Re: Johannes misbehavior in the wiki, and a request for admin rights (was: wiki "abuse")

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Michael J Gruber
[off-list ref] wrote:

Oh, pleaaaze, no (on the subject line). No need for more fuel in this topic.

This is a separate topic; IMO we need another admin.

Felipe Contreras venit, vidit, dixit 10.08.2010 12:18:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Johannes Schindelin
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

As for the accusation that there was no explanation: this is false.

Where is the evidence that you warned the user _before_ banning him?

The evidence is that Dscho says so.
The counter evidence is that Amir says otherwise.

That's not evidence in my book.

Knowing Dscho, I consider an occasional rash of quick-shooting possible;
I consider it impossible that he's dishonest with us here.

Note that what is an "explanation" to one person may not be one to
another one, especially across two language and culture barriers. In
particular, my statement about Dscho's credibility does not imply any
statement about Amir's.

Note that Johannes is playing with words: "As for the accusation that
there was no explanation: this is false."; there's a difference
between explaining why somebody has been banned, and warning somebody
_before_ banning him. I suggested the latter didn't happen, Johannes
reluctantly reassured the former.

I'm not interested in begging Johannes for a detailed explanation of
what happened, that's what the user talk pages are for.

[...]

quoted

I'd like to propose myself as sysop in order to make the wiki more
hospitable.

[more detailed proposal cut out]

Looking at the history of our wiki I don't see any need to overshoot as
a result of this mostly singular incident. It should suffice to

I don't think having more than one admin is overshooting.

- reactivate Amir's account

Who is going to do that? Johannes apparently already said his last
words on that topic.

- make a clear statement about user pages (limit, discourage or disable)

That is a separate topic.

P.S.: wiki discussions should stay on this list to avoid the type of
dis-association which has happened with git-scm.com and whatever names
itself "The Git Community Foo".

I disagree.

If the wiki followed the git workflow, then the changes would have to
be proposed as patches to the mailing list, and a maintainer would
review and apply them to the wiki. Obviously that's not how wikis
work; anyone can contribute to the wiki, and such contributions don't
have to touch the mailing list. The wiki and the mailing list are
independent.

Similarly, there's no need to cause noise in the mailing list about
disputes in the wiki. For example: "Why did you revert my change in
page FooBar?"; the mailing list doesn't know about page FooBar, nor
the changes that are happening there, so any dispute will catch the
mailing list out of context.

Moreover there are people interested on the wiki, but not on the mailing list.

-- 
Felipe Contreras