I (or we on de.ws) have no problem with a configurable system, to allow or forbid access rights to users or group of users.  And nobody of us has a problem with  John Vandenbergs proposal. 

I think the tool shall respect, the consensus of the community, not a community the rules of a single tool.

If there is an agreement in the community to exclude IP's, it's ok when a skilled person (admin / beaurokrat) of the community can set the rules / access rights to do so.

Vandenbergs proposal to do this with the ''user can hook'', if this is the correct solution to get everyone happy, please help us all to implement this. If there is a better ( but I don't think so - with my little technikal knowledge) technical solution available for doing that in a mediawiki conform way, let's do it that way.

Hi Alex, I support your wishes and ideas, but I think I'm a little bit more pessimistic on that issue. Commons works (but not more), because it is a big repository of single media, therefore it's easier to deal with, than with books and common macros. But if there a ways to improve and harmonise the way of working, lets give it a try. Especially ThomasV extension is an excellent piece to show that way of working together. 

2010/6/29 Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>

--- On Tue, 6/29/10, Hélène Pedrosa-Masson <edhral@free.fr> wrote:

> From: Hélène Pedrosa-Masson <edhral@free.fr>
> Subject: Re: [Wikisource-l] [Wikitech-l] Wikisource bugs
> To: "discussion list for Wikisource, the free library" <wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2010, 12:44 PM
> Hi.
> >>> The following bug shall be added to this list
> here, Wikisource: 
> >>> IPs unable
> >>> to flag articles as "proofread"
> >>> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20812
> >>> There have been still long discussions with no
> solution
> >>
> >> It is absolutely neccessary to solve this problem.
> It is not
> >> acceptable that a dev is ignoring the community
> consensus.
> >> We urgently need other/better devs.
> >
> > (...) The bridge between ThomasV and de.WS has been
> burnt.
> > The resolution of this particular bug, which is dear
> to de.WS and 
> > ambivalent outside of de.WS, will absolutely require a
> new dev 
> > taking interest.
> > I hope we can avoid rehashing the all the could-a,
> should-a, would-a 
> > again and focus on what can be accomplished from where
> things stand.
> I'd like to add that there may be a community consensus on
> this 
> subject in de:ws . But in fr:ws, we agree with ThomasV that
> allowing 
> IPs to proofread can be more dangerous than useful (but I
> know there 
> are fewer IPs on fr:ws than on de:ws).
> Speaking of consensus is not fair, regarding the debates
> that Birgitte 
> refered to.

Just to clarify. The bug discussion progressed into making the issue configurable.

This would mean fr.WS would configure things to not allow IPs (desired to maintain things the same as current local set-up) and de.WS to allow IPs (desired to restore a historical local set-up).  This is why I described those outside of de.WS as ambivilent (it does not matter very much to them), they will be able to keep their desired local set-up with or without the bug resolved.

Birgitte SB

Wikisource-l mailing list