https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20812
--- Comment #30 from joergens.mi <[email protected]> 2009-11-20 12:18:16 UTC --- I agree with Vandenberg's proposal. His point that there is no need for an alternative Access Control System is very important. We schould have one and exactly one user access control system. Therefore from my point of view. - There should be the possibility for IP's to contribute as before. - At least Admins should have the right to set the proofread level according to the needs, for converting older already proofreaded projects to the proofread extension. No curious / buggy workarounds by bots. - Only one User access-system. Exactly speaking the access control system which is implemented in the mediawikisw (userCan) @Snottygobble, we don't have to fix aproblem we have. We want the unheralded change of the last update deactivated or changed to a community selectable access system. What I find funny, the we, who were the cutting edge in proofreading - as ThomasV statet - in Wikisource should be the bad guys which don't understand what happens (Is there a possibility that we have more experience, because we doing this job longer than most of the other projects?). The allegation that we are complaining because the other are luckily stepping up to us is ridiculous. The french and english wikisource have overhauled us a long time ago in some numbers. Nobody of us is complaining about that. Far from it, we are happy that all wikisources are coming up to a high level of quality. greetings -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
