I would suggest that everybody be reappointed on a 1 year temporary adminship basis and then we convert everything to permanent then. To my mind, this offers several advantages: *in a transition, people are bound to move on, this means those who decide that the new project is not for them will simply be removed automatically by the conversion process in a year *at the beginning, every project (I'm talking about the smaller non-english ones) has plenty of activity, but it fairly often dies down way before than a year, and the project is left with a high number of admins that were initially approved, shutting out Global sysops and misdirecting new users to inactive admins *it would make all admins, no matter when or why or how they gained the tools elected by the new wikivoyage community directly, as in most of our wikimedia wikis *the new project will likely have a community that's a "merger" of the wikivoyage community, wikitravel community and wikimedia community plus some new folks, and I imagine some re-imagining of guidelines, processes and whatnot would take place, it only makes sense that admins be re-appointed for otherwise the project would lack management, but it also might end up generating collisions, and difficulty to integrate; temporary appointment would mean that the community would simply be able to run for a year with the admins, then in a year's time they could evaluate how things are going and confirm that everything's going okey.
My main points honestly are the likelyhood of a long list of admins that then decide they don't like the new project and become inactive and making all admins directly elected by the community, which is the usual practice on our wikis.
Regards, Snowolf
On 23/10/2012 20:01, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
Hi everyone,
In the migration process, one of the questions that has come up is the initial assignment of the administrator rights. Our current plan is to assign administrator rights to anyone who currently has them on the legacy Wikivoyage wiki (and I'm certainly open to expanding that to include the legacy Wikitravel wiki, I just don't know how many people are in that group that aren't already wikivoyage administrators).
I wanted to toss that out as a discussion point here and see what the general feeling was about that as an opening position? Am I way off base? Is there something else that would work better? My main interest here is a lightweight system that will work to get the project launched.
pb ___________________ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
philippe@wikimedia.org mailto:philippe@wikimedia.org
(disclaimer: I haven't read the mails that came in to this thread since ca. an hour while I wrote)
From what came to be known to me so far, 7 more or less active Wikivoyages
will initially be avaiable as WMF projects, these being de, en, fr, it, nl, ru and Swedish (sv, but listed as "se") [1]. Some others might follow to be converted to WMF projects, while all other new language versions will be started on Wikimedia Incubator.
These 7 projects now coincide with those projects which are linked on Wikivoyage Shared's Bureaucrat overview page [2] which can be accessed currently. Now I've taken a look at the number of admins on these projects: de: 11 / en: 27 / fr: 7 / it: 8 / nl: 3 / ru: 5 / sv: 4 This includes users who are sysops/crats on several projects, for maintenance purposes probably (also regarding the fact that Wikivoyage has no CentralAuth etc.).
My initial thought is to compare this to the process that occurs for regular new language versions of WMF projects, which leave Incubator: Some contributors might have been test-sysops on Incubator already; these rights are however not automatically carried over - the users will make new requests on the new wiki, which the stewards either grant permanently (if there is enough participation i.e. community) or temporarily. It is worth to note, by the way, that the "new" Wikivoyages will, at least in the beginning, be global sysop wikis, which means that global sysops (and stewards) can and will use their tools to help fighting spam etc., so there is no need to rush with making sysops out of fear of vandals.
In my opinion, it would probably be good if those 11+27+7+8+3+5+4 current wikivoyage sysops will have the possibility to get sysop rights on their "new" Wikivoyage wikis by simple request on m:SRP; but the idea to make them only temp sysops at first seems to be a good addition to me.
Maybe it would be good to do the following: Every user which became a Wikivoyage sysop because of something that resembles an RFA that is accepted on m:SRP usually for permanent sysopship, will get it on the "new" Wikivoyage language version too. However I think some of the points Snowolf rises are important too: it is important to distinguish between the larger projects (like en, de) and smaller ones:
->The larger projects will soon even be able to elect bureaucrats in order to deal with turning users into sysops; there might be inactivity removal policies etc. and an active community watching closely ;-)
->The smaller projects might face much greater problems regarding keeping up the activity indeed (as an example, Wikinews in such a language as Dutch was closed because of inactivity). Here it is a good practice that stewards only give permanent sysopship if a reasonable number of users supports.
Best regards, MF-Warburg
[1] https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=wikivoyage.dblist [2] http://wts.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Bureaucrats#Current_bureaucrats
2012/10/23 Snowolf ml@snowolf.eu
I would suggest that everybody be reappointed on a 1 year temporary adminship basis and then we convert everything to permanent then. To my mind, this offers several advantages: *in a transition, people are bound to move on, this means those who decide that the new project is not for them will simply be removed automatically by the conversion process in a year *at the beginning, every project (I'm talking about the smaller non-english ones) has plenty of activity, but it fairly often dies down way before than a year, and the project is left with a high number of admins that were initially approved, shutting out Global sysops and misdirecting new users to inactive admins *it would make all admins, no matter when or why or how they gained the tools elected by the new wikivoyage community directly, as in most of our wikimedia wikis *the new project will likely have a community that's a "merger" of the wikivoyage community, wikitravel community and wikimedia community plus some new folks, and I imagine some re-imagining of guidelines, processes and whatnot would take place, it only makes sense that admins be re-appointed for otherwise the project would lack management, but it also might end up generating collisions, and difficulty to integrate; temporary appointment would mean that the community would simply be able to run for a year with the admins, then in a year's time they could evaluate how things are going and confirm that everything's going okey.
