Having fixed terms is an excellent idea. One or two year appointments would be ample, and would not be overly burdensom. A sysop whose term had expired could stand for re-election after (say) 6 months. Mark
No offense, but I think this is an extremely bad idea. With maybe one or two exceptions, our sysops are trustworthy, reliable, and obedient to the rules. Having elections, on the other hand, would be like ringing the dinner bell for everyone troll or vandal with an axe to grind against a particular sysop (or sysops). In addition, the administrative overhead would be fearsome. I'd also like to point out that by your 1 sysop/1000 article standard, we're about 40 sysops below strength.
Now, in the past, I have complained that a lot of people are getting nominated for adminship without being here long enough. I think this criticism is valid. I don't recognize most of the names coming up on the RFA these days, and that worries me. I think people need to be a bit more critical of new requests, but I don't think that means that we should be trying to cull down the number of sysops - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
--Mark
Well, I'm not sure - vandals don't tend to vote on nominations for adminship, and having the occasional disenting voice on it might spur the silent majority to get more involved in their civic duty there. I think most admins would be re-ellected, despite the occasional personal grudge. Mark R.
--- Mark Pellegrini mapellegrini@comcast.net wrote:
Having fixed terms is an excellent idea. One or two year appointments would be ample, and would not be overly burdensom. A sysop whose term had expired could stand for re-election after (say) 6 months. Mark
No offense, but I think this is an extremely bad idea. With maybe one or two exceptions, our sysops are trustworthy, reliable, and obedient to the rules. Having elections, on the other hand, would be like ringing the dinner bell for everyone troll or vandal with an axe to grind against a particular sysop (or sysops). In addition, the administrative overhead would be fearsome. I'd also like to point out that by your 1 sysop/1000 article standard, we're about 40 sysops below strength.
Now, in the past, I have complained that a lot of people are getting nominated for adminship without being here long enough. I think this criticism is valid. I don't recognize most of the names coming up on the RFA these days, and that worries me. I think people need to be a bit more critical of new requests, but I don't think that means that we should be trying to cull down the number of sysops - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
--Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
A few observations from a non-sysop:
It's clear to me that we don't need to reduce sysops, but at the same time, there may be some sysops who should not be sysops. We need sysops who are active, responsible, and reasonable.
It's important to de-sysop (without prejudice) the inactive. Otherwise we're deceiving ourselves about how many sysops we have.
In a sense, don't sysops represent Wikipedia? If so, shouldn't they have some responsibility to those whom they represent, to the community as a whole? Having unlimited terms does not encourage a responsible attitude.
Term limits could be implemented in such a way that an active sysop who wants to continue will continue unless heavily opposed. For instance, an unopposed sysop could retain office simply by indicating a desire to do so.
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?
It would be nice if anonymous voting could be used. Perhaps the Board voting mechanism?
If we are short on good sysops, let's make sure that it is understood that being a sysop is a service to the community, not a power trip. For example, don't call it "self-nomination", but "volunteering." Or, make it clear that nominations are sought, so that people will be more likely to nominate others.
Comments?
-Rich Holton [[user:Rholton]]
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
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.
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.
If we are short on good sysops, let's make sure that it is understood that being a sysop is a service to the community, not a power trip.
We are trying to, but I don't think that's really possible. We cannot deny that sysops have additional privileges (that's the whole point). This, almost by definition, triggers what I have outlined above.
Timwi
--- 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/
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:08:45 +0100, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
We are trying to, but I don't think that's really possible. We cannot deny that sysops have additional privileges (that's the whole point). This, almost by definition, triggers what I have outlined above.
I disagree. Sysops don't have additional priveleges, but they have additional powers.
They have the power to ban users, but they are not allowed to ban users against policy. They have the power to delete articles- but they're not allowed to delete articles against policy. They have the rollback link- mmm, rollback! - but they could theoretically revert the articles the old-fashioned way. They can theoretically do database queries but I think that's still turned off. =b
This distinction is a little more than semantics. The sysop, ideally, does not do anything requiring general approval like deleting or banning. They're there to implement community decisions, not to make them.
