShadeHawk on #git\n"},{"id":"147695","messageId":"AANLkTi=EOVv2BDFFOb1XVSXzbQcO_Loyhih-RcWm5Joj@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":"m3y6ce2kdz.fsf@localhost.localdomain","subject":"Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Sverre Rabbelier","fromEmail":"srabbelier@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-10T22:19:28Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T22:19:28Z","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 17:06, Jakub Narebski wrote:\n> I had (some) admin rights on old (former) MoinMoin based git wiki at\n> http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/ (you can see it in history).  I am not sure\n> if I would have that much time nowadays for spam preventing, but\n> I would try.\n\nI agree, Jakub has always been one of the maintainers of the wiki, he\nshould have admin rights :)\n\n-- \nCheers,\n\nSverre Rabbelier\n"},{"id":"147699","messageId":"AANLkTin+17umpp7Zs5c1DcMvN0X7geMAjMEfGwiK8=uF@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":"m3y6ce2kdz.fsf@localhost.localdomain","subject":"Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-10T22:39:53Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-10T22:39:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Jakub Narebski wrote:\n> I propose myself.\n\nI was going to propose you, but wasn't sure if you would have time :)\n\n> I had (some) admin rights on old (former) MoinMoin based git wiki at\n> http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/ (you can see it in history).  I am not sure\n> if I would have that much time nowadays for spam preventing, but\n> I would try.\n\nYou can create a patrol group as I planned to do, I would be gladly\nhelp preventing spam. See:\nhttp://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Patrolled_edits\n\nAlso note that having 3 admins would make things even easier; as long\nas the admins are capable and sensible, the more the better.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"147715","messageId":"20100811050056.GA3715@kytes","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":"m3y6ce2kdz.fsf@localhost.localdomain","subject":"Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Ramkumar Ramachandra","fromEmail":"artagnon@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-11T05:00:59Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-11T05:00:59Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"r@artagnon.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/37226?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nJakub Narebski writes:\n> Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:\n> \n> > Avery has graciously explained why we need another Git Wiki\n> > administrator here [1]. I'm starting this new thread so that people\n> > can discuss the idea with the list and the existing admin (Johannes)\n> > and finally make someone an admin. In the worst case when nobody is\n> > willing to become an admin, I can step in- I'll consider that my\n> > responsibility since I started the thread.\n> > \n> > Please tell us if you're willing/ capable of being a Git Wiki admin\n> > with Johannes. Also, feel free to nominate/ suggest people for the\n> > post.\n> \n> I propose myself.\n\n+1\n\nI vote for Jakub too.\n\n-- Ram\n"},{"id":"147720","messageId":"4C62494A.2030805@drmicha.warpmail.net","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":"20100811050056.GA3715@kytes","subject":"Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Michael J Gruber","fromEmail":"git@drmicha.warpmail.net","sentAt":"2010-08-11T06:55:06Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-11T06:55:06Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"git@grubix.eu","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/233215?v=4"},"body":"Ramkumar Ramachandra venit, vidit, dixit 11.08.2010 07:00:\n> Hi,\n> \n> Jakub Narebski writes:\n>> Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:\n>>\n>>> Avery has graciously explained why we need another Git Wiki\n>>> administrator here [1]. I'm starting this new thread so that people\n>>> can discuss the idea with the list and the existing admin (Johannes)\n>>> and finally make someone an admin. In the worst case when nobody is\n>>> willing to become an admin, I can step in- I'll consider that my\n>>> responsibility since I started the thread.\n>>>\n>>> Please tell us if you're willing/ capable of being a Git Wiki admin\n>>> with Johannes. Also, feel free to nominate/ suggest people for the\n>>> post.\n>>\n>> I propose myself.\n> \n> +1\n> \n> I vote for Jakub too.