On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 15:47, stjn <ole.yves(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Something is rotten in the way changes are being
communicated, and it must be fixed. The approach to major changes (not
talking about some design fix) should involve community and be entirely
international, right now, sadly, WMF asks English Wikipedia on a better day
and no one on a worse day.
We are a decentralized movement though. Publicizing proposed changes on the
Ambassadors list, discussing it on Phabricator, and cross-posting on every
VPT, is pretty much the best we can do in terms of getting true
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 at 10:30, geraki <geraki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 8:20 PM Deryck Chan
Just to keep everyone aware of what's been happening in
avoid the "shoot first to
win" situation, a blocked admin can block the admin who blocked them but no
one else. Our balance of terror.
I would recommend a threshold of five admins. Notice that if there are
only three admins (with Nemo's proposal), if
one admin blocks another
admin, the situation reduces to a "shoot first to win" between the two
remaining admins. If there are five admins and one blocks another, there
will still be three uninvolved admins left to argue it out :)
In fact, in small wikis it is more likely that the rest of admins will not
want to get involved. I've seen it, experienced it. In wikis with more than
five admins (and some may not be active - you loose rights only after two
years of inactivity). I have even seen admins blocking themselves and
taking wikibreak after blocking another admin, just to show that the were
unhappy that they had to do it.
Any technical change should examine all expected and unexpected scenarios
for manipulation before implemented.
We should endeavour to explore the impact of all plausible scenarios, but
reasonably expect a wiki community to examine *all unexpected*
scenarios - if we imposed this requirement, nothing will ever happen. In
fact the wiki would never have happened if that was the case.