Alternative Client Warnings: rm closed
← Older revision
Revision as of 09:35, 25 January 2017
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1:
Line 1:
−
== <s>Removals at "mods direction"</s> ==
−
I'm sorry, who exactly "directed" all of [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bitcoin&type=revision&diff=461088&oldid=461034 these removals]? The edits removed highly relevant explanations and warnings that were recently added as a result of the discussions above.
−
−
For the record, here on the ArchWiki the "mods" are these [[ArchWiki:Administrators|admins]] and [[ArchWiki:Maintainers|maintainers]], me and [[User:Indigo|Indigo]] who involved in the discussions above are two of them. Note that none of us two made this private direction, and I seriously doubt that any admin or maintainer would do such a thing behind the huge discussions above. Since I also doubt that [[User:Thehindmost|Thehindmost]] would decide to suddenly revert the entire day of their work by themselves, the alternative explanations are that either somebody is pretending to be a "mod" or somebody hacked [[User:Thehindmost|Thehindmost]]'s account. Or does anybody have some better explanation?
−
−
For the time being, I will revert the page to [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bitcoin&oldid=461071 this revision]. We can easily redo the removals when discussed properly and agreed.
−
−
-- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 09:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
−
−
:: A discussion was had with jasonwryan on the archlinux-wiki IRC channel. He made clear it was his opinion all of the material I removed was non-relevant as it was not specific to Arch Linux or operating software specifically on Arch Linux. He made clear in his opinion the removed material had no place on this wiki, and made clear his opinion was that the entire page be removed from the wiki. My removals were made with the intent of reaching a compromise where some level of user warning was still maintained as opposed to having the page completely reverted to before my changes, or removed all together. Obviously I am much more content with the full content you have restored being displayed. I guess until the two of you have a chance to talk, I will let your reversion stand. I feel like I am a little unclear at this point who exactly has the final say on the content of the page. [[User:Thehindmost|Thehindmost]] ([[User talk:Thehindmost|talk]]) 09:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
−
−
::: Here's the logs of the discussion in question: [https://paste.xinu.at/YBl/] -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 14:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
−
−
:::: The gist of the argument is that the content is not directly related to Arch, and should be documented in a more appropriate location. Glancing over the [[w:Bitcoin|Wikipedia article]], I can't find a section on the "consensus" term; so wikipedia may be a suitable place which can then be linked from this article. However, any merging of the information in this article should be coordinated with the wikipedia editors. So my suggestion is doing exactly that and then we can see from there. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 21:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
−
−
::::: I have done some looking around the wiki, and must say that after my conversation I was under the impression I had been issued an ultimatum from Jason, either remove the content or the page will be summarily deleted. Having realized that is not black and white the case(?) I would like to reiterate the gist of the case I made with Jason. There are a number of instances all over this wikipedia where general purpose configuration or explanatory information is made for software which extends well beyond the sphere of compatibility issues with Arch specifically. [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/I3 i3], [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenVPN OpenVPN], and [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Tor Tor] all have relatively speaking extensive coverage of general issues of all Linux systems. Tor in specific expounds much in the nature I have on this page to make clear things necessary for safe use, compatibility with other software, etc. I am a little unclear right now why the argument being used to remove content I have added here is not equally as valid and equally applied to pages like this? If I am being honest I feel as if this is a pre-emptive action taken under the assumption of further controversy, which unless you are being harassed through private channels, I do not see taking place yet. I have seen no serious objection whatsoever from anyone since I have started making my additions and edits except from moderators making specific requests for clarity and proper formatting. All of those requests were immediately met, and all were fulfilled prior to my conversation with Jason. I am very unclear right now as to 1) how this issue will be settled with finality, and 2) why the argument being used to justify the removal of added content is being specifically applied in this instance. Especially when most of the content added was added because of a specific request from moderation to clarify issues. [[User:Thehindmost|Thehindmost]] ([[User talk:Thehindmost|talk]]) 23:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
−
−
:::::: The only reason I'm mentioning this is to possibly bring the content you've added to a wider audience—as I'm sure there's not only (Arch) Linux users that use Bitcoin—as well as let all sides be heard on this discussion page. And like I said, it would only matter if this content actually fits into the [[w:Bitcoin]] article. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 00:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
−
−
::::::: Yes, but I don't think that would work out, with [[w:Bitcoin]] being too long already and discussing a lot of the social effects which make it an irrelevant source for software installation. If you look way up in the discussion, you will see I suggested placing links to [[w:Bitcoin core]], that has mentions of "consensus" in the [[w:Bitcoin Core#Version history]] for example, and [[w:Bitcoin Classic]] - which fails to have a singular warning about it being "potentially concensus incompatible" (just as the homepage of the project itself!). We can't place a warning with a link to what's not there. --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 11:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
−
−
:::::::: I've noticed you reverted my changes. I only saw that after I committed my last change. No mid-flight collision notice. Sorry for confusion.
