Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Ramkumar Ramachandra]

Hi,

Avery has graciously explained why we need another Git Wiki
administrator here [1]. I'm starting this new thread so that people
can discuss the idea with the list and the existing admin (Johannes)
and finally make someone an admin. In the worst case when nobody is
willing to become an admin, I can step in- I'll consider that my
responsibility since I started the thread.

Please tell us if you're willing/ capable of being a Git Wiki admin
with Johannes. Also, feel free to nominate/ suggest people for the
post.

Thanks!

-- Ram

[1]: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/153114

Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Felipe Contreras]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
<artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Avery has graciously explained why we need another Git Wiki
> administrator here [1]. I'm starting this new thread so that people
> can discuss the idea with the list and the existing admin (Johannes)
> and finally make someone an admin. In the worst case when nobody is
> willing to become an admin, I can step in- I'll consider that my
> responsibility since I started the thread.
>
> Please tell us if you're willing/ capable of being a Git Wiki admin
> with Johannes. Also, feel free to nominate/ suggest people for the
> post.

I propose myself.

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Jakub Narebski]

Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:

> Avery has graciously explained why we need another Git Wiki
> administrator here [1]. I'm starting this new thread so that people
> can discuss the idea with the list and the existing admin (Johannes)
> and finally make someone an admin. In the worst case when nobody is
> willing to become an admin, I can step in- I'll consider that my
> responsibility since I started the thread.
> 
> Please tell us if you're willing/ capable of being a Git Wiki admin
> with Johannes. Also, feel free to nominate/ suggest people for the
> post.

I propose myself.

I had (some) admin rights on old (former) MoinMoin based git wiki at
http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/ (you can see it in history).  I am not sure
if I would have that much time nowadays for spam preventing, but
I would try.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Sverre Rabbelier]

Heya,

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 17:06, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> I had (some) admin rights on old (former) MoinMoin based git wiki at
> http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/ (you can see it in history).  I am not sure
> if I would have that much time nowadays for spam preventing, but
> I would try.

I agree, Jakub has always been one of the maintainers of the wiki, he
should have admin rights :)

-- 
Cheers,

Sverre Rabbelier

Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Felipe Contreras]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> I propose myself.

I was going to propose you, but wasn't sure if you would have time :)

> I had (some) admin rights on old (former) MoinMoin based git wiki at
> http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/ (you can see it in history).  I am not sure
> if I would have that much time nowadays for spam preventing, but
> I would try.

You can create a patrol group as I planned to do, I would be gladly
help preventing spam. See:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Patrolled_edits

Also note that having 3 admins would make things even easier; as long
as the admins are capable and sensible, the more the better.

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Ramkumar Ramachandra]

Hi,

Jakub Narebski writes:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Avery has graciously explained why we need another Git Wiki
> > administrator here [1]. I'm starting this new thread so that people
> > can discuss the idea with the list and the existing admin (Johannes)
> > and finally make someone an admin. In the worst case when nobody is
> > willing to become an admin, I can step in- I'll consider that my
> > responsibility since I started the thread.
> > 
> > Please tell us if you're willing/ capable of being a Git Wiki admin
> > with Johannes. Also, feel free to nominate/ suggest people for the
> > post.
> 
> I propose myself.

+1

I vote for Jakub too.

-- Ram

Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Michael J Gruber]

Ramkumar Ramachandra venit, vidit, dixit 11.08.2010 07:00:
> Hi,
> 
> Jakub Narebski writes:
>> Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Avery has graciously explained why we need another Git Wiki
>>> administrator here [1]. I'm starting this new thread so that people
>>> can discuss the idea with the list and the existing admin (Johannes)
>>> and finally make someone an admin. In the worst case when nobody is
>>> willing to become an admin, I can step in- I'll consider that my
>>> responsibility since I started the thread.
>>>
>>> Please tell us if you're willing/ capable of being a Git Wiki admin
>>> with Johannes. Also, feel free to nominate/ suggest people for the
>>> post.
>>
>> I propose myself.
> 
> +1
> 
> I vote for Jakub too.
> 
> -- Ram