\n> \n> -- Ram\n\n+1 on Jakub and Ram because they showed restraint in the pertaining\nthread. We need moderators, not radiators ;)\n\nMichael\n"},{"id":"147756","messageId":"AANLkTimuHzC_brw2bBDTvc=-Cj+70AMFEj7nzspW5mGq@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":"4C62494A.2030805@drmicha.warpmail.net","subject":"Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-11T12:06:03Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-11T12:06:03Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Michael J Gruber\n wrote:\n> +1 on Jakub and Ram because they showed restraint in the pertaining\n> thread. We need moderators, not radiators ;)\n\nOk, I was going to let go what happened, but you are calling me a\nradiator. So here's what happened\n\n1) On August 7 Johannes (Dscho) deleted a bunch of user/user talk\npages, including Jakub Narebski's page with comments like \"link spam\",\n\"Inappropriate abuse of the Wiki as a messenger\".\n\n2) The same day, Amir (Amire80), an experienced wikipedia editor and\nsysop, asked Johannes what was wrong about having a link in his user\npage, a practice not only allowed, but encouraged in wikipedia, and\naccording to the default text in mediawiki, also in git's wiki. He did\nit through user talk pages, which again is the way people communicate\nwikipedia.\n\n3) Johannes blocked Amir with the message \"Inappropriate abuse of the\nWiki as a messenger, as well as abuse of the admin\", and deleted\nAmir's comment.\n\n4) Amir proceeded to contact the mailing list explaining what\nhappened, and that if indeed that's the policy of git wiki (which is\nquite contrary to most wikis), such policy must be written somewhere,\nnot allowing people to make those mistakes. Also, asking for his\naccount to be unblocked.\n\n5) The thread developed into the pros/cons of user pages until Štěpán\nbrought back the issue of the ban, at which point Johannes was Cc'ed.\n\n6) Johannes defended his decision, arguing that people should somehow\nknow that user pages are not allowed, even though other people have\nuser pages (Jsarenik, Mike.lifeguard, etc.), even Jakub Narebski had\none at the moment Amir created his. He made it clear he wasn't going\nto do *anything* regarding this issue, suggested that I take over his\ntask of monitoring the wiki, and that he was done with the discussion.\n\nNote: I never accused Johannes of doing anything wrong, until he\ndenied to unblock Amir, which I think was clearly wrong, and even\nworst, didn't have any desire to listen to the arguments.\n\n7) At this point it was clear to me that Johannes had too much power\nover the wiki, being the only admin, and that was specially worrying\nsince he had so low tolerance to accepting mistakes, therefore, on Aug\n10 I started a new thread asking for a new (as in extra) maintainer,\nand one of the arguments was his misbehavior.\n\nNote: I consider raising a flag when there are problems to be a good thing.\n\n8) The same day Johannes accepted he made a mistake, and silently\nunblocked Amir with the message \"I overreacted and am sorry\". He never\naccepted any wrongdoing on the mailing list, nor expressed any desire\nin doing anything to avoid these issues in the future.\n\nI didn't \"radiate\" anything, the problem was there, I merely pointed it out.\n\nWhat we need is people that resolve the conflicts, not ignore them.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"147761","messageId":"87vd7hpb27.fsf@catnip.gol.com","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":"AANLkTimuHzC_brw2bBDTvc=-Cj+70AMFEj7nzspW5mGq@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Miles Bader","fromEmail":"miles@gnu.org","sentAt":"2010-08-11T12:51:12Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-11T12:51:12Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"miles@gnu.org","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/01069b69593af7bff28e2f97afeb3644ae6fe2f5f56cb3a8cf34c5fb8c36efe5?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Felipe Contreras writes:\n> What we need is people that resolve the conflicts, not ignore them.\n\nThe thing is, much of what you've said against Johannes gives the\nimpression of a personal attack (whether or not you meant it as such).\n\nIf you really want to resolve things, it would really help to tone it\ndown, avoid accusations, and try to focus on the positive side.\n\n-miles\n\n-- \nFriendless, adj. Having no favors to bestow. Destitute of fortune. Addicted to\nutterance of truth and common sense.\n"},{"id":"147763","messageId":"20100811134640.GA10888@kytes","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":"AANLkTimuHzC_brw2bBDTvc=-Cj+70AMFEj7nzspW5mGq@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Ramkumar Ramachandra","fromEmail":"artagnon@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-11T13:46:43Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-11T13:46:43Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"r@artagnon.