−
:::::::: Following your "its too long already" and my explanation [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ABitcoin&type=revision&diff=461214&oldid=461182 here], I followed up with the action to counter the people that have had the aim to make unattracitve non-core clients. Why did you revert that? -- [[User:Tommy5|Tommy5]] ([[User talk:Tommy5|talk]]) 11:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
−
::::::::: I reverted that, because we have the open discussion (thanks for contributing your viewpoint to it now). (Please look at [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ArchWiki:Contributing#Do_not_make_complex_edits_at_once], thanks). Let's keep edits slow and see first, if there is a way to consent on that possible at all in above item. --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 12:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
−
−
:::::::::: Issues I see with the new edits:
−
::::::::::: 1. [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=461220&oldid=461219] "stop making scary" essentially turns the section into an ad for Bitcoin Classic;
−
::::::::::: 2. [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=461245&oldid=461244] Indicates it moves the note, but removes some information from it in the process. (Edited with [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bitcoin&type=revision&diff=461259&oldid=461249])
−
::::::::::: 3. [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=461248&oldid=461247] Removes "background description", but adds no external link to replace it.
−
:::::::::: I've undone these for now. I don't claim the revisions before it are perfect or universally agreeable, but with the above we're back to going in circles. Please only make changes as they are agreed on by all parties. However, if you believe that information is not accurate or not well presented, add [[Template:Accuracy]] or [[Template:Style]] to the sections in question.
−
:::::::::: @Indigo: I agree the Bitcoin Classic/Core wikipedia links should be added to the article. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 14:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
−
−
::::::::::: (1) How is it an ad? It follows the simple rules we established here, on this talk page, before; we sort the clients alphabetically and it removes the unproven and nonsense claim of how it may be dangerous. If you think this changes a lot, thats most likely because of the dozens of edits that made Classic look harmful somehow. Remember that it looked almost exactly like this before this edit war started.
−
::::::::::: (2) Well, this isn't git. The '''Summary''' can only be so long. All I did was remove useless jargon like ECDSA. Is there anything controversial at all? Its but a simpler, but still 100% correct version.
−
::::::::::: (3) This change you removed was nothing but a simplification. Again removing useless jargon. Do we really want to describe technical details on how the software does things? I'd argue that what matters is the difference between full node and thin clients. The Warning there was also completely out of place, a made up statement that at minimum needs sourcing.
−
::::::::::: Your reverting of this makes no sense to me, I've seen various admins claim that the goal of this wiki is to assist users in choosing software, installing and configuring. All the edits you reverted were aimed at that goal. After your revert this page looks more like a wikipedia, authoritative (but not sourced) article. :( The page looks horrible right now with lots of lies that clearly make the Core client look good and the rest as cheap but not very good copies. Which is just insulting and its infuriating that even simple and non-contested edits get reverted.
−
::::::::::: [[User:Tommy5|Tommy5]] ([[User talk:Tommy5|talk]]) 15:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
−
−
:::::::::::: (1) The language you used for describing your favourite client was definitely [[Help:Style#Language register|inappropriate]]. But most importantly, the proposal [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Talk%3ABitcoin&type=revision&diff=460564&oldid=460555 added here], which seems to be currently being implemented, does not contain any clause on alphabetical order or '''removing''' explanation of risks. If you don't like that, please make a new proposal in a separate section below.
−
:::::::::::: (2) This is simple - what can't be described in a single edit summary should be split into multiple edits.
−
:::::::::::: (3) Same as (1), this goes against the [[#Proposal 1]] without any prior discussion.