+1 on Jakub and Ram because they showed restraint in the pertaining
thread. We need moderators, not radiators ;)

Michael

Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Felipe Contreras]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Michael J Gruber
<git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
> +1 on Jakub and Ram because they showed restraint in the pertaining
> thread. We need moderators, not radiators ;)

Ok, I was going to let go what happened, but you are calling me a
radiator. So here's what happened

1) On August 7 Johannes (Dscho) deleted a bunch of user/user talk
pages, including Jakub Narebski's page with comments like "link spam",
"Inappropriate abuse of the Wiki as a messenger".

2) The same day, Amir (Amire80), an experienced wikipedia editor and
sysop, asked Johannes what was wrong about having a link in his user
page, a practice not only allowed, but encouraged in wikipedia, and
according to the default text in mediawiki, also in git's wiki. He did
it through user talk pages, which again is the way people communicate
wikipedia.

3) Johannes blocked Amir with the message "Inappropriate abuse of the
Wiki as a messenger, as well as abuse of the admin", and deleted
Amir's comment.

4) Amir proceeded to contact the mailing list explaining what
happened, and that if indeed that's the policy of git wiki (which is
quite contrary to most wikis), such policy must be written somewhere,
not allowing people to make those mistakes. Also, asking for his
account to be unblocked.

5) The thread developed into the pros/cons of user pages until Štěpán
brought back the issue of the ban, at which point Johannes was Cc'ed.

6) Johannes defended his decision, arguing that people should somehow
know that user pages are not allowed, even though other people have
user pages (Jsarenik, Mike.lifeguard, etc.), even Jakub Narebski had
one at the moment Amir created his. He made it clear he wasn't going
to do *anything* regarding this issue, suggested that I take over his
task of monitoring the wiki, and that he was done with the discussion.

Note: I never accused Johannes of doing anything wrong, until he
denied to unblock Amir, which I think was clearly wrong, and even
worst, didn't have any desire to listen to the arguments.

7) At this point it was clear to me that Johannes had too much power
over the wiki, being the only admin, and that was specially worrying
since he had so low tolerance to accepting mistakes, therefore, on Aug
10 I started a new thread asking for a new (as in extra) maintainer,
and one of the arguments was his misbehavior.

Note: I consider raising a flag when there are problems to be a good thing.

8) The same day Johannes accepted he made a mistake, and silently
unblocked Amir with the message "I overreacted and am sorry". He never
accepted any wrongdoing on the mailing list, nor expressed any desire
in doing anything to avoid these issues in the future.

I didn't "radiate" anything, the problem was there, I merely pointed it out.

What we need is people that resolve the conflicts, not ignore them.

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Miles Bader]

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> What we need is people that resolve the conflicts, not ignore them.

The thing is, much of what you've said against Johannes gives the
impression of a personal attack (whether or not you meant it as such).

If you really want to resolve things, it would really help to tone it
down, avoid accusations, and try to focus on the positive side.

-miles

-- 
Friendless, adj. Having no favors to bestow. Destitute of fortune. Addicted to
utterance of truth and common sense.

Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Ramkumar Ramachandra]

Hi Felipe,

Felipe Contreras writes:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Michael J Gruber
> <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
> > +1 on Jakub and Ram because they showed restraint in the pertaining
> > thread. We need moderators, not radiators ;)
> 
> Ok, I was going to let go what happened, but you are calling me a
> radiator. So here's what happened
[...]

Can I personally kneel down before you and *beg* you to let this go?

I'm nobody- both you and Johannes have contributed far more to git.git
than me. However, seeing you fight like this makes me sad. I don't see
why I should be biased against either "Johannes", "Jakub", or "Felipe"
- they're just random names to me. From what I've seen, using my best
unbiased judgement, you're definitely over-reacting; to the extent
that I'm almost convinced you have something against Johannes
personally. Please, please stop- the list is no place for this. We can
all write SO much good code and solve the world's hunger problems
instead of squabbling like this.