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/37226?v=4"},"body":"Hi Felipe,\n\nFelipe Contreras writes:\n> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Michael J Gruber\n> wrote:\n> > +1 on Jakub and Ram because they showed restraint in the pertaining\n> > thread. We need moderators, not radiators ;)\n> \n> Ok, I was going to let go what happened, but you are calling me a\n> radiator. So here's what happened\n[...]\n\nCan I personally kneel down before you and *beg* you to let this go?\n\nI'm nobody- both you and Johannes have contributed far more to git.git\nthan me. However, seeing you fight like this makes me sad. I don't see\nwhy I should be biased against either \"Johannes\", \"Jakub\", or \"Felipe\"\n- they're just random names to me. From what I've seen, using my best\nunbiased judgement, you're definitely over-reacting; to the extent\nthat I'm almost convinced you have something against Johannes\npersonally. Please, please stop- the list is no place for this. We can\nall write SO much good code and solve the world's hunger problems\ninstead of squabbling like this.\n\nWe're not ignoring anything. We have come to a solution together,\nvoted for it, and are solving it now- Jakub and I will work with (or\n\"to check\" if you prefer that) Johannes. Personally, I don't think you\nshould work with Johannes, atleast in the state in which you're in\nright now. Please disagree only if you feel that Jakub or I will do a\nbad job.\n\nCan you please stop digging up old graves and let Johannes be now?\nCan you trust that we understand the full magnitude of the problem and\nwill do our best to prevent it from happening again?\n\nFor the record, I have no interest in admin priviliges- I'm only\nstepping up temporarily until everyone calms down. After that, I'll\ndrop my priviliges and we can just have Jakub and Johannes moderating\nthe wiki.\n\n> 7) At this point it was clear to me that Johannes had too much power\n> over the wiki, being the only admin, and that was specially worrying\n> since he had so low tolerance to accepting mistakes, therefore, on Aug\n> 10 I started a new thread asking for a new (as in extra) maintainer,\n> and one of the arguments was his misbehavior.\n> \n> Note: I consider raising a flag when there are problems to be a good thing.\n\nYes, this is all very good. We got some suggestions, and we're working\ntowards solving the problem. Are we not doing it fast enough?\n\n> 8) The same day Johannes accepted he made a mistake, and silently\n> unblocked Amir with the message \"I overreacted and am sorry\". He never\n> accepted any wrongdoing on the mailing list, nor expressed any desire\n> in doing anything to avoid these issues in the future.\n\nRemind me why *you* have a problem with Johannes not writing a public\napology note? He did whatever was needed to be done to solve the\nissue. Amir is happy, Johannes is happy, and nobody is fighting\nanymore. Why are you pressing on the issue of whether Johannes\nrealizes his mistake or not? Whether or not he does, we'll be working\nwith him- so he won't have a chance to \"misbehave\" again. I don't\nunderstand what you want from him.\n\nJohannes: If Felipe still keeps insisting on a public apology, please\noblige and get it over with.\n\n> What we need is people that resolve the conflicts, not ignore them.\n\nHow are we ignoring anything? We've called a vote. By virtue of having\nmore votes than you, Jakub and I will step up if nobody has further\nobjections. This matter is closed unless someone does.\n\n-- Ram\n"},{"id":"147764","messageId":"20100811142359.GB10888@kytes","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":"20100811134640.GA10888@kytes","subject":"Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Ramkumar Ramachandra","fromEmail":"artagnon@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-11T14:24:01Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-11T14:24:01Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"r@artagnon.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/37226?v=4"},"body":"Hi John,\n\nRamkumar Ramachandra writes:\n> How are we ignoring anything? We've called a vote. By virtue of having\n> more votes than you, Jakub and I will step up if nobody has further\n> objections. This matter is closed unless someone does.\n\nCould you make 'Artagnon' and 'JakubNarebski' administrators on\ngit.wiki.kernel.org?\n\nThanks!