--- Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Rich Holton wrote:
It's important to de-sysop (without prejudice) the inactive. Otherwise we're deceiving ourselves
about
how many sysops we have.
I agree with this, but I don't agree to having sysops re-voted-on and re-elected every 6 months. It should be possible by software to determine inactive sysops and de-sysop them without inconveniencing active sysops so much.
Just so there's no misunderstanding, I was not necessarily connecting the two: I'd say a good first step in any event is to find out who is inactive and de-sysop them unless and until they become active again. This should either be done periodically.
Also, I'm open on the question of how often to review (re-elect?) sysops. However, time passes very quickly on Wikipedia. 6 months actually seems like a long time. (what was happening on Wikipedia 6 months ago?)
If indeed being a sysop is "no big deal" as it
says on
[[wikipedia:Administrators]]
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators]),
then being voted out as one should also be "no big deal", right?
That page only says it to reduce the amount of hard feelings and resulting flaming a little. In practice, however, it *is* a big deal in the sense that sysop status is seen as an elevated status or a position of authority, consciously or not. I'm sure many sysops also feel slightly more powerful or influential than they did before they were sysopped, even though few will admit it. De-sysopping for such a frivolous reason is thus likely to cause hard feelings for the ex-sysop in question.
Of course you're right, Timwi. Being a sysop is _not_ "no big deal." Or, to eliminate the double negative, being a sysop is a big deal. It is an important role, with some additional privileges. All the more reason to make sure that the role is performed responsibly.
Voting may not be the best answer. But I truly believe that we need to give this matter serious and careful thought. I foresee sysops only becoming more powerful as Wikipedia grows -- for no other reason than it will be necessary. Do we have an adequate method of keeping sysops in line? According to [[Wikipedia:List of administrators]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators]), there are exactly 10 former sysops since 2002, of which apparently only 3 were involuntary. Is this indicative of a superlative record at naming excellent sysops, or of inadequate monitoring and discipline?
Please understand that I have had nothing but good experiences in my dealings with sysops. I have no axe to grind, no one in particular that I'd like to see booted. But there does seem to be some flaws in the current system.
-Rich Holton ([[User:Rholton]]
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/