We're not ignoring anything. We have come to a solution together,
voted for it, and are solving it now- Jakub and I will work with (or
"to check" if you prefer that) Johannes. Personally, I don't think you
should work with Johannes, atleast in the state in which you're in
right now. Please disagree only if you feel that Jakub or I will do a
bad job.

Can you please stop digging up old graves and let Johannes be now?
Can you trust that we understand the full magnitude of the problem and
will do our best to prevent it from happening again?

For the record, I have no interest in admin priviliges- I'm only
stepping up temporarily until everyone calms down. After that, I'll
drop my priviliges and we can just have Jakub and Johannes moderating
the wiki.

> 7) At this point it was clear to me that Johannes had too much power
> over the wiki, being the only admin, and that was specially worrying
> since he had so low tolerance to accepting mistakes, therefore, on Aug
> 10 I started a new thread asking for a new (as in extra) maintainer,
> and one of the arguments was his misbehavior.
> 
> Note: I consider raising a flag when there are problems to be a good thing.

Yes, this is all very good. We got some suggestions, and we're working
towards solving the problem. Are we not doing it fast enough?

> 8) The same day Johannes accepted he made a mistake, and silently
> unblocked Amir with the message "I overreacted and am sorry". He never
> accepted any wrongdoing on the mailing list, nor expressed any desire
> in doing anything to avoid these issues in the future.

Remind me why *you* have a problem with Johannes not writing a public
apology note? He did whatever was needed to be done to solve the
issue. Amir is happy, Johannes is happy, and nobody is fighting
anymore. Why are you pressing on the issue of whether Johannes
realizes his mistake or not? Whether or not he does, we'll be working
with him- so he won't have a chance to "misbehave" again. I don't
understand what you want from him.

Johannes: If Felipe still keeps insisting on a public apology, please
oblige and get it over with.

> What we need is people that resolve the conflicts, not ignore them.

How are we ignoring anything? We've called a vote. By virtue of having
more votes than you, Jakub and I will step up if nobody has further
objections. This matter is closed unless someone does.

-- Ram

Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Ramkumar Ramachandra]

Hi John,

Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:
> How are we ignoring anything? We've called a vote. By virtue of having
> more votes than you, Jakub and I will step up if nobody has further
> objections. This matter is closed unless someone does.

Could you make 'Artagnon' and 'JakubNarebski' administrators on
git.wiki.kernel.org?

Thanks!

-- Ram

Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Felipe Contreras]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
<artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Could you make 'Artagnon' and 'JakubNarebski' administrators on
> git.wiki.kernel.org?

Why hasn't this been done?

Also, Johannes can give admin rights too.

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Ramkumar Ramachandra]

Hi Felipe,

Felipe Contreras writes:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
> <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Could you make 'Artagnon' and 'JakubNarebski' administrators on
> > git.wiki.kernel.org?
> 
> Why hasn't this been done?
> 
> Also, Johannes can give admin rights too.

No, Johannes can't. He's not a bureaucrat [1].

[1]: https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=bureaucrat

-- Ram

Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Felipe Contreras]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
<artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
>> <artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Could you make 'Artagnon' and 'JakubNarebski' administrators on
>> > git.wiki.kernel.org?
>>
>> Why hasn't this been done?
>>
>> Also, Johannes can give admin rights too.
>
> No, Johannes can't. He's not a bureaucrat [1].

Right, well, I think we need a bureaucrat that's also part of the git community.

And BTW, here's a true spammy user: Demver5. It would be a lot easier
to report these if patrolling was enabled.

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Felipe Contreras]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
<artagnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras writes:
>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Michael J Gruber
>> <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> wrote:
>> > +1 on Jakub and Ram because they showed restraint in the pertaining
>> > thread. We need moderators, not radiators ;)
>>
>> Ok, I was going to let go what happened, but you are calling me a
>> radiator. So here's what happened
> [...]
>
> Can I personally kneel down before you and *beg* you to let this go?