In theory, anyway. In theory, practice is the same as the theory, but in practice it is not. :) The point where this boundary becomes fuzzy is the cutting edge of Recent Changes, where it is clear that the community has decided that vandalism is bad and vandals should be blocked after being warned, but it's not entirely clear who is a vandal and what is vandalism (in some cases). Moving further away from this idealized little circle, we find the newly registered-for-trivial-vandalism username, simple trolls wanting trouble (naming themselves to confuse themselves with sysops, for example), and it continues on from there. Some of the actions taken in this area are not so much against policy as outside of policy, while some are clearly disallowed.
Sure - the power to ban simple vandals, users named for identity deception, people abusing other users etc. But a user whose username has a word in it that a banned user also had, but has an innocuous and generally productive edit history? LT is far from a vandal, and has not engaged in any disruptive behavior that I can see. Mark
--- Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote: <cut> The point where this
boundary becomes fuzzy is the cutting edge of Recent Changes, where it is clear that the community has decided that vandalism is bad and vandals should be blocked after being warned, but it's not entirely clear who is a vandal and what is vandalism (in some cases). Moving further away from this idealized little circle, we find the newly registered-for-trivial-vandalism username, simple trolls wanting trouble (naming themselves to confuse themselves with sysops, for example), and it continues on from there. Some of the actions taken in this area are not so much against policy as outside of policy, while some are clearly disallowed. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:08:45 +0100, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
We are trying to, but I don't think that's really
possible. We cannot
deny that sysops have additional privileges
(that's the whole point).
This, almost by definition, triggers what I have
outlined above.
I disagree. Sysops don't have additional priveleges, but they have additional powers.
<SNIP!>
The sysop, ideally, does not do anything requiring general approval like deleting or banning. They're there to implement community decisions, not to make them.
In theory, anyway. In theory, practice is the same as the theory, but in practice it is not. :) The point where this boundary becomes fuzzy is the cutting edge of Recent Changes, where it is clear that the community has decided that vandalism is bad and vandals should be blocked after being warned, but it's not entirely clear who is a vandal and what is vandalism (in some cases). Moving further away from this idealized little circle, we find the newly registered-for-trivial-vandalism username, simple trolls wanting trouble (naming themselves to confuse themselves with sysops, for example), and it continues on from there. Some of the actions taken in this area are not so much against policy as outside of policy, while some are clearly disallowed.
Add things like determining the outcome of a vote on VfD, making changes to the front page and other protected content, deleting unwanted user subpages, etc. I guess in many ways a sysop is like a police officer. They do not make the laws, but they enforce them. However, what one person calls a power another may call a privilege.
For many, enforcement itself is a privilege.
In general, we must all trust that sysops are doing a good job -- and it seems that for the most part they are. But where there is trust, there must also be accountability. Individual decisions of sysops can be judged -- although sometimes even this is challenging. When a page is deleted immediately, who checks that it should have been?
Even so, most individual decisions of Sysops can be reviewed. (Do we really want to do that?) But there is not really any way of reviewing a Sysops decision trends. Does a sysop have a systematic bias against certain users, certain article types (recipes? conlangs?) or certain perspectives?
Are we doing a good job of maintaining accountability for our Sysops? Are our methods scalable? Is there a better method than periodic elections?
At the same time, are we giving our sysops the support that they need to do their jobs? Do we have clear, enforceable policies? Is the sysop's job well defined? Do we recognize sysops who consistently do their jobs well?
-Rich Holton [[User:Rholton]]
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Mark Pellegrini wrote:
No offense, but I think this is an extremely bad idea.
I agree.
Now, in the past, I have complained that a lot of people are getting nominated for adminship without being here long enough.
Hm. Have a significant number of them turned out to not be trustworthy enough? If not, then there's no problem. If yes, then I'm sure they can still be de-sysopped, no?
Timwi
Is there any procedure for this, or guidlines? M.R.
Hm. Have a significant number of them turned out to not be trustworthy enough? If not, then there's no problem. If yes, then I'm sure they can still be de-sysopped, no?
Timwi
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
You may wish to read meta policy on the topic. It is a different procedure to sysop and unsysop people.
ant
Mark Richards wrote:
Is there any procedure for this, or guidlines? M.R.
Hm. Have a significant number of them turned out to not be trustworthy enough? If not, then there's no problem. If yes, then I'm sure they can still be de-sysopped, no?
Timwi
__________________________________Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/