According to IRC user Connel, there is a rogue admin loose on the English Wiktionary and several dangerous actions have been performed (main page deletion, open proxy unblocks etc.). A RfP has been up for several days and the admin has not been desysopped. I don't have any evidence of this right now and am trusting the user's words as a steward is needed *now*.
Thanks, Xy
On 07/08/06, Sean Whitton sean@silentflame.com wrote:
According to IRC user Connel, there is a rogue admin loose on the English Wiktionary and several dangerous actions have been performed (main page deletion, open proxy unblocks etc.). A RfP has been up for several days and the admin has not been desysopped. I don't have any evidence of this right now and am trusting the user's words as a steward is needed *now*.
Thanks, Xy
-- —Xyrael ~ <xyr> sean@silentflame.com | xyrael.net
Evidence enough at
http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=...
With this in mind, I've been thinking whether it would be wise to have some kind of feature that disallows admins from unblocking themselves and while blocked not being able to perform admin actions.
Cheers, Wildrick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus
That already is true, at least one part. Admins are not allowed to protect, move, or delete pages if there's an outstanding block on the account, and they are not allowed to rollback while blocked either. However, the block/unblock feature was left to allow administrators to unblock themselves in case they found themselves on the receiving end of an AOL autoblock or something similar.
Titoxd.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Wildrick Steele Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 3:39 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Emergency on Wiktionary
On 07/08/06, Sean Whitton sean@silentflame.com wrote:
According to IRC user Connel, there is a rogue admin loose on the English Wiktionary and several dangerous actions have been performed (main page deletion, open proxy unblocks etc.). A RfP has been up for several days and the admin has not been desysopped. I don't have any evidence of this right now and am trusting the user's words as a steward is needed *now*.
Thanks, Xy
-- -Xyrael ~ <xyr> sean@silentflame.com | xyrael.net
Evidence enough at
http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=... us&page=
With this in mind, I've been thinking whether it would be wise to have some kind of feature that disallows admins from unblocking themselves and while blocked not being able to perform admin actions.
Cheers, Wildrick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I would say that this feature should remain - they shouldn't be an admin at all if they get blocked and start using their powers irresponsibly. Because this kind of incident is rare and isolated, the steward response of dropping the sysop flag worked to stop it spreading further. IMO, this system works quite well.
On 08/08/06, Titoxd@Wikimedia titoxd.wikimedia@gmail.com wrote:
That already is true, at least one part. Admins are not allowed to protect, move, or delete pages if there's an outstanding block on the account, and they are not allowed to rollback while blocked either. However, the block/unblock feature was left to allow administrators to unblock themselves in case they found themselves on the receiving end of an AOL autoblock or something similar.
Titoxd.
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Wildrick Steele Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 3:39 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Emergency on Wiktionary
On 07/08/06, Sean Whitton sean@silentflame.com wrote:
According to IRC user Connel, there is a rogue admin loose on the English Wiktionary and several dangerous actions have been performed (main page deletion, open proxy unblocks etc.). A RfP has been up for several days and the admin has not been desysopped. I don't have any evidence of this right now and am trusting the user's words as a steward is needed *now*.
Thanks, Xy
-- -Xyrael ~ <xyr> sean@silentflame.com | xyrael.net
Evidence enough at
http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=... us&page=
With this in mind, I've been thinking whether it would be wise to have some kind of feature that disallows admins from unblocking themselves and while blocked not being able to perform admin actions.
Cheers, Wildrick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 09/08/06, Sean Whitton sean@silentflame.com wrote:
the steward response of dropping the sysop flag worked to stop it spreading further.
Actually not. There weren't any stewards around and the perpetrator remained sysopped for a full day, doing hundreds of random blocks and unblocks. We had to wait for developer intervention to remove the flag in the database. Quite a nonperformance for the otherwise well-functioning steward team. We'll take Wikimania as a good excuse :-)
Cheers, Wildrick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus
On 8/9/06, Wildrick Steele wildrick.steele@gmail.com wrote:
Actually not. There weren't any stewards around and the perpetrator remained sysopped for a full day, doing hundreds of random blocks and unblocks. We had to wait for developer intervention to remove the flag in the database. Quite a nonperformance for the otherwise well-functioning steward team. We'll take Wikimania as a good excuse :-)
Wikimania may have been part of the problem. Also, the request at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_access seems to have been lost amongst the noise of dozens of other requests, which for some reason, no longer get immediately archived, so it's not easy to see whether or not there are outstanding requests. Perhaps moving urgent requests to a separate section at the top would help in future. There is a (not-very-active) IRC channel at #wikimedia-stewards, but the #wikimedia channel is often a better place to find a steward in an emergency. I don't know whether either of these channels were tried before finding a developer.