My main points honestly are the likelyhood of a long list of admins that then decide they don't like the new project and become inactive and making all admins directly elected by the community, which is the usual practice on our wikis.
Regards, Snowolf
On 23/10/2012 20:01, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
Hi everyone,
In the migration process, one of the questions that has come up is the initial assignment of the administrator rights. Our current plan is to assign administrator rights to anyone who currently has them on the legacy Wikivoyage wiki (and I'm certainly open to expanding that to include the legacy Wikitravel wiki, I just don't know how many people are in that group that aren't already wikivoyage administrators).
I wanted to toss that out as a discussion point here and see what the general feeling was about that as an opening position? Am I way off base? Is there something else that would work better? My main interest here is a lightweight system that will work to get the project launched.
pb ___________________ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
philippe@wikimedia.org mailto:philippe@wikimedia.org
Wikivoyage-l mailing list Wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikivoyage-l
My initial thought is to compare this to the process that occurs for regular new language versions of WMF projects, which leave Incubator: Some contributors might have been test-sysops on Incubator already; these rights are however not automatically carried over - the users will make new requests on the new wiki, which the stewards either grant permanently (if there is enough participation i.e. community) or temporarily. It is worth to note, by the way, that the "new" Wikivoyages will, at least in the beginning, be global sysop wikis, which means that global sysops (and stewards) can and will use their tools to help fighting spam etc., so there is no need to rush with making sysops out of fear of vandals.
I think global sysops and stewards would be overstretched. They mainly work on small wikis with not so much activity. The Wikivoyage sites when launched as WMF projects will have a large amount of existing content, a high profile, and likely a large influx of activity from interested Wikimedians and people who've read about it in the press. It makes sense to carry over the admins who are already experienced with the site, are dedicated to it, and know their way around. Let's not put bureaucracy in their way,
Pete / the wub
In my opinion, it would probably be good if those 11+27+7+8+3+5+4 current wikivoyage sysops will have the possibility to get sysop rights on their "new" Wikivoyage wikis by simple request on m:SRP; but the idea to make them only temp sysops at first seems to be a good addition to me.
Maybe it would be good to do the following: Every user which became a Wikivoyage sysop because of something that resembles an RFA that is accepted on m:SRP usually for permanent sysopship, will get it on the "new" Wikivoyage language version too. However I think some of the points Snowolf rises are important too: it is important to distinguish between the larger projects (like en, de) and smaller ones:
->The larger projects will soon even be able to elect bureaucrats in order to deal with turning users into sysops; there might be inactivity removal policies etc. and an active community watching closely ;-)
->The smaller projects might face much greater problems regarding keeping up the activity indeed (as an example, Wikinews in such a language as Dutch was closed because of inactivity). Here it is a good practice that stewards only give permanent sysopship if a reasonable number of users supports.
Best regards, MF-Warburg
[1] https://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=wikivoyage.dblist [2] http://wts.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Bureaucrats#Current_bureaucrats
2012/10/23 Snowolf ml@snowolf.eu
I would suggest that everybody be reappointed on a 1 year temporary adminship basis and then we convert everything to permanent then. To my mind, this offers several advantages: *in a transition, people are bound to move on, this means those who decide that the new project is not for them will simply be removed automatically by the conversion process in a year *at the beginning, every project (I'm talking about the smaller non-english ones) has plenty of activity, but it fairly often dies down way before than a year, and the project is left with a high number of admins that were initially approved, shutting out Global sysops and misdirecting new users to inactive admins *it would make all admins, no matter when or why or how they gained the tools elected by the new wikivoyage community directly, as in most of our wikimedia wikis *the new project will likely have a community that's a "merger" of the wikivoyage community, wikitravel community and wikimedia community plus some new folks, and I imagine some re-imagining of guidelines, processes and whatnot would take place, it only makes sense that admins be re-appointed for otherwise the project would lack management, but it also might end up generating collisions, and difficulty to integrate; temporary appointment would mean that the community would simply be able to run for a year with the admins, then in a year's time they could evaluate how things are going and confirm that everything's going okey.
My main points honestly are the likelyhood of a long list of admins that then decide they don't like the new project and become inactive and making all admins directly elected by the community, which is the usual practice on our wikis.
Regards, Snowolf
On 23/10/2012 20:01, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
Hi everyone,
In the migration process, one of the questions that has come up is the initial assignment of the administrator rights. Our current plan is to assign administrator rights to anyone who currently has them on the legacy Wikivoyage wiki (and I'm certainly open to expanding that to include the legacy Wikitravel wiki, I just don't know how many people are in that group that aren't already wikivoyage administrators).
I wanted to toss that out as a discussion point here and see what the general feeling was about that as an opening position? Am I way off base? Is there something else that would work better? My main interest here is a lightweight system that will work to get the project launched.
pb ___________________ Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
philippe@wikimedia.org mailto:philippe@wikimedia.org
Wikivoyage-l mailing list Wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikivoyage-l
Wikivoyage-l mailing list Wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikivoyage-l
wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.org