\n\n-- Ram\n"},{"id":"147766","messageId":"AANLkTimQsNj-3M=y7Dop4brB8U-8vVPqgD0+zBX5R6FG@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":"20100811134640.GA10888@kytes","subject":"Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-11T14:49:59Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-11T14:49:59Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra\n wrote:\n> Felipe Contreras writes:\n>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Michael J Gruber\n>> wrote:\n>> > +1 on Jakub and Ram because they showed restraint in the pertaining\n>> > thread. We need moderators, not radiators ;)\n>>\n>> Ok, I was going to let go what happened, but you are calling me a\n>> radiator. So here's what happened\n> [...]\n>\n> Can I personally kneel down before you and *beg* you to let this go?\n\nAs I said, I had already let it go, but I wasn't going to let Michael\nGruber call me a \"radiator\" unfairly.\n\n> I'm nobody- both you and Johannes have contributed far more to git.git\n> than me. However, seeing you fight like this makes me sad. I don't see\n> why I should be biased against either \"Johannes\", \"Jakub\", or \"Felipe\"\n> - they're just random names to me. From what I've seen, using my best\n> unbiased judgement, you're definitely over-reacting; to the extent\n> that I'm almost convinced you have something against Johannes\n> personally. Please, please stop- the list is no place for this. We can\n> all write SO much good code and solve the world's hunger problems\n> instead of squabbling like this.\n\nI have nothing against Johannes, he has done much more for the\ncommunity than I have, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to express\nmy opinion when I think he is wrong.\n\n> We're not ignoring anything. We have come to a solution together,\n> voted for it, and are solving it now\n\nIMO having more than one admin is only part o the solution, see:\nhttps://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/WikiIdeas\n\n> - Jakub and I will work with (or\n> \"to check\" if you prefer that) Johannes. Personally, I don't think you\n> should work with Johannes, atleast in the state in which you're in\n> right now. Please disagree only if you feel that Jakub or I will do a\n> bad job.\n\nIt's not Johannes' wiki; it's the community's. And I'm certain that I\ncan work just fine with Jakub as I've done it in the past.\n\n> Can you please stop digging up old graves and let Johannes be now?\n\nI have never seen Johannes said a word about why he unbanned Amir,\nwhat he will do the next time this happens, his opinion on the new\nadmin proposal, or any of my list of suggestions. I don't see much\nresolved.\n\n> Can you trust that we understand the full magnitude of the problem and\n> will do our best to prevent it from happening again?\n\nI will trust, once I see comments on\nhttps://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/WikiIdeas.\n\n>> 7) At this point it was clear to me that Johannes had too much power\n>> over the wiki, being the only admin, and that was specially worrying\n>> since he had so low tolerance to accepting mistakes, therefore, on Aug\n>> 10 I started a new thread asking for a new (as in extra) maintainer,\n>> and one of the arguments was his misbehavior.\n>>\n>> Note: I consider raising a flag when there are problems to be a good thing.\n>\n> Yes, this is all very good. We got some suggestions, and we're working\n> towards solving the problem. Are we not doing it fast enough?\n\nSure, but Michael made it look like a bad thing.\n\n>> 8) The same day Johannes accepted he made a mistake, and silently\n>> unblocked Amir with the message \"I overreacted and am sorry\". He never\n>> accepted any wrongdoing on the mailing list, nor expressed any desire\n>> in doing anything to avoid these issues in the future.\n>\n> Remind me why *you* have a problem with Johannes not writing a public\n> apology note? He did whatever was needed to be done to solve the\n> issue. Amir is happy, Johannes is happy, and nobody is fighting\n> anymore. Why are you pressing on the issue of whether Johannes\n> realizes his mistake or not? Whether or not he does, we'll be working\n> with him- so he won't have a chance to \"misbehave\" again. I don't\n> understand what you want from him.\n\nI am merely stating what happened.\n\n> Johannes: If Felipe still keeps insisting on a public apology, please\n> oblige and get it over with.\n\nI am not insisting on an apology, I am more interested on what will\nhappen the next time something like this happen. But I don't expect\nanything from Johannes.\n\n>> What we need is people that resolve the conflicts, not ignore them.\n>\n> How are we ignoring anything? We've called a vote. By virtue of having\n> more votes than you, Jakub and I will step up if nobody has further\n> objections. This matter is closed unless someone does.