This might just be a sign that new steward elections are required.
Angela.
Angela wrote:
On 8/9/06, Wildrick Steele wildrick.steele@gmail.com wrote:
Actually not. There weren't any stewards around and the perpetrator remained sysopped for a full day, doing hundreds of random blocks and unblocks. We had to wait for developer intervention to remove the flag in the database. Quite a nonperformance for the otherwise well-functioning steward team. We'll take Wikimania as a good excuse :-)
Wikimania may have been part of the problem. Also, the request at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_access seems to have been lost amongst the noise of dozens of other requests, which for some reason, no longer get immediately archived, so it's not easy to see whether or not there are outstanding requests. Perhaps moving urgent requests to a separate section at the top would help in future. There is a (not-very-active) IRC channel at #wikimedia-stewards, but the #wikimedia channel is often a better place to find a steward in an emergency. I don't know whether either of these channels were tried before finding a developer.
This might just be a sign that new steward elections are required.
Angela. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
You should desysop any blocked admin until their block expires as a matter of policy by instrumenting it in the software as an explicit action with a flag placed by their name in the database. If they are admins they should not be getting blocked explicitly. It's an easy matter to identify admin accounts and flag them if they are explicitly blocked as opposed to getting caught in IP autoblock ranges and other sanctions.
IMHO.
Jeff
Angela schreef: [cut]
easy to see whether or not there are outstanding requests. Perhaps moving urgent requests to a separate section at the top would help in future. There is a (not-very-active) IRC channel at #wikimedia-stewards, but the #wikimedia channel is often a better place to find a steward in an emergency. I don't know whether either of these channels were tried before finding a developer.
This might just be a sign that new steward elections are required.
Angela.
I do not think there are to few stewards but it is to difficult to find one.
That can be fixt more or less. IRC is the best hope I think to contact a steward if needed.
1) the stewards need to be online on IRC and best also in the #wikimedia-stewards channel
-> I will send a message to the stewards to ask to also be in the #wikimedia-stewards channel when the can. Some will probably not even really know of the channel. And to add there IRC Nick to; http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards#Active_stewards
2) Making it more easy for the users to get in that channel. I have added #wikimedia-stewards to the list of channels you can go to from http://chat.wikizine.org and included links to in from the steward and request for permissions page
3) On the IRC channel of the dutch wikipedia there is a bot active to get the attention of the sysops when a user has a problem. The user enters a command ( !mod ) and then the bot posts the names of all the active sysops online. The then get probably a warning from there IRC-client that there name is posted and some come to see what the problem is. The bot operator is on holiday now. I can ask him of he can provide a similar service for the stewards.
Angela wrote:
On 8/9/06, Wildrick Steele wildrick.steele@gmail.com wrote:
Actually not. There weren't any stewards around and the perpetrator remained sysopped for a full day, doing hundreds of random blocks and unblocks. We had to wait for developer intervention to remove the flag in the database. Quite a nonperformance for the otherwise well-functioning steward team. We'll take Wikimania as a good excuse :-)
Wikimania may have been part of the problem. Also, the request at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_access seems to have been lost amongst the noise of dozens of other requests, which for some reason, no longer get immediately archived, so it's not easy to see whether or not there are outstanding requests. Perhaps moving urgent requests to a separate section at the top would help in future. There is a (not-very-active) IRC channel at #wikimedia-stewards, but the #wikimedia channel is often a better place to find a steward in an emergency. I don't know whether either of these channels were tried before finding a developer.
This might just be a sign that new steward elections are required.
The other possibility would be to give bureaucrats the power to de-sysop.
Fortunately, these rogue sysops are uncommon, but bureaucrats are more often in a position to act quickly when this sort of activity happens. It would also be handy to have this available for de-sysopping inactive admins; the latter can also be reactivated on request without the need for votes or other complicated community processes.
While it is also possible that there can be rogue bureaucrats, these will be proportionally rarer than rogue admins. Anyone who has become a bureaucrat has a very high degree of trust in the community, and especially in relatively larger communities there is sufficient oversight to prevent the abuses that may be more common with the untested bureaucrats of tiny communities. Speaking arbitrarily, one could define a larger community, as one with at least 50,000 articles and/or 2 active bureaucrats.
Ec
Ray Saintonge schreef: [cut]
While it is also possible that there can be rogue bureaucrats, these will be proportionally rarer than rogue admins. Anyone who has become a bureaucrat has a very high degree of trust in the community, and especially in relatively larger communities there is sufficient oversight to prevent the abuses that may be more common with the untested bureaucrats of tiny communities. Speaking arbitrarily, one could define a larger community, as one with at least 50,000 articles and/or 2 active bureaucrats.