As I said, I had already let it go, but I wasn't going to let Michael
Gruber call me a "radiator" unfairly.

> I'm nobody- both you and Johannes have contributed far more to git.git
> than me. However, seeing you fight like this makes me sad. I don't see
> why I should be biased against either "Johannes", "Jakub", or "Felipe"
> - they're just random names to me. From what I've seen, using my best
> unbiased judgement, you're definitely over-reacting; to the extent
> that I'm almost convinced you have something against Johannes
> personally. Please, please stop- the list is no place for this. We can
> all write SO much good code and solve the world's hunger problems
> instead of squabbling like this.

I have nothing against Johannes, he has done much more for the
community than I have, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to express
my opinion when I think he is wrong.

> We're not ignoring anything. We have come to a solution together,
> voted for it, and are solving it now

IMO having more than one admin is only part o the solution, see:
https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/WikiIdeas

> - Jakub and I will work with (or
> "to check" if you prefer that) Johannes. Personally, I don't think you
> should work with Johannes, atleast in the state in which you're in
> right now. Please disagree only if you feel that Jakub or I will do a
> bad job.

It's not Johannes' wiki; it's the community's. And I'm certain that I
can work just fine with Jakub as I've done it in the past.

> Can you please stop digging up old graves and let Johannes be now?

I have never seen Johannes said a word about why he unbanned Amir,
what he will do the next time this happens, his opinion on the new
admin proposal, or any of my list of suggestions. I don't see much
resolved.

> Can you trust that we understand the full magnitude of the problem and
> will do our best to prevent it from happening again?

I will trust, once I see comments on
https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/WikiIdeas.

>> 7) At this point it was clear to me that Johannes had too much power
>> over the wiki, being the only admin, and that was specially worrying
>> since he had so low tolerance to accepting mistakes, therefore, on Aug
>> 10 I started a new thread asking for a new (as in extra) maintainer,
>> and one of the arguments was his misbehavior.
>>
>> Note: I consider raising a flag when there are problems to be a good thing.
>
> Yes, this is all very good. We got some suggestions, and we're working
> towards solving the problem. Are we not doing it fast enough?

Sure, but Michael made it look like a bad thing.

>> 8) The same day Johannes accepted he made a mistake, and silently
>> unblocked Amir with the message "I overreacted and am sorry". He never
>> accepted any wrongdoing on the mailing list, nor expressed any desire
>> in doing anything to avoid these issues in the future.
>
> Remind me why *you* have a problem with Johannes not writing a public
> apology note? He did whatever was needed to be done to solve the
> issue. Amir is happy, Johannes is happy, and nobody is fighting
> anymore. Why are you pressing on the issue of whether Johannes
> realizes his mistake or not? Whether or not he does, we'll be working
> with him- so he won't have a chance to "misbehave" again. I don't
> understand what you want from him.

I am merely stating what happened.

> Johannes: If Felipe still keeps insisting on a public apology, please
> oblige and get it over with.

I am not insisting on an apology, I am more interested on what will
happen the next time something like this happen. But I don't expect
anything from Johannes.

>> What we need is people that resolve the conflicts, not ignore them.
>
> How are we ignoring anything? We've called a vote. By virtue of having
> more votes than you, Jakub and I will step up if nobody has further
> objections. This matter is closed unless someone does.

I'm not saying you are ignoring anything. Read to what I replied:
>> > +1 on Jakub and Ram because they showed restraint in the pertaining
>> > thread. We need moderators, not radiators ;)

I think I've helped resolve the conflict, but Michael makes it look as
if I aggravated it. Also, according to Michael, Jakub has points
because he didn't make a single comment on the thread, thus implying
that ignoring conflicts is a good thing.

Note: in order to avoid confusion; I do think Jakub is a good
candidate, not because he didn't comment on the issue, but because of
his argumentation skills and other reasons.

