Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
58 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Nathan Awrich
Given the hurricane of bullshit that erupted over the rollback right
in en.wikipedia after JeLuf made the switch, can someone with the
Foundation please direct the developers to switch it back off until
some semblance of an agreement can be attained? In the mean time, its
a wild and crazy shooting match between admins that is sucking
attention away from anything actually consequential.

Nathan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Majorly
On 11/01/2008, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Given the hurricane of bullshit that erupted over the rollback right
> in en.wikipedia after JeLuf made the switch, can someone with the
> Foundation please direct the developers to switch it back off until
> some semblance of an agreement can be attained? In the mean time, its
> a wild and crazy shooting match between admins that is sucking
> attention away from anything actually consequential.
>
> Nathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Where is the consensus for it to be switched off?

--
Alex (Majorly)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Andrew Whitworth-2
On Jan 11, 2008 10:40 AM, Majorly <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Where is the consensus for it to be switched off?

More importantly, where was the consensus to turn it on in the first
place. From what I hear, no such consensus was ever obtained (i could
be wrong on that).

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Nathan Awrich
In reply to this post by Majorly
Funny you should say that, since there was no consensus to switch it
ON and that smooth move has turned into the disaster we have now.
You've already argued a hundred times in other places that despite the
lack of consensus to do it, undoing it requires a new consensus. I'm
not claiming consensus in either direction, I'm claiming common sense.
Since its an epic disaster, it should be put on hold until the issues
around it can be resolved.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
Hoi,
Should this not be something for the en.wikipedia mailing list.. I do not
have a clue what you are talking about, is this bigger then en.wp ?
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Jan 11, 2008 4:37 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Given the hurricane of bullshit that erupted over the rollback right
> in en.wikipedia after JeLuf made the switch, can someone with the
> Foundation please direct the developers to switch it back off until
> some semblance of an agreement can be attained? In the mean time, its
> a wild and crazy shooting match between admins that is sucking
> attention away from anything actually consequential.
>
> Nathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Majorly
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
On 11/01/2008, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Funny you should say that, since there was no consensus to switch it
> ON and that smooth move has turned into the disaster we have now.
> You've already argued a hundred times in other places that despite the
> lack of consensus to do it, undoing it requires a new consensus. I'm
> not claiming consensus in either direction, I'm claiming common sense.
> Since its an epic disaster, it should be put on hold until the issues
> around it can be resolved.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

No consensus, in your opinion. To some, there was consensus. What number is
your consensus then?

Sure, we can put it on hold - indeed the request page is locked. However, we
don't need it switching off. At least, not yet.

--
Alex (Majorly)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Guillaume Paumier
In reply to this post by Andrew Whitworth-2
On Jan 11, 2008 4:44 PM, Andrew Whitworth <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 2008 10:40 AM, Majorly <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Where is the consensus for it to be switched off?
>
> More importantly, where was the consensus to turn it on in the first
> place. From what I hear, no such consensus was ever obtained (i could
> be wrong on that).

More importantly, wtf are you talking about? A link or a short
explanation would be welcome.

--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you
have imagined." Henry David Thoreau

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Majorly
In reply to this post by Andrew Whitworth-2
On 11/01/2008, Andrew Whitworth <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Jan 11, 2008 10:40 AM, Majorly <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Where is the consensus for it to be switched off?
>
> More importantly, where was the consensus to turn it on in the first
> place. From what I hear, no such consensus was ever obtained (i could
> be wrong on that).
>
> --Andrew Whitworth
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

There was no consensus for undo, cascading protection, semi-protection etc..

--
Alex (Majorly)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

John Reaves
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
I don't understand, the developers regularly enable new features with
seeking (uneeded) consensus.  For example, when they enabled cascading
protection we gradually worked out the rules and methodology for it.  We're
doing the same thing with rollback with just a whole lot more fanfare and
idiots involved.

--John Reaves

On Jan 11, 2008 7:45 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Funny you should say that, since there was no consensus to switch it
> ON and that smooth move has turned into the disaster we have now.
> You've already argued a hundred times in other places that despite the
> lack of consensus to do it, undoing it requires a new consensus. I'm
> not claiming consensus in either direction, I'm claiming common sense.
> Since its an epic disaster, it should be put on hold until the issues
> around it can be resolved.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Majorly
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 11/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hoi,
> Should this not be something for the en.wikipedia mailing list.. I do not
> have a clue what you are talking about, is this bigger then en.wp ?
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On Jan 11, 2008 4:37 PM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Given the hurricane of bullshit that erupted over the rollback right
> > in en.wikipedia after JeLuf made the switch, can someone with the
> > Foundation please direct the developers to switch it back off until
> > some semblance of an agreement can be attained? In the mean time, its
> > a wild and crazy shooting match between admins that is sucking
> > attention away from anything actually consequential.
> >
> > Nathan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Yes, this should not be on this list. I don't have a clue why it's here.