\n\nI'm not saying you are ignoring anything. Read to what I replied:\n>> > +1 on Jakub and Ram because they showed restraint in the pertaining\n>> > thread. We need moderators, not radiators ;)\n\nI think I've helped resolve the conflict, but Michael makes it look as\nif I aggravated it. Also, according to Michael, Jakub has points\nbecause he didn't make a single comment on the thread, thus implying\nthat ignoring conflicts is a good thing.\n\nNote: in order to avoid confusion; I do think Jakub is a good\ncandidate, not because he didn't comment on the issue, but because of\nhis argumentation skills and other reasons.\n\nBesides, this is not a competition; there's nothing wrong with having\nmore admins. However, notice that this voting doesn't even have a day\nopen.\n\nAnyway, although I would like to help administering the wiki, just\nhaving a second admin I think is huge progress. I just didn't like\nMichael hurting my chances.\n\nCheers.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"147786","messageId":"AANLkTiknPsWcw9zes7vYKoDmBqjtXPpKFoZ_Ge7F8Dnz@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":"AANLkTimQsNj-3M=y7Dop4brB8U-8vVPqgD0+zBX5R6FG@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-11T15:34:54Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-11T15:34:54Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Felipe Contreras\n wrote:\n> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra\n>> Johannes: If Felipe still keeps insisting on a public apology, please\n>> oblige and get it over with.\n>\n> I am not insisting on an apology, I am more interested on what will\n> happen the next time something like this happen. But I don't expect\n> anything from Johannes.\n\nNote: and just to be clear again; I don't expect anything from\nJohannes not because I have something against him, but because any\nother admin can do that.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"147908","messageId":"20100812165647.38ee2809@jk.gs","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":"AANLkTimQsNj-3M=y7Dop4brB8U-8vVPqgD0+zBX5R6FG@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Jan Krüger","fromEmail":"jk@jk.gs","sentAt":"2010-08-12T14:56:47Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-12T14:56:47Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jk@jk.gs","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1774?v=4"},"body":"Felipe Contreras wrote:\n\n> IMO having more than one admin is only part o the solution, see:\n> https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/WikiIdeas\n\nHere are my comments on that. For the sake of archive-friendliness, I'm\nreferring to this version of it:\nhttps://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php?title=WikiIdeas&oldid=8996\n\n(Why am I commenting here instead of on the wiki? Because I think there\nare few things worse than a wiki for discussing something.)\n\n| Currently there's only one admin (Johannes Schindelin), it would be\n| healthy to have more than one.\n\nI agree. Few sites work with one admin; not least because most sites\nare too much work for one single person to handle.\n\n| Up to now, good faithed users have been blocked immediately, and\n| permanently, without a warning. Instead of doing that, a policy like\n| wikipedia's one should be followed:\n\nI'd like to point out that this drastically increases the\nadministration effort. For example, issued warnings have to be tracked.\nAlso, this is serious overhead for obvious spammers, and different\npeople will have different perspectives on what constitutes an obvious\nspammer. To the best of anyone's knowledge, only one false positive has\never occurred until now. I think this approach is overkill. I would\nsuggest, if technically possible, automatically showing banned users a\nnotice that asks them to contact admins via some channel or another if\nthey believe that they have been wrongly blocked.\n\n| Some people might have been wrongly blocked. By changing the blocking\n| policy the old blocks might not apply and warnings should be issued instead.\n\nSame reasoning. Also, the deletion logs look very much like only\nobvious spammers got blocked.\n\n| Allow users to see deleted pages\n| This would allow transparency into the action of the admins.\n\nI don't oppose that, but it raises technical issues. Deleted pages\nshould not be indexed by search engines, because doing so would defeat\nthe purpose of removing spammy links. I don't know whether MediaWiki\nimplements that; I do know that it tells robots not to index old\nversions of pages.\n\n| Up to now, good faithed users have been blocked immediately, and\n| permanently, without a warning. Instead of doing that, a policy like\n| wikipedia's one should be followed:\n\nYes, but why use a wiki for communication if you can simply use e-mail\ninstead? To me, all this \"using wiki pages for communication and\ndiscussions\" is a classic case of \"when you have a hammer\"...