Ec
Not all wikis are the same. You can not project the situation of EN to all other wikis.
I have just done a de-sysop/de-bureaucrat on the Serbian Wikpedia. There the have (now) 40 sysops and of those 25 are bureaucrat.
That is from my POV an irresponsible number of bureaucrats. I do not know how many active user there are. The have 34700 articles.
Walter Vermeir wrote:
Not all wikis are the same. You can not project the situation of EN to all other wikis.
I have just done a de-sysop/de-bureaucrat on the Serbian Wikpedia. There the have (now) 40 sysops and of those 25 are bureaucrat.
That is from my POV an irresponsible number of bureaucrats. I do not know how many active user there are. The have 34700 articles.
Walter, what you did with desysopping that guy was wrong. Everything was falsified and I have a reason to believe it was all a deed of Bormalagurski (Wiki Serbia @ meta) whom we had recently desysopped. If you do a checkuser for the guys two accounts, you'll see a Canadian and a Spanish IP (the first on meta, the second on sr:). Slaven (who erroneously got desysopped) never claimed to want to be desysopped and this is just Boris' vendetta for his own dethronement. I'm a bureaucrat at sr: wikipedia but I don't want to do the honors of redoing what's already been done. I think Walter should return the rights. Evidence to purport my claims is the following: The account on meta was created a couple of days ago and Slaven is known to have gone to a vacation at about the same time. He's blocked himself because he couldn't stand the situation our community was in at that moment, but he never wanted his rights taken away. Please correct this asap
Filip
Walter, what you did with desysopping that guy was wrong. Everything was falsified and I have a reason to believe it was all a deed of Bormalagurski (Wiki Serbia @ meta) whom we had recently desysopped. If you do a checkuser for the guys two accounts, you'll see a Canadian and a Spanish IP (the first on meta, the second on sr:). Slaven (who erroneously got desysopped) never claimed to want to be desysopped and this is just Boris' vendetta for his own dethronement. I'm a bureaucrat at sr: wikipedia but I don't want to do the honors of redoing what's already been done. I think Walter should return the rights. Evidence to purport my claims is the following: The account on meta was created a couple of days ago and Slaven is known to have gone to a vacation at about the same time. He's blocked himself because he couldn't stand the situation our community was in at that moment, but he never wanted his rights taken away. Please correct this asap Filip
I fixed it. Sorry for the mix-up.
Walter Vermeir wrote:
I have just done a de-sysop/de-bureaucrat on the Serbian Wikpedia. There the have (now) 40 sysops and of those 25 are bureaucrat.
That is from my POV an irresponsible number of bureaucrats. I do not know how many active user there are. The have 34700 articles.
Just to say that no one (including Boris) abused sysop/bureaucrat rights on Serbian Wikipedia (there were some small incidents related to admin rights; but enwiki is full of that). Boris abused his contributor's rights (including a lot of lying on a lot of places, impersonating other people, making sockpupptes with abusive intentions etc.).
My POV is that admin/bureaucrat rights should not be a big deal. In general, people are more responsible with admin/bureaucrat rights, as well as they are more motivated to contribute to Wikipedia.
Also, there is one important message with such policy: there is no small faction of people who are keeping rights for themselves; anyone with good contributions and non-confrontative relations with others should become admin/bureaucrat.
But, mainstream on the most of Wikimedian projects now is that admin/bureaucrat permissions are not technical rights for trusted users, but political power. Such thinking rises in Serbian Wikipedian community, too. So, it seems that Serbian Wikipedia would have smaller number/percentage of bureaucrats and admins in the future.
On 8/10/06, Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
Not all wikis are the same. You can not project the situation of EN to all other wikis.
I have just done a de-sysop/de-bureaucrat on the Serbian Wikpedia. There the have (now) 40 sysops and of those 25 are bureaucrat.
That is from my POV an irresponsible number of bureaucrats. I do not know how many active user there are. The have 34700 articles.
I have long been concerned about srwiki, ever since I had one of their admins try to get me deadminned on English for refusing to support the "consensus of admins on srwiki" with regard to a content issue on enwiki. It disturbs me that srwiki's admins act as judge and jury on content, and especially since (to my untrained eye) they seem to be acting to push a pro-Serbian point of view. Perhaps the situation is not as unsavory as my brief encounter suggests, but I do think that it is unacceptable for ANY language edition of Wikipedia to abrogate NPOV, especially in the interest of nationalistic politics.
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
I have long been concerned about srwiki, ever since I had one of their admins try to get me deadminned on English for refusing to support the "consensus of admins on srwiki" with regard to a content issue on enwiki.
I wonder who that might be. Seriously, who was it?
