2011/3/4 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
On 03/03/11 5:44 AM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
The name administrator gives the impression of some mythical
balance of power, although administrators don't actually
administrate - they (un)delete, (un)block and (un)protect, in addition
to editing
On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 14:57:37 -0800, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
wrote:
There are huge flaws in the decision making process. The process of
proposal, considered favorable response, overwhelming negative vote is
common. It repeats itself, and that too becomes a part of the problem.
On 03/04/11 2:04 AM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
2011/3/4 Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net:
On 03/03/11 5:44 AM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
The name administrator gives the impression of some mythical
balance of power, although administrators don't actually
administrate - they (un)delete, (un)block
POR FAVOR DE ESCRIBIR EN ESPAÑOL ,YA QUE NO COMPRENDO BIEN EL INGLES..GRACIAS
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:54:05 -0800
From: sainto...@telus.net
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] retire the administrator privilege
On 03/04/11 2:04 AM, Amir E
Amir: your original idea is lovely. Reviving it for a moment:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
Now, I found it. Indeed, I exaggerated (not several hundreds, just a
hundred, and not overnight, but over two or three days, but the idea is
The poll:
2011/3/3 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:
Amir writes:
Now i, in general, think that these permissions should be given
liberally to as many reasonable Wikimedians as possible.
snip
In fact it's quite likely that communities will want to give as little
permissions as possible to users.
Can
On 03/03/11 5:44 AM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
2011/3/3 Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com:
Amir writes:
Now i, in general, think that these permissions should be given
liberally to as many reasonable Wikimedians as possible.
snip
In fact it's quite likely that communities will want to give as
I basically agree that the big communities are now too big to take major
course changing community decisions. I do not follow so closely what is
going on in en.wp, however, the never-ending-story of flagged revisions
could be a good example. Another never-ending-story on Global arbcom /
On 19/01/2011 06:04, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
I remember
still how in the middle of tough but slowly progressing discussion on
global admins on Meta within a day several hundred en.wp users apparently
unhappy with the fact that somebody may be rolling back their edits came,
voted no, and
I do not have it ready, and I would need to search. May be somebody else
has it ready. Some details may slightly differ from what I said, since it
was smth like couple of years ago.
Cheers
Yaroslav
On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 06:10:13 -0300, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/01/2011 06:04,
Now, I found it. Indeed, I exaggerated (not several hundreds, just a
hundred, and not overnight, but over two or three days, but the idea is
still the same)
The poll:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2008-07#Global_sysops_.28poll.29_.28closed.29
The proposal:
2011/1/18 Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
That's the point - i do think that it's a Foundation-level issue, or
more precisely, movement-level issue. That's because RFA is broken
discussion are
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:48 PM, masti mast...@gmail.com wrote:
why should tht be decided on foundation level? Do you think communities
are so broken that they cannot make their own decisions?
This would be the only reason to start discussing enforcement of such
major changes
I personally
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
Split permissions have been a perennial issue for en.wikipedia for a while.
It's proposed every couple months, has vocal support and a handful of even
more vocal opponents, and fillibustered into oblivion to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Matters_related_to_requests_for_adminship
is
probably a good starting point. There's a LOT and I do mean a LOT of
material.
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 8:04 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
The Protector tool has actually been proposed at pt.wiki at least once (
seehttp://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Esplanada/propostas/Expans%C3%A3o_das_ferramentas_de_prote%C3%A7%C3%A3o_de_artigos_%2828out2010%29)
with mixed reviews at the time. I presume because we were still getting used
to the
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/1/16 Joseph Seddon seddonw...@gmail.com
I am going to be quite frank and say that it is pointless to have this
discussion on this list. Only a fraction of the english wikipedia community
are on it. If
On 16 January 2011 07:45, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
What they do in the Portuguese Wikipedia is not what i propose; it's
only close to it. What's listed at [[en:Wikipedia:Perennial
proposals]] is very different from what i propose. I don't propose
limited adminship; i
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Are there any checkusers that aren't admins already? Checkuser is an
extra tool given to admins, not a tool given out independantly of
other tools.
On Dutch Wikipedia we currently have 5 checkusers, only 2 of which
1/16 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
On 16 January 2011 07:45, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il
wrote:
What they do in the Portuguese Wikipedia is not what i propose; it's
only close to it. What's listed at [[en:Wikipedia:Perennial
proposals]] is very different from what i
Nope, it doesn't have to be this way. There should be no full admins
and partial admins; there should be no admins at all. There should
be people who protect pages and people who block vandals. Some people
may have both permissions.
The suggestion sounds reasonable to me, but I do not see
2011/1/16 Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru:
Nope, it doesn't have to be this way. There should be no full admins
and partial admins; there should be no admins at all. There should
be people who protect pages and people who block vandals. Some people
may have both permissions.
The
*The closest thing that i found to my proposal is what happens in the
Portuguese Wikipedia, which has the Deleters group (it has a lovely name
in Portuguese - Eliminadores).
*
Well, in Portuguese Wikipédia we don't want to spit the adm flag to destroy
it. We are only give the chance to
2011/1/16 Joseph Seddon seddonw...@gmail.com
I am going to be quite frank and say that it is pointless to have this
discussion on this list. Only a fraction of the english wikipedia community
are on it. If you are genuinely serious about this then propose it on the
english wikipedia. This is
In his 10th anniversary address Jimmy Wales says: Today is a great
moment to reflect on where we've been.
What my reflection brings up is that the single thing that probably
raised more controversy among the widest range of Wikimedians is not
the content of articles about sex, celebrities or
On 15 January 2011 15:26, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
Now, fight.
First review the discussion that has already taken place at WT:RFA
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 15 January 2011 16:24, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2011 15:26, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il
wrote:
Now, fight.
First review the discussion that has already taken place at WT:RFA
All five years of it going in circles, you mean?
Tell me, what would be
On 15 January 2011 16:40, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2011 16:24, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2011 15:26, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il
wrote:
Now, fight.
First review the discussion that has already taken place at WT:RFA
All five
On 15 January 2011 16:55, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2011 16:40, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2011 16:24, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2011 15:26, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il
wrote:
Now, fight.
First review the
2011/1/15 geni geni...@gmail.com:
On 15 January 2011 15:26, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il
wrote:
Now, fight.
First review the discussion that has already taken place at WT:RFA
I suppose that you refer to the English Wikipedia. This list is about
more than just the English
On 15 January 2011 21:55, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
Before writing that proposal i reviewed many, many pages of RFA is
broken discussions not just in the English Wikipedia, but in Hebrew,
Russian and Catalan ones, too. Nowhere have i found a proposal to dump
the
2011/1/16 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
On 15 January 2011 21:55, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il
wrote:
Before writing that proposal i reviewed many, many pages of RFA is
broken discussions not just in the English Wikipedia, but in Hebrew,
Russian and Catalan ones,
32 matches
Mail list logo
