thank you Jimmy-
----- Original Message -----
From: duffen
To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Cc: Jim Duffen
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 1:28 PM
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Sysop status
{{subst:Newdelrev|pg=PAGE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~
am i doing this right?
sorry to bother you but your site has lost or deleted
the page " duffen cory"
can you help me recover the page which was posted for historic reasons only
I was the subject matter of several famous David Hockney works
and I have no idea how to recover from the delete ( that originally said it needed a clean up )
thank you in advance
duffen cory
> Far from being rushed through in a six-day debate as Doc appears to
> believe, the discussion on this practical and sensible extension of
> software functionality has dragged on needlessly for years, as perfect
> an example of instruction creep as it would be possible to ask for.
>
>>Doc says
>>I say again, rollback is NOT the problem. And dismissing rollback for the
trivia it is, is beside the point.
>>The problem is saddling us with the silly distraction of making every
admin into a mini-bureaucrat empowered to make rollbacker and unmake
rollbacker. That's already leading to instruction creep, little cabals, and
people getting uppity. >>Rollback is too trivial for the type infrastructure
and debate that admin-grants necessarily creates.
>>Ending the instruction creep is simple - switch it on for all
auto-confirmed users. Or, alternatively, allow all users a >>preference to
switch it on or off for themselves.
That's been the hallmark of this whole debate since it's
appearance....people object to another bureaucratic rathole that will
certainly (and already is) being created and supporters say "it's just a
roll back tool, what's the big deal". At least a couple folks on the talk
page are honest enough to say they don't mind a little more bureaucracy...
The way this was implemented and is now being carried out has some serious
implications about how policy in general is treated on Wikipedia. But it's
just a rollback tool....
Anyone have any guesses for the cause of the reletive positioning of
English Wikipedia in the following google searches?
BLAS wikipedia
BLAS
Results may differ: you're seeing the same effect I am if the first
doesn't return english wikipedia anywhere in the first ten pages, but
the second has it as the third hit. Obviously, throwing wikipedia in
as a keyword isn't the right way to bring wikipedia up in a result,
but a lot of people do it, and it's usually very effective. I've
found some cases where it has stopped being effective and I'm not sure
why.
A note from a dev. If you rant about their evil enough, you can
successfully get them to say "fine, you do it" and leave. Then you can
feel a real sense of achievement at your good work for Wikipedia.
- d.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Domas Mituzas <midom.lists(a)gmail.com>
Date: 11 Jan 2008 17:51
Subject: [Foundation-l] tech team - content community bottleneck
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hi!
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the developer who made the
> switch
> is not an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. Take it to wikitech-
> l or
> wikien-l, please.
Well, there is quite a bit of foundation issue here, and I'd like to
explaim some general projects bits (that are neither technology, nor
single-project related):
See, Jens is not employee, though has been the developer with most
community-facing attitude. He has been implementing, at his own will,
most of community requests. He is a volunteer, and has been dedicated
to our ideals more and longer than most of us.
When members of communities decide to attack with "This developer has
exhibited extremely poor judgment and a gross disregard for the
WIkipedia community" and nobody takes that back or apologizes, it is
no fun to continue doing all these small things.
Foundation doesn't really facilitate this process at the moment - it
is all left to individual care - both filtering, evaluating if change
X would successfully follow all few hundreds policy pages, and
implementation, what often requires extensive code review and
familiarity of our operating environment.
Do note, that community representatives come not only with these
changes - various 'oh noes, remove this from site' requests are quite
common, and every of them are questionable.
If people will be going to raise such huge flames and attack
implementors for actually doing the job, we will really ask
foundation to facilitate not only all the evaluation of every request
that comes in from communities, but to provide with implementor
resources too.
We have far more fun things (our jobs, lives, even wikipedia
technology development) to do than go into endless debates with
people who favor endless debates, sorry.
--
Domas Mituzas -- http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I don't know what the big bang will be on "7th January" but it just looks
like wikia site i have been trying to ask dave and sue to contribute for
days. Was this the big bang of searching? Angela Jimbo tell me something
good is gonna happen with a bang ;-)
Mike
As somebody who's frequently accused of stirring up tempests in
teapots, beating dead horses, and so on, I'm lately seeing the flip
side of the coin here... with this big Rollback debate, I see large
numbers of people getting heavily agitated with regard to a subject
for which I truly see no really big deal worthy of being made in
either direction. I guess I finally get to experience first-hand how
I must have made a bunch of others feel like when I've gone on and on
arguing about a subject that I was passionate on that they didn't
give a fig about.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
doc wrote
> If arbcom's purpose is to protect itself against whinging, then it
> should certainly not take on this case (or many other cases for that
> matter).
The usual criterion is the likelihood of improving matters, rather than making them worse.
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
Yes, Gregory, excellent points, reminiscent of Clay Shirkey.
Whatever the (sub)-optimal solution, one person making a decision that on
the face of it contradicts the decision made in a near identical situation
last time; and not allowing at least a months discussion; and this person
not being accountable him or herself to someone else, is _not_ the answer.
--Avi
On Jan 10, 2008 11:58 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008 11:51 AM, Avi <avi.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Alex, the more important point here is not the goodness or badness of
> > rollback, it is the gross disregard for the wikipedia community that
> JuLef
> > (sp?) had by implementing this procedure in the face of significant
> clear
> > and present opposition.
> [snip]
>
> Not taking an action is itself an action.
>
> The status quo is not that special.
>
> Consensus is strongly preferred, sure, but why is it that you would
> think a non-consensus minority-willed preservation of the status quo
> is right, when a non-consensus majority-willed change is wrong?
>
> If we reach a point where the user base is so large and diverse that
> many important issues can not achieve a clear consensus by numerical
> standards, what then? Shall Wikipedia be forever frozen in whatever
> state it was already in by historical chance or by past unilateral
> decisions? Is that really a road to success?
>
--
en:User:Avraham
----
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) < aviwiki(a)gmail.com>
Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E
A229