It disturbs me that srwiki's admins act as judge and jury on content, and especially since (to my untrained eye) they seem to be acting to push a pro-Serbian point of view. Perhaps the situation is not as unsavory as my brief encounter suggests, but I do think that it is unacceptable for ANY language edition of Wikipedia to abrogate NPOV, especially in the interest of nationalistic politics.
Kelly
That is not entirely true. There are some nationalistic things here and there as there are in every Wikipedia, but admins do not dictate POVs. There are many political differences between the admins, but still the project is pretty NPOV if you ask me. On the other hand, political and whatnot flamewars can emerge if there are trolls that ignite them and unfortunately, we've had a couple of them recently. All in all, I wouldn't be concerned :D
Filip
I'm replying to myself now
Filip Maljkovic wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
I have long been concerned about srwiki, ever since I had one of their admins try to get me deadminned on English for refusing to support the "consensus of admins on srwiki" with regard to a content issue on enwiki.
I wonder who that might be. Seriously, who was it?
I've just found out. It's Bormalagurski, the guy who did this whole shenanigan (i.e. he was desysopped a couple of weeks ago and he's the one who started this scandal at meta.) The guy is a notorious liar and he's been scolded for representing the community all by himself in a mischievous way. Anyway, we're about to block him indef. and he should not be listened to. I mean, I don't want you to get the wrong impression about our community. The guy is a nutjob and cannot represent a community (just like any other person).
Filip
Walter Vermeir wrote:
Ray Saintonge schreef: [cut]
While it is also possible that there can be rogue bureaucrats, these will be proportionally rarer than rogue admins. Anyone who has become a bureaucrat has a very high degree of trust in the community, and especially in relatively larger communities there is sufficient oversight to prevent the abuses that may be more common with the untested bureaucrats of tiny communities. Speaking arbitrarily, one could define a larger community, as one with at least 50,000 articles and/or 2 active bureaucrats.
Ec
Not all wikis are the same. You can not project the situation of EN to all other wikis.
I have just done a de-sysop/de-bureaucrat on the Serbian Wikpedia. There the have (now) 40 sysops and of those 25 are bureaucrat.
That is from my POV an irresponsible number of bureaucrats. I do not know how many active user there are. The have 34700 articles.
25 bureaucrats on such a small project doesn't make sense considering the limited duties that are reserved for bureaucrats. Still it's up to the sr community to sort that one out.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Walter Vermeir wrote:
Ray Saintonge schreef: [cut]
While it is also possible that there can be rogue bureaucrats, these will be proportionally rarer than rogue admins. Anyone who has become a bureaucrat has a very high degree of trust in the community, and especially in relatively larger communities there is sufficient oversight to prevent the abuses that may be more common with the untested bureaucrats of tiny communities. Speaking arbitrarily, one could define a larger community, as one with at least 50,000 articles and/or 2 active bureaucrats.
Ec
Not all wikis are the same. You can not project the situation of EN to all other wikis.
I have just done a de-sysop/de-bureaucrat on the Serbian Wikpedia. There the have (now) 40 sysops and of those 25 are bureaucrat.
That is from my POV an irresponsible number of bureaucrats. I do not know how many active user there are. The have 34700 articles.
25 bureaucrats on such a small project doesn't make sense considering the limited duties that are reserved for bureaucrats. Still it's up to the sr community to sort that one out.
Ec
The fact that we have that many bureaucrats comes from our character as a community: up until recently we've been pretty open and hadn't made a big deal out of administrators and bureaucrats. But now, with what's been happening recently, I think that there's a consensus that we should reduce the number of bureaucrats to a minimum (5 or so) that would carry out the bureaucrat tasks when they are asked.
Filip
40 admins, 25 are bureaucrats? Yikes! I thought having 42 admins with 4 bureaucrats was a lot!
Let's see how Serbian Wikipedia works this out. I wouldn't be surprised if they needed any outside intervention, though.
On 8/12/06, Filip Maljkovic dungodung@gmail.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Walter Vermeir wrote:
Ray Saintonge schreef: [cut]
While it is also possible that there can be rogue bureaucrats, these will be proportionally rarer than rogue admins. Anyone who has become
a
bureaucrat has a very high degree of trust in the community, and especially in relatively larger communities there is sufficient oversight to prevent the abuses that may be more common with the untested bureaucrats of tiny communities. Speaking arbitrarily, one could define a larger community, as one with at least 50,000 articles and/or 2 active bureaucrats.
Ec
Not all wikis are the same. You can not project the situation of EN to all other wikis.
I have just done a de-sysop/de-bureaucrat on the Serbian Wikpedia.
There
the have (now) 40 sysops and of those 25 are bureaucrat.
That is from my POV an irresponsible number of bureaucrats. I do not know how