On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>wrote;wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to invite the interested people to submit some best practices from
their communities about the bureaucrat procedures. Please let me know what
works well and what not. Appointment, removal, rules of use of the bit.
Thanks a lot.
Best, eia
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On eswiki, the bureaucrat and sysop bits come ina single package (users are
entrusted to begin with) and never has ocurred that someone ops a user who
hasn't been properly elected (tacit assumption it would imply removal of
bits).
I think the more trust, responsability and confidence you grant to your
users, the more encouragement and chances they act responsibly. And indeed,
bureaucrat tasks have come to be considered menial work (which was th reason
for the name choosing)
It helps that we have a clear set of rules for sysop elections: 75%
threshold, no users with less than 100 edits / 1 month at beggining of
election can vote, and votes are not required to be explained (after all
it's a voting not a debate) although it's common to comment on them on the
talk page.
Renaming is pretty much standard: a request page, and whoever looking at
them that day fulfills the requests.
De-bureacratization means de-sysopping, so it¡s seldom done (commonly user
resigns, a single case where user was desysopped and it of course also was
decratized.).