[Foundation-l] retire the administrator privilege
In his 10th anniversary address Jimmy Wales says: Today is a great moment to reflect on where we've been. What my reflection brings up is that the single thing that probably raised more controversy among the widest range of Wikimedians is not the content of articles about sex, celebrities or geopolitical and linguistic conflicts, but the procedures of appointing administrators. It should have never been a big deal, but it is, in all projects in all languages. The administrator privilege lumps together several very different permissions: * rollback * blocking and unblocking * deleting and restoring pages and versions of pages * viewing deleted versions of pages * protect and unprotect pages and edit protected pages * some PendingChanges/FlaggedRevisions-related permissions, which i haven't quite figured out yet :) Now i, in general, think that these permissions should be given liberally to as many reasonable Wikimedians as possible. I always believed in it, and since most of these actions became visible in the watchlist a few years ago, this belief became even stronger. But some re-thinking is needed. The administrator privilege, as it is now, should be retired and broken up to several separate privileges: * block/unblock * protect, unprotect, edit protected, config PendingChanges on the page * edit highly technical pages - the MediaWiki: namespace, common.css, etc. * revert, delete/undelete, view deleted The permission to revert, delete and undelete unprotected pages can be given to those users who can create and move pages (autoconfirmed). There is no big functional difference between deleting a page and deleting a paragraph in an existing page or doing a major re-write. The difference between reverting and undoing is a matter of civility and a lot of uncivil things can be done without permissions anyway. Limiting these actions only to certain users is quite pointless. Viewing deleted pages shouldn't be a big deal either. Deletion is not so much eliminating non-notable topics and nonsense from existence, as about separating them from encyclopedic articles. It shouldn't be a big deal to let bored people read them somewhere. Eliminating egregiously offensive and illegal content, major copyright violations and BLP issues can be accomplished today with the oversight permission. Controlling Pending Changes, although i haven't figured out all of its intricacies, is essentially an improved version of page protection. It makes sense to give this permission to (many) selected people. It will probably evolve over time, and i believe that it will evolve more organically if conceptually separated from blocking and deletion. Another comment about protection is that protecting system messages (the MediaWiki: namespace) and sensitive CSS and JS pages (commons.css etc.) is very different from protecting vandalism-prone articles (Obama etc.). The protection of these technical pages and sensitive articles should be a different concept. The permission to block should be a separate one. Separating the discussions about giving users the permission to protect pages and to block vandals will not stop the holy wars, but it will focus them. There will be no more comments such as: * User:PhDhistorian may be a good editor who understands Verifiability and who can be trusted to edit sensitive BLP articles, but he has personal grudges with User:FatMadonna and he may block her, so he shouldn't be given the Administrator privilege. * User:VandalFighterGrrrl is excellent at patrolling RC, but she's too inclusionist and shouldn't be given the right to decide about content protection. All of the above is formulated in the English Wikipedia terms. I believe that the English Wikipedia policies for deletion, protection and blocking make a lot of sense and should be adopted by all Wikipedias, but this obviously can't be forced on any Wikipedia. Other projects may have very different understanding of these processes and it's OK. I'm only talking about the technical separation of the privileges. Now, fight. -- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace. - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] retire the administrator privilege
On 15 January 2011 15:26, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: Now, fight. First review the discussion that has already taken place at WT:RFA -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] retire the administrator privilege
On 15 January 2011 16:24, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 January 2011 15:26, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: Now, fight. First review the discussion that has already taken place at WT:RFA All five years of it going in circles, you mean? Tell me, what would be the result you expect of doing this? Apart from concluding nothing's going to change without outside imposition? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] retire the administrator privilege
On 15 January 2011 16:40, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 January 2011 16:24, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 January 2011 15:26, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: Now, fight. First review the discussion that has already taken place at WT:RFA All five years of it going in circles, you mean? Tell me, what would be the result you expect of doing this? Apart from concluding nothing's going to change without outside imposition? The OP might learn not to sign off their posts with Now, fight. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] retire the administrator privilege
On 15 January 2011 16:55, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 January 2011 16:40, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 January 2011 16:24, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 January 2011 15:26, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: Now, fight. First review the discussion that has already taken place at WT:RFA All five years of it going in circles, you mean? Tell me, what would be the result you expect of doing this? Apart from concluding nothing's going to change without outside imposition? The OP might learn not to sign off their posts with Now, fight. That is a compelling argument, it's true. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] WCWC11 Stream SF WikiX party - Webstreaming
All, Since not everyone can attend WCWC11 [1] or a Wikipedia X party, we're trying to webcast [2] the event(s). Until about 4 PM PST (UTC-08), the stream should be at WCWC11 in San Francisco. Later on in the evenings (after 6PM PST), the stream should be from the San Francisco Party [3]. I make not promises about the streams being interesting or even working. Feel free to email me comments off list though. Thanks -Jon [1] http://2011.westcoastwikicon.org/wiki/Main_Page *[2] http://www.ustream.tv/channel/wcwc11-wikix* [3] http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Celebration -- Jon Davis Office IT System Network Administrator Wikimedia Foundation ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Happy Birthday Wikipedia, from Jimmy Wales
Birthday wishes from Jimmy on our blog, with embedded video greetings. Please share! http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2011/01/15/a-decade-of-thanks/ -- Jay Walsh Head of Communications WikimediaFoundation.org blog.wikimedia.org +1 (415) 839 6885 x 609, @jansonw ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WCWC11 Stream SF WikiX party - Webstreaming - Now in Highdef!
