Michael Jörgens wrote: ... While I agree that working with ThomasV is sometimes difficult, he is right here: allowing IPs to mark pages as proofread defeat the purpose of the tool. This notation is intended as a certificate by an account that proofreading is done. Because IP are not constant, the same person could proofread, and then validate the page. At the very least, IPs should not be allowed to validate pages. I don't know if this distinction is possible. And if people are able to proofread articles, they are certainly also able to login. Regards, Yann -- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres

It is nice to see that there finally is some communication between subdomains about this topic. I said several times that this issue should be discussed at an inter-wiki level, and not just in the de.ws scriptorium. First I need to explain that the de.ws community is highly disciplined and organized. They have more rules than the other Wikisources, and these rules are well enforced by the community. This high level of discipline and organization does not exist at other Wikisources, where users have more freedom to do what they like, rather than what the community has decided. For example, up to now, no other wiki has been able to make scans mandatory with new texts. Another example is that any new text added to the German wikisource must be supported by at least two separate users, who are committed to proofreading it twice. If a text is not properly proofread it gets deleted. The "double proofreading" rule existed at de.ws before I implemented it in ProofreadPage. In the old system, the rule was not enforced by software, but by the community and its administrators. They used to check the history of a page in order to know if a page had been proofread by two different people. I added the "two users" validation rule to ProofreadPage more than 2 years ago. A consequence of this rule is that anonymous users are not allowed to validate pages, and I guess everybody understands why. (although it would be possible to whitelist some fixed IPs, as I suggested in bugzilla) As I said in the bug, the double proofreading rule of ProofreadPage is not meant to be secure or sockpuppet-proof. It is just meant to be unambiguous. If we removed it, then users would make their own interpretation of the meaning of the buttons, and this would break the current system. it is not a question of bad faith, it is a question of poor communication. Of course the system would not break apart on de.ws, thanks to the very strict rules and good communication that exist there. But it would certainly break apart on other wikis, because they are more loosely organized and they do not have this high level of discipline. This is why I think it would harm Wikisource to remove the "two users" rule from the software. An any case, I will not change the proofreading system of all Wikisources just because de.ws wants it. I am also not going to provide extra software for de.ws. I did this for quite some time, because they requested an horizontal edition layout, which is now available everywhere. During that time, it is true that software updates in the extension triggered more bugs at de.ws than elsewhere, because everytime I made an update to the main code, the javascript at de.ws was broken and had to be updated. It was kind of a nightmare in terms of management, and I received very little thanks for the time that I spent doing it. In addition, you guys should understand that I am not the person who decides when the code update goes live, so it was not possible for me to warn people in advance, or to update the de.ws javascript simultaneously with the code update. However, the fact that I have decided to stop providing extra software solutions for de.ws does not mean that it is not possible to do what they want. It is perfectly possible to configure a wiki so that IPs can add the categories "proofread" or "validated". It is therefore unnecessary to fork the software, and it would even be quite stupid to do so. The germans used to use a template in order to validate their pages (Seitenstatus) before I introduced this buttons system. This should still work. Using local javascript, they can even create buttons linked to this template, so that users will not notice any difference from the current system. I already proposed this solution in the bug, but my suggestion was not considered, to say the least (see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20812#c7). I will not program this solution myself, for 2 reasons : - I am tired of working for de.ws and getting insults everytime something does not work as dictated by local admins. Some excuses and acknowlegdements of the work I did for de.ws would be first needed. - I think that it would be quite a bad thing for de.ws to start using different proofreading rules than the rest of the community; it would harm their reputation, and it would possibly create discord between subdomains. Some de.ws admins are happy to claim that they do not care about what other subdomains think, because they have superior quality standards; however I do not think that all the de.ws users share this point of view. Even if I am not willing to program an extra solution for de.ws, I know that some de.ws admins are perfectly able to program the solution they want. They do not need me for that. They know it. Thomas