>From the very beginning of his work on his proofread extension, he tried to
exclude everybody he personal doesn't like.
Especially IP's he dislikes and treats them the same way as vandals.
There has been at least 3 major updates of his extension, every time he
found new ways to discourage people to
work with his extension and to complicate the work of author.
Every time we had big discussion with him after his buggy changes and must
find ways to get around his blocking methods.
We have a lot of texts (thousands of pages) proofread two times before his
extension was developed.
We try to convert most of them to the proofread extension. But even
Administrators are not capable
of setting a 2 times proofread text to the ready state. When we begged him
to assist us with this problem
he wasn't willing to, we found away around his restriction. Now there is an
update and we have the same problems again,
an this not by an accident.
Because when he sees that we find solutions in the js part which is
configurable, he moves more and more of his SILLY IDEAS
into parts of the code we can't change.
There has been a lot of experiments to get a common working interface with
ThomasV but he is not willing to cooperate.
In my opinion it would be very easy, to incorporate parameters, to give the
project the chance to implement their community
consensus of for example IP editing (including second proofreading), setting
completed pages to the ready state, ...
And to Brigitte SB
It's not so easy to call take another developer if this one is not willing
to cooperate.
Would it be accepted that there are two different (but extremely similar) pr
extensions, active on all wiki's?
And I don't think that ThomasV is willing to accept any consensus which is
not according to his way of thinking
Have a look at the other ws. Has there been any question of ThomasV what the
consensus in this ws is - or is there
only his dictate!
Have a look here.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20812
Sincerly
Something broke the mail?
>From the very beginning of his work on his proofread extension, he tried to
exclude everybody he personal doesn't like.
Especially IP's he dislikes and treats them the same way as vandals.
There has been at least 3 major updates of his extension, every time he
found new ways to discourage people to
work with his extension and to complicate the work of author.
Every time we had big discussion with him after his buggy changes and must
find ways to get around his blocking methods.
We have a lot of texts (thousands of pages) proofread two times before his
extension was developed.
We try to convert most of them to the proofread extension. But even
Administrators are not capable
of setting a 2 times proofread text to the ready state. When we begged him
to assist us with this problem
he wasn't willing to, we found away around his restriction. Now there is an
update and we have the same problems again,
an this not by an accident.
Because when he sees that we find solutions in the js part which is
configurable, he moves more and more of his SILLY IDEAS
into parts of the code we can't change.
There has been a lot of experiments to get a common working interface with
ThomasV but he is not willing to cooperate.
In my opinion it would be very easy, to incorporate parameters, to give the
project the chance to implement their community
consensus of for example IP editing (including second proofreading), setting
completed pages to the ready state, ...
And to Brigitte SB
It's not so easy to call take another developer if this one is not willing
to cooperate.
Would it be accepted that there are two different (but extremely similar) pr
extensions, active on all wiki's?
And I don't think that ThomasV is willing to accept any consensus which is
not according to his way of thinking
Have a look at the other ws. Has there been any question of ThomasV what the
consensus in this ws is - or is there
only his dictate!
Have a look here.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20812
Sincerly
Why it is allowed for developers to overrule community consensus? If
German Wikisource has the opinion that IPs should be allowed to change
the proofread status in the "PR2" system then this should be made
possible.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20812
I cannot see any Wikimedia Foundation rule that accepts serious
changes by developers without reaching consensus in the relevant
community.
Klaus Graf