As an update, we've added a second stream. This one is free high def and only requires you having VLC [1] The URL for the stream is: http://transcode1.wikimedia.org:8080 - All you need to do is launch VLC Media Open Network Stream. Again, there is no warranty on the stream. I've got no idea how well the upload bandwidth will hold out or if the transcode server will survive. Speak of, A big thanks to Mark Bergsma for setting up the transcode/server side of this little project with exactly zero heads up. -Jon [1] http://www.videolan.org/vlc/ PS. The video is being uploaded at 300k/s, video at 96k/s then transcoded on the server On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 09:41, Jon Davis jda...@wikimedia.org wrote: All, Since not everyone can attend WCWC11 [1] or a Wikipedia X party, we're trying to webcast [2] the event(s). Until about 4 PM PST (UTC-08), the stream should be at WCWC11 in San Francisco. Later on in the evenings (after 6PM PST), the stream should be from the San Francisco Party [3]. I make not promises about the streams being interesting or even working. Feel free to email me comments off list though. Thanks -Jon [1] http://2011.westcoastwikicon.org/wiki/Main_Page *[2] http://www.ustream.tv/channel/wcwc11-wikix* [3] http://ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Celebration -- Jon Davis Office IT System Network Administrator Wikimedia Foundation -- Jon Davis Office IT System Network Administrator Wikimedia Foundation 415-839-6885 x6777 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Happy Birthday Wikipedia, from Jimmy Wales
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote: Birthday wishes from Jimmy on our blog, with embedded video greetings. Implemented as Flash. Oh the irony ;-) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] retire the administrator privilege
2011/1/15 geni geni...@gmail.com: On 15 January 2011 15:26, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: Now, fight. First review the discussion that has already taken place at WT:RFA I suppose that you refer to the English Wikipedia. This list is about more than just the English Wikipedia. Before writing that proposal i reviewed many, many pages of RFA is broken discussions not just in the English Wikipedia, but in Hebrew, Russian and Catalan ones, too. Nowhere have i found a proposal to dump the concept of adminship completely and to split it into several roles, although i admit that i didn't read all the archives through. The closest thing that i found to my proposal is what happens in the Portuguese Wikipedia, which has the Deleters group (it has a lovely name in Portuguese - Eliminadores). The discussions that i did read say that RfA *process* is broken because the questions are repetitive, because the nominees are not required to identify themselves, because there's no provisional adminship, because the desysopping process is dysfunctional, because the bureaucrats' cabal decides whatever it wants without regard to discussion etc. I say that that the A in RFA shouldn't exist. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Happy Birthday Wikipedia, from Jimmy Wales
2011/1/15 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com: On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote: Birthday wishes from Jimmy on our blog, with embedded video greetings. Implemented as Flash. Oh the irony ;-) A web video without patent restrictions: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WalesCalltoAction.ogv The Foundation blog could use more cowbell^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ogg videos. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: retire the administrator privilege
Good luck. The only thing harder than running for adminship is trying to change the process. Mono -- *Mono* http://enwp.org/m:User:Mono ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] retire the administrator privilege
On 15 January 2011 21:55, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: Before writing that proposal i reviewed many, many pages of RFA is broken discussions not just in the English Wikipedia, but in Hebrew, Russian and Catalan ones, too. Nowhere have i found a proposal to dump the concept of adminship completely and to split it into several roles, although i admit that i didn't read all the archives through. The closest thing that i found to my proposal is what happens in the Portuguese Wikipedia, which has the Deleters group (it has a lovely name in Portuguese - Eliminadores). It has been suggested before. It's even on the Perennial proposals page on the English Wikipedia. The page about this proposal specifically is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Limited_administrators ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] retire the administrator privilege
2011/1/16 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: On 15 January 2011 21:55, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: Before writing that proposal i reviewed many, many pages of RFA is broken discussions not just in the English Wikipedia, but in Hebrew, Russian and Catalan ones, too. Nowhere have i found a proposal to dump the concept of adminship completely and to split it into several roles, although i admit that i didn't read all the archives through. The closest thing that i found to my proposal is what happens in the Portuguese Wikipedia, which has the Deleters group (it has a lovely name in Portuguese - Eliminadores). It has been suggested before. It's even on the Perennial proposals page on the English Wikipedia. The page about this proposal specifically is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Limited_administrators What they do in the Portuguese Wikipedia is not what i propose; it's only close to it. What's listed at [[en:Wikipedia:Perennial proposals]] is very different from what i propose. I don't propose limited adminship; i propose to retire the concept of adminship entirely, because it's an outdated lump of very different things. (And by the way, i have a habit of re-reading Perennial proposals every couple of months.) A checkuser, for example, is not a limited admin. He's a checkuser and it's good that it is this way. What i would really like to hear in this discussion is opinions outside of the English Wikipedia. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