\n\nAlso, the proposal about patrol groups seems to be about solving the\nsame problem, though I don't know how well it works for dealing with\nproblematic edits in real time. Okay, I guess we'd need a *lot* more\nadmins for that anyway.\n\n\nAll in all, I think it would be completely sufficient to find a way to\nlet users help with reporting spam, and to add a couple of admins...\nand perhaps notify users when blocking them. I don't think anything\nelse is necessary or useful.\n\n> > [...] Personally, I don't think\n> > you should work with Johannes, atleast in the state in which you're\n> > in right now. Please disagree only if you feel that Jakub or I will\n> > do a bad job.\n> \n> It's not Johannes' wiki; it's the community's. And I'm certain that I\n> can work just fine with Jakub as I've done it in the past.\n\nNobody claimed that you wouldn't be able to work with Jakub, there was\nonly doubt that you might have difficulty working with Johannes (in a\nway that leaves both of you in a healthy state of mind).\n\nAlso, for the record, I'm fine with Jakub and Ram doing the job. I\nwould volunteer myself for additional help but I don't really care\nabout it very strongly, and three people are probably enough for now\nanyway.\n\n(As a public service, I have cut away the rest of what I was going to\nwrite. The discussion is long enough as it is already.)\n\n-Jan\n"},{"id":"147913","messageId":"AANLkTikBwCCsSHWNaGkFTZ=1DFL7QCkKGWJxan04PQTa@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":"20100812165647.38ee2809@jk.gs","subject":"Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-12T16:15:07Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-12T16:15:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Jan Krüger wrote:\n> Felipe Contreras wrote:\n>> IMO having more than one admin is only part o the solution, see:\n>> https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/WikiIdeas\n>\n> Here are my comments on that. For the sake of archive-friendliness, I'm\n> referring to this version of it:\n> https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php?title=WikiIdeas&oldid=8996\n>\n> (Why am I commenting here instead of on the wiki? Because I think there\n> are few things worse than a wiki for discussing something.)\n\nI disagree, and the whole wikipedia would too; it's a different kind\nof communication.\n\n> | Up to now, good faithed users have been blocked immediately, and\n> | permanently, without a warning. Instead of doing that, a policy like\n> | wikipedia's one should be followed:\n>\n> I'd like to point out that this drastically increases the\n> administration effort. For example, issued warnings have to be tracked.\n\nI disagree. It's very small overhead, the warning is in the wiki, it's\n_very_ easy to find by *anyone*.\n\nAnyway, I'm willing to help patrolling, so I can take that overhead.\n\n> Also, this is serious overhead for obvious spammers, and different\n> people will have different perspectives on what constitutes an obvious\n> spammer.\n\nI disagree, spotting spam is extremely easy by a human.\n\n> To the best of anyone's knowledge, only one false positive has\n> ever occurred until now.\n\nOf course, because the evidence for the contrary has been deleted.\n\n> I think this approach is overkill. I would\n> suggest, if technically possible, automatically showing banned users a\n> notice that asks them to contact admins via some channel or another if\n> they believe that they have been wrongly blocked.\n\nThere's already a channel for that, the wiki, and it has a significant\nadvantage over other channels; everyone can see it, and it never goes\naway.\n\n> | Some people might have been wrongly blocked. By changing the blocking\n> | policy the old blocks might not apply and warnings should be issued instead.\n>\n> Same reasoning. Also, the deletion logs look very much like only\n> obvious spammers got blocked.\n\nThe deletion logs don't show anything besides the usernames.\n\n> | Allow users to see deleted pages\n> | This would allow transparency into the action of the admins.\n>\n> I don't oppose that, but it raises technical issues. Deleted pages\n> should not be indexed by search engines, because doing so would defeat\n> the purpose of removing spammy links. I don't know whether MediaWiki\n> implements that; I do know that it tells robots not to index old\n> versions of pages.\n\nAll right. But that's just another argument to avoid deleting them.\n\n> | Up to now, good faithed users have been blocked immediately, and\n> | permanently, without a warning. Instead of doing that, a policy like\n> | wikipedia's one should be followed:\n>\n> Yes, but why use a wiki for communication if you can simply use e-mail\n> instead?