https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=30208
MZMcBride <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |shell URL| |http://en.wikipedia.org/wik | |i/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(p | |roposals)/Proposal_to_requi | |re_autoconfirmed_status_in_ | |order_to_create_articles --- Comment #32 from MZMcBride <[email protected]> 2011-08-09 07:47:44 UTC --- (In reply to comment #6) > Can someone explain to me how things work here when editors need to interface > with the developers to make a change? We were hoping to just clearly explain > what we need, point to the successful proposal which shows community consensus > for a trial of the change, and get a dev to flip the user-rights switch for > us. > We were not aware that the entire concept was subject to another round of > re-litigation by the developers at the 11th hour once the request is made on > bugzilla. In particular, I'm concerned that these bugzilla discussions are > not > visible to any of the hundreds of editors who participated in the actual > request for comments on enwiki. In rare cases, the Wikimedia sysadmins act as Defenders of the Wiki. Occasionally a Wikimedia wiki will decide that it wants to implement a change that is technically feasible and that has consensus among the local community, but the change is still rejected by the system administrators. An old, classic example is the proposal to delete unused accounts from the English Wikipedia. It received substantial on-wiki support, but was flatly rejected by the system administrators (cf. [[Wikipedia talk:Delete unused username after 90 days]]). There are arguments for and against this type of guardianship. In the best case, it acts as a safeguard against the will of an often ill-informed majority. In the worst case, it eviscerates project autonomy in favor of a [[m:technocracy]]. In this particular case, there seems to be a great deal of unnecessary hyperbole from the Wikimedia Foundation/system administrator side. I don't find much of it to be helpful or substantiated. I'm re-adding the "shell" keyword to this bug. There isn't any technical reason that this change can't be implemented by a shell user right now. That's the standard for use of the keyword. Individual objections, from Wikimedia Foundation or others, don't affect this reality. As with so many other bugs, there's a likelihood that this bug will simply be left to rot. System administrators have never been above passive-aggressiveness. In this case, it's not some poor project with a half-dozen active users in a language that nobody speaks, though, it's the English Wikipedia. So I can't imagine trying to ignore this bug will go over well, for better or worse. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
