Ok [email protected] www.chatroom16.org 2018-07-23 23:41 GMT+01:00 Saint Johann <[email protected]>:
> This might a wrong venue to discuss this but these were the worst 3 days > of my participation in Wikimedia movement, and that feeling is probably > shared by my colleagues. > > The consultation about the creation of new technical administrators group > that just ended yesterday was an utter and total disaster for people with > existing non-sysop groups for editing JS/CSS. > > In Russian Wikipedia, for 300 Kb already [1], people are weaponising every > reading of the consultation document (which they, for some reason, consider > akin to global policy) against, uniting the same-minded groups (local > ‘engineer’ group was created under a ‘Technical administrator group’ RfC) > for an umbrella of reasons: > — Some tell that, apparently, after working for 2 years already and doing > more edits than all sysops combined in JS/CSS, engineers do not have ‘at > least as much trust as being an administrator’ since they weren’t elected > like administrators (we are electing sysops with a vote and engineers are > being elected with a discussion, so people argue that engineers do not have > trust because they weren’t subjected to a vote). > — Others claim that, because MediaWiki developer community decided to > unite those rights under one group, merging any groups with it is not > acceptable, and, moreover, the engineer group shouldn't be given those > rights at all. > — Moreover, some people claim that if a group would be too small, like > engineers right now (12 accounts with 85 sysops), they could, in opinion of > those people, usurp all editing of JS/CSS, decline to revert edits that are > deemed controversial by community, and this justifies giving the > permissions to all 85 existing sysops, even those that didn’t edit JS/CSS > at all. > > I do not expect organisers of the consultation and MediaWiki developer > community to intervene into a discussion that's happening in a foreign > language, but I really think that it all comes down to focusing on projects > that didn’t have any technical administrators and not explaining anything > to projects that did. In the retrospective, I really wish that I did more > push on this point on Phabricator [2] since this was a major point that I > expected to backfire because of the vague wording of the document and that > did backfire. > > What I would like to have from the global community, though, is a clear > documentation for people who are affected by this change, because right > now, because of misinformation, misreadings and over-interpretations, it > could go as far as losing all interface editing permissions for me and > others because the document in question didn’t go far enough on the > qualifications and left too much to community’s assumptions. > > Oleg > > [1]: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия:Форум/Правила#Объеди > нение_флагов_инженера_и_техадмина <https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki > /%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:% > D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0% > B8%D0%BB%D0%B0#%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD% > D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%84%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0% > B2_%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0_%D0% > B8_%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%85%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0> > [2]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T190015#4257719 > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors >
_______________________________________________ Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors
