Ok
cont...@lescoursiers.ma
www.chatroom16.org

2018-07-23 23:41 GMT+01:00 Saint Johann <ole.y...@gmail.com>:

> 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
> Wikitech-ambassadors@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list
Wikitech-ambassadors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-ambassadors

Reply via email to