--
Alex (Majorly)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Majorly
In reply to this post by John Reaves
On 11/01/2008, John Reaves <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I don't understand, the developers regularly enable new features with
> seeking (uneeded) consensus.  For example, when they enabled cascading
> protection we gradually worked out the rules and methodology for
> it.  We're
> doing the same thing with rollback with just a whole lot more fanfare and
> idiots involved.
>
> --John Reaves
>
> On Jan 11, 2008 7:45 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Funny you should say that, since there was no consensus to switch it
> > ON and that smooth move has turned into the disaster we have now.
> > You've already argued a hundred times in other places that despite the
> > lack of consensus to do it, undoing it requires a new consensus. I'm
> > not claiming consensus in either direction, I'm claiming common sense.
> > Since its an epic disaster, it should be put on hold until the issues
> > around it can be resolved.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

Yep. If this had been added just like undo/cascading protection, there'd
have been a lot less complaining and moaning. We'd have just got on with it
like sensible people.

--
Alex (Majorly)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Nathan Awrich
Except it wasn't - and the result is widespread craziness, and only
the developers (or the Foundation for which they work) can switch it
off. Thats why its on this list. It was switched on based on an
incorrect reading of the will of the community, and it should be
switched off until a better sense can be obtained.

On Jan 11, 2008 10:54 AM, Majorly <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 11/01/2008, John Reaves <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand, the developers regularly enable new features with
> > seeking (uneeded) consensus.  For example, when they enabled cascading
> > protection we gradually worked out the rules and methodology for
> > it.  We're
> > doing the same thing with rollback with just a whole lot more fanfare and
> > idiots involved.
> >
> > --John Reaves
> >
> > On Jan 11, 2008 7:45 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Funny you should say that, since there was no consensus to switch it
> > > ON and that smooth move has turned into the disaster we have now.
> > > You've already argued a hundred times in other places that despite the
> > > lack of consensus to do it, undoing it requires a new consensus. I'm
> > > not claiming consensus in either direction, I'm claiming common sense.
> > > Since its an epic disaster, it should be put on hold until the issues
> > > around it can be resolved.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> Yep. If this had been added just like undo/cascading protection, there'd
> have been a lot less complaining and moaning. We'd have just got on with it
> like sensible people.
>
> --
> Alex (Majorly)
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
> _______________________________________________
>
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Chad
I'm still trying to figure out why everyone cares. It's just rollback
for Christ's sake.

Chad

On Jan 11, 2008 10:58 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Except it wasn't - and the result is widespread craziness, and only
> the developers (or the Foundation for which they work) can switch it
> off. Thats why its on this list. It was switched on based on an
> incorrect reading of the will of the community, and it should be
> switched off until a better sense can be obtained.
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2008 10:54 AM, Majorly <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/01/2008, John Reaves <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't understand, the developers regularly enable new features with
> > > seeking (uneeded) consensus.  For example, when they enabled cascading
> > > protection we gradually worked out the rules and methodology for
> > > it.  We're
> > > doing the same thing with rollback with just a whole lot more fanfare and
> > > idiots involved.
> > >
> > > --John Reaves
> > >
> > > On Jan 11, 2008 7:45 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Funny you should say that, since there was no consensus to switch it
> > > > ON and that smooth move has turned into the disaster we have now.
> > > > You've already argued a hundred times in other places that despite the
> > > > lack of consensus to do it, undoing it requires a new consensus. I'm
> > > > not claiming consensus in either direction, I'm claiming common sense.
> > > > Since its an epic disaster, it should be put on hold until the issues
> > > > around it can be resolved.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > Yep. If this had been added just like undo/cascading protection, there'd
> > have been a lot less complaining and moaning. We'd have just got on with it
> > like sensible people.
> >
> > --
> > Alex (Majorly)
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Majorly
On 11/01/2008, Chad <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm still trying to figure out why everyone cares. It's just rollback
> for Christ's sake.
>
> Chad
>

Me too. It's drama for the sake of nothing.