\n\nBecause:\n a) the e-mail is not available anywhere (as user pages are apparently\nfrowned upon)\n b) e-mails have a limited destination, and thus cannot be viewed by\nthe rest of the community, plus the admin can ignore them, or get\nmisrepresented as spam, etc.\n\n> To me, all this \"using wiki pages for communication and\n> discussions\" is a classic case of \"when you have a hammer\"...\n\nYeap, except the hammer is the email.\n\n> Also, the proposal about patrol groups seems to be about solving the\n> same problem, though I don't know how well it works for dealing with\n> problematic edits in real time. Okay, I guess we'd need a *lot* more\n> admins for that anyway.\n\nNot true, considering the amount of people blocked (12), probably one\nadmin can deal with warnings plus bocks. But hey, if you don't think\nso, I'm willing to take that responsibility completely.\n\n> All in all, I think it would be completely sufficient to find a way to\n> let users help with reporting spam, and to add a couple of admins...\n> and perhaps notify users when blocking them. I don't think anything\n> else is necessary or useful.\n\nI still would like to see someone revisit old blocks, but for the\nfuture, yeah, that would be enough.\n\n>> > [...] Personally, I don't think\n>> > you should work with Johannes, atleast in the state in which you're\n>> > in right now. Please disagree only if you feel that Jakub or I will\n>> > do a bad job.\n>>\n>> It's not Johannes' wiki; it's the community's. And I'm certain that I\n>> can work just fine with Jakub as I've done it in the past.\n>\n> Nobody claimed that you wouldn't be able to work with Jakub, there was\n> only doubt that you might have difficulty working with Johannes (in a\n> way that leaves both of you in a healthy state of mind).\n\nImagine the two situations when dealing with spam:\n a) obvious spam: I delete the page and block\n b) non-obvious spam: I delete the page, and warn the user\n\nHow might that clash with Johannes?\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"148540","messageId":"AANLkTi=cFf+DPzMw=BV6979ATMP4Z1845sFVmLSJy33=@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":"20100811142359.GB10888@kytes","subject":"Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-20T11:12:01Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-20T11:12:01Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra\n wrote:\n> Could you make 'Artagnon' and 'JakubNarebski' administrators on\n> git.wiki.kernel.org?\n\nWhy hasn't this been done?\n\nAlso, Johannes can give admin rights too.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"},{"id":"148549","messageId":"20100820122813.GA9448@kytes","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":"AANLkTi=cFf+DPzMw=BV6979ATMP4Z1845sFVmLSJy33=@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Ramkumar Ramachandra","fromEmail":"artagnon@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-20T12:28:19Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-20T12:28:19Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"r@artagnon.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/37226?v=4"},"body":"Hi Felipe,\n\nFelipe Contreras writes:\n> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra\n> wrote:\n> > Could you make 'Artagnon' and 'JakubNarebski' administrators on\n> > git.wiki.kernel.org?\n> \n> Why hasn't this been done?\n> \n> Also, Johannes can give admin rights too.\n\nNo, Johannes can't. He's not a bureaucrat [1].\n\n[1]: https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=bureaucrat\n\n-- Ram\n"},{"id":"148666","messageId":"AANLkTinyMb6mw9jDhhDzs2HNjKWL5Q=Ofi6SU9BqdY35@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"24694","inReplyTo":"20100820122813.GA9448@kytes","subject":"Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin","fromName":"Felipe Contreras","fromEmail":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","sentAt":"2010-08-21T12:26:08Z","receivedAt":"2010-08-21T12:26:08Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"felipe.contreras@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8358?v=4"},"body":"On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra\n wrote:\n> Felipe Contreras writes:\n>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra\n>> wrote:\n>> > Could you make 'Artagnon' and 'JakubNarebski' administrators on\n>> > git.wiki.kernel.org?\n>>\n>> Why hasn't this been done?\n>>\n>> Also, Johannes can give admin rights too.\n>\n> No, Johannes can't. He's not a bureaucrat [1].\n\nRight, well, I think we need a bureaucrat that's also part of the git community.\n\nAnd BTW, here's a true spammy user: Demver5. It would be a lot easier\nto report these if patrolling was enabled.\n\n-- \nFelipe Contreras\n"}]}