On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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: >> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Johannes Schindelin >> <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> 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. > [...] >> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html