−
:::::::::::: -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 17:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
−
−
::: Well, IRC is definitely not meant to bypass the discussions directly on the wiki, regardless of who the discussion is with. I'll invite [[User:jasonwryan|jasonwryan]] to the discussions on this page and we'll also have a talk to avoid the misunderstanding in the future. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 09:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
−
−
:::: Thank you, I guess until moderator input is finalized and you guys have collectively decided what to do, I'll just be watching the page. All substantial changes I believe are necessary, short any minor configuration notes or clarifications, are done. [[User:Thehindmost|Thehindmost]] ([[User talk:Thehindmost|talk]]) 09:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
−
−
:::::I'd like to update on status of our mod discussion:
−
:::::* It is understood you (Thehindmost) were just proactive in good faith after your discussion with Jason (which lead to your edits, initial subject of this talk item). So, we had an exchange how to improve [[ArchWiki:IRC]] and the banner in the IRC channel to clarify IRC discussions are not meant to bypass wiki discussions. With that the initial topic of this item is clarified.
−
:::::* Given that discussions for this article continued to be highly controversial in the new year, we initially identified four options how to proceed with this article. In the course, these were then condensed to two:
−
:::::** Removing references to individual packages and related install instructions. This stems from the inability of contributors to agree on descriptions which are regarded neutral yet comprehensive to describe differences between packages.
−
:::::::I have just implemented that.[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bitcoin&type=revision&diff=465687&oldid=465686] Our intent is to keep the generic information on Bitcoin and contributions to improve the article as is, of course, welcome. In particular we welcome reductions of content by referencing external ''technical'' resources accepted as ''neutral'' in the bitcoin community. Anyone wanting to propose bigger changes: it is best if you prepare a draft in your userpage at current (copy the part you want to edit and do your changes there), and reference it in the talk page, leaving ''enough'' time (a week?) for others to reply before you go forward. Perhaps, that is an acceptable way to channel into productive collaborative editing for this article. We do hope but cannot anticipate if it is. Please all be aware the last option we identified to revert to is:
−
:::::** Remove or [[Template:Archive]] the article, both of which will replace it with a placeholder.
−
::::: Thanks. --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 23:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
−
−
==<s> Alternative Client Warnings</s> ==
−
−
I see that notations warning users about the complete removal of a blocksize by Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Classic have been removed? Why? This is a very serious implication of these clients that is important to understand. I thought the entire rationale behind implementing my proposal was for the purpose of user safety. Now I see two very important warnings removed. What was the logic in this? Where was this discussed? These are NOT general warnings about Consensus, they are '''specific to those clients''' and the specific alterations to Consensus they are making. [[User:Thehindmost|Thehindmost]] ([[User talk:Thehindmost|talk]]) 04:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
−
−
: As well, why am I not being emailed about page modifications anymore? I have this page watched, I have it set to mail me notifications, why are they not being sent? I see changes being made now contrary to the previously established statements by mods, and see no discussion about it. What is going on? Is there an out of band conversation happening I am not privy to? I was told discussions about these pages happened here, and decisions made were based on the discussions happened here. [[User:Thehindmost|Thehindmost]] ([[User talk:Thehindmost|talk]]) 01:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
−
−
:: There hasn't been any modification since [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bitcoin&type=revision&diff=461963&oldid=461607 Jan 8], which is what you complained about in the previous post, so I don't see the problem. As for email notifications, they are skipped until you visit the page. You can check the unvisited changes in [[Special::Watchlist]]. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 07:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
−
−
:: You missed my last reply to you in [[Talk:Bitcoin#Consensus changes]] referencing the edits and seem to not understand my edit description for [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bitcoin&type=revision&diff=461963&oldid=461962], so let me try to reformulate it: We need to add a general, client unspecific, warning, but I have not got round to work on it this week. For it I propose to shortly explain the wording differentiation re "(potential) consensus incompatible" you introduced for the clients, which I did not remove from the descriptions. It's meaning is much stronger anyway (''potential incompatibility''), but - even yourself - not taking it into account for your own argument above shows it is overlooked. The phrasing is self-speaking too, that it is in the own interest of every user not to customize BS to a non-con value. Re [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=prev&oldid=461962], we can re-add the extra hardware point you were referencing in the notes but (a) Arch users don't need spec handholding, they customize and watch their system resources and (b) to my understanding of the previous discussion between you and Tommy5 it was disputed as very theoretical. So, I considered that part as superfluous at current. --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 09:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
−
:: Client descriptions were removed with [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Bitcoin&type=revision&diff=465687&oldid=465686]. Closing. --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 23:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)