--
Alex (Majorly)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Majorly
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
On 11/01/2008, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Except it wasn't - and the result is widespread craziness, and only
> the developers (or the Foundation for which they work) can switch it
> off. Thats why its on this list. It was switched on based on an
> incorrect reading of the will of the community, and it should be
> switched off until a better sense can be obtained.
>
> On Jan 11, 2008 10:54 AM, Majorly <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/01/2008, John Reaves <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't understand, the developers regularly enable new features with
> > > seeking (uneeded) consensus.  For example, when they enabled cascading
> > > protection we gradually worked out the rules and methodology for
> > > it.  We're
> > > doing the same thing with rollback with just a whole lot more fanfare
> and
> > > idiots involved.
> > >
> > > --John Reaves
> > >
> > > On Jan 11, 2008 7:45 AM, Nathan <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Funny you should say that, since there was no consensus to switch it
> > > > ON and that smooth move has turned into the disaster we have now.
> > > > You've already argued a hundred times in other places that despite
> the
> > > > lack of consensus to do it, undoing it requires a new consensus. I'm
> > > > not claiming consensus in either direction, I'm claiming common
> sense.
> > > > Since its an epic disaster, it should be put on hold until the
> issues
> > > > around it can be resolved.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> > Yep. If this had been added just like undo/cascading protection, there'd
> > have been a lot less complaining and moaning. We'd have just got on with
> it
> > like sensible people.
> >
> > --
> > Alex (Majorly)
> >
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

The only people causing the craziness are the people loudly complaining on
the talk pages. Everyone else is just getting on with it.

--
Alex (Majorly)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Michael Snow-2
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
Nathan wrote:
> Except it wasn't - and the result is widespread craziness, and only
> the developers (or the Foundation for which they work) can switch it
> off. Thats why its on this list.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the developer who made the switch
is not an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. Take it to wikitech-l or
wikien-l, please.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Christiano Moreschi
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich

I fail to see the need for this. The infighting is not an issue for the Foundation to solve. Actually, the initial massive rush of requests for rollback seems to have significantly slowed down, and I'm not seeing rampant rollback abuse breaking out all over the place. Despite the hysteria, it looks to me as though affairs are starting to settle. There's no need for drastic intervention at this point, especially when many editors are using their new button productively and well.

CM

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.

> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:37:46 -0500
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [Foundation-l]  Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki
>
> Given the hurricane of bullshit that erupted over the rollback right
> in en.wikipedia after JeLuf made the switch, can someone with the
> Foundation please direct the developers to switch it back off until
> some semblance of an agreement can be attained? In the mean time, its
> a wild and crazy shooting match between admins that is sucking
> attention away from anything actually consequential.
>
> Nathan
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_________________________________________________________________
Share what Santa brought you
https://www.mycooluncool.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Robert Rohde
In reply to this post by Guillaume Paumier
A summary, for those who are completely lost:

Recently developers added the ability for admins on the English Wikipedia to
grant rollback rights to non-admin accounts.

This followed a large discussion and vote on enwiki in which ~2/3 of
participants favored this feature

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-administrator_rollback/Poll
Unfortunately, 2/3 is a ambiguous standard for consensus on enwiki and
previous developer requests have been denied with higher standards of
support.

So now there is a large debate on enwiki about whether or not there was
consensus.  In the meantime, other people are moving full steam ahead with
Requests for Rollback (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFR) with
about 400 people having been given rollback rights so far through a variety
of informal and semi-formal processes.

There is also an arbitration request (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFAr#Rollback_consensus) whose
arguments provide a variety of background.  Presently the enwiki Arbs seem
inclined to decline the arbitration request on the grounds that setting
policy is really a community issue and not a place for Arbcom dictates.


Personally, I think this is far more of a tempest in a tea cup than a real
major problem.  It appears to have spilled over here because some people
want the Foundation to order the developers to switch this new feature off.
While I can't speak for the Foundation, I would think those people would be
better served by talking to developers directly, or trying to come to some
resolution on enwiki itself.

-Robert Rohde


On Jan 11, 2008 7:50 AM, Guillaume Paumier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Jan 11, 2008 4:44 PM, Andrew Whitworth <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On Jan 11, 2008 10:40 AM, Majorly <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > Where is the consensus for it to be switched off?
> >
> > More importantly, where was the consensus to turn it on in the first
> > place. From what I hear, no such consensus was ever obtained (i could
> > be wrong on that).
>
> More importantly, wtf are you talking about? A link or a short
> explanation would be welcome.
>
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
> [[m:User:guillom]]
> "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you
> have imagined." Henry David Thoreau
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Michael Bimmler
In reply to this post by Michael Snow-2
On Jan 11, 2008 5:14 PM, Michael Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Nathan wrote:
> > Except it wasn't - and the result is widespread craziness, and only
> > the developers (or the Foundation for which they work) can switch it
> > off. Thats why its on this list.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the developer who made the switch
> is not an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation. Take it to wikitech-l or
> wikien-l, please.
>
> --Michael Snow
>

I completely agree.
A) As far as I know, there is no foundation policy to whom projects
should grant things like rollback
B) It was not a WMF employer who made the decision

==> The foundation and subsequently foundation-l has nothing to do
with this. Move it, please.

Michael

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Rollbackersaurus attacks en.wiki

Nathan Awrich
Aye aye.

Just to clarify Robert's remarks: Arbitration doesn't have a natural
role in this necessarily, but the step was suggested by Jimbo.

~Nathan

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123