Besides, this is not a competition; there's nothing wrong with having
more admins. However, notice that this voting doesn't even have a day
open.

Anyway, although I would like to help administering the wiki, just
having a second admin I think is huge progress. I just didn't like
Michael hurting my chances.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Felipe Contreras]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
>> Johannes: If Felipe still keeps insisting on a public apology, please
>> oblige and get it over with.
>
> I am not insisting on an apology, I am more interested on what will
> happen the next time something like this happen. But I don't expect
> anything from Johannes.

Note: and just to be clear again; I don't expect anything from
Johannes not because I have something against him, but because any
other admin can do that.

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Jan Krüger]

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:

> IMO having more than one admin is only part o the solution, see:
> https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/WikiIdeas

Here are my comments on that. For the sake of archive-friendliness, I'm
referring to this version of it:
https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php?title=WikiIdeas&oldid=8996

(Why am I commenting here instead of on the wiki? Because I think there
are few things worse than a wiki for discussing something.)

| Currently there's only one admin (Johannes Schindelin), it would be
| healthy to have more than one.

I agree. Few sites work with one admin; not least because most sites
are too much work for one single person to handle.

| Up to now, good faithed users have been blocked immediately, and
| permanently, without a warning. Instead of doing that, a policy like
| wikipedia's one should be followed:

I'd like to point out that this drastically increases the
administration effort. For example, issued warnings have to be tracked.
Also, this is serious overhead for obvious spammers, and different
people will have different perspectives on what constitutes an obvious
spammer. To the best of anyone's knowledge, only one false positive has
ever occurred until now. I think this approach is overkill. I would
suggest, if technically possible, automatically showing banned users a
notice that asks them to contact admins via some channel or another if
they believe that they have been wrongly blocked.

| Some people might have been wrongly blocked. By changing the blocking
| policy the old blocks might not apply and warnings should be issued instead.

Same reasoning. Also, the deletion logs look very much like only
obvious spammers got blocked.

| Allow users to see deleted pages
| This would allow transparency into the action of the admins.

I don't oppose that, but it raises technical issues. Deleted pages
should not be indexed by search engines, because doing so would defeat
the purpose of removing spammy links. I don't know whether MediaWiki
implements that; I do know that it tells robots not to index old
versions of pages.

| Up to now, good faithed users have been blocked immediately, and
| permanently, without a warning. Instead of doing that, a policy like
| wikipedia's one should be followed:

Yes, but why use a wiki for communication if you can simply use e-mail
instead? To me, all this "using wiki pages for communication and
discussions" is a classic case of "when you have a hammer"...

Also, the proposal about patrol groups seems to be about solving the
same problem, though I don't know how well it works for dealing with
problematic edits in real time. Okay, I guess we'd need a *lot* more
admins for that anyway.


All in all, I think it would be completely sufficient to find a way to
let users help with reporting spam, and to add a couple of admins...
and perhaps notify users when blocking them. I don't think anything
else is necessary or useful.

> > [...] Personally, I don't think
> > you should work with Johannes, atleast in the state in which you're
> > in right now. Please disagree only if you feel that Jakub or I will
> > do a bad job.
> 
> It's not Johannes' wiki; it's the community's. And I'm certain that I
> can work just fine with Jakub as I've done it in the past.

Nobody claimed that you wouldn't be able to work with Jakub, there was
only doubt that you might have difficulty working with Johannes (in a
way that leaves both of you in a healthy state of mind).

Also, for the record, I'm fine with Jakub and Ram doing the job. I
would volunteer myself for additional help but I don't really care
about it very strongly, and three people are probably enough for now
anyway.

(As a public service, I have cut away the rest of what I was going to
write. The discussion is long enough as it is already.)

-Jan

Re: Proposal for new Git Wiki admin

[Felipe Contreras]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Jan Krüger <jk@jk.gs> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>> IMO having more than one admin is only part o the solution, see:
>> https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/WikiIdeas
>
> Here are my comments on that. For the sake of archive-friendliness, I'm
> referring to this version of it:
> https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php?title=WikiIdeas&oldid=8996
>
> (Why am I commenting here instead of on the wiki? Because I think there
> are few things worse than a wiki for discussing something.)

I disagree, and the whole wikipedia would too; it's a different kind
of communication.

> | Up to now, good faithed users have been blocked immediately, and
> | permanently, without a warning. Instead of doing that, a policy like
> | wikipedia's one should be followed:
>
> I'd like to point out that this drastically increases the
> administration effort. For example, issued warnings have to be tracked.

I disagree. It's very small overhead, the warning is in the wiki, it's
_very_ easy to find by *anyone*.

Anyway, I'm willing to help patrolling, so I can take that overhead.

> Also, this is serious overhead for obvious spammers, and different
> people will have different perspectives on what constitutes an obvious
> spammer.

I disagree, spotting spam is extremely easy by a human.

> To the best of anyone's knowledge, only one false positive has
> ever occurred until now.

Of course, because the evidence for the contrary has been deleted.

> I think this approach is overkill. I would
> suggest, if technically possible, automatically showing banned users a
> notice that asks them to contact admins via some channel or another if
> they believe that they have been wrongly blocked.

There's already a channel for that, the wiki, and it has a significant
advantage over other channels; everyone can see it, and it never goes
away.

> | Some people might have been wrongly blocked. By changing the blocking
> | policy the old blocks might not apply and warnings should be issued instead.
>
> Same reasoning. Also, the deletion logs look very much like only
> obvious spammers got blocked.

The deletion logs don't show anything besides the usernames.

> | Allow users to see deleted pages
> | This would allow transparency into the action of the admins.
>
> I don't oppose that, but it raises technical issues. Deleted pages
> should not be indexed by search engines, because doing so would defeat
> the purpose of removing spammy links. I don't know whether MediaWiki
> implements that; I do know that it tells robots not to index old
> versions of pages.

All right. But that's just another argument to avoid deleting them.

> | Up to now, good faithed users have been blocked immediately, and
> | permanently, without a warning. Instead of doing that, a policy like
> | wikipedia's one should be followed:
>
> Yes, but why use a wiki for communication if you can simply use e-mail
> instead?

Because:
 a) the e-mail is not available anywhere (as user pages are apparently
frowned upon)
 b) e-mails have a limited destination, and thus cannot be viewed by
the rest of the community, plus the admin can ignore them, or get
misrepresented as spam, etc.

> To me, all this "using wiki pages for communication and
> discussions" is a classic case of "when you have a hammer"...

Yeap, except the hammer is the email.

> Also, the proposal about patrol groups seems to be about solving the
> same problem, though I don't know how well it works for dealing with
> problematic edits in real time. Okay, I guess we'd need a *lot* more
> admins for that anyway.

Not true, considering the amount of people blocked (12), probably one
admin can deal with warnings plus bocks. But hey, if you don't think
so, I'm willing to take that responsibility completely.

> All in all, I think it would be completely sufficient to find a way to
> let users help with reporting spam, and to add a couple of admins...
> and perhaps notify users when blocking them. I don't think anything
> else is necessary or useful.

I still would like to see someone revisit old blocks, but for the
future, yeah, that would be enough.

>> > [...] Personally, I don't think
>> > you should work with Johannes, atleast in the state in which you're
>> > in right now. Please disagree only if you feel that Jakub or I will
>> > do a bad job.
>>
>> It's not Johannes' wiki; it's the community's. And I'm certain that I
>> can work just fine with Jakub as I've done it in the past.
>
> Nobody claimed that you wouldn't be able to work with Jakub, there was
> only doubt that you might have difficulty working with Johannes (in a
> way that leaves both of you in a healthy state of mind).

Imagine the two situations when dealing with spam:
 a) obvious spam: I delete the page and block
 b) non-obvious spam: I delete the page, and warn the user

How might that clash with Johannes?

-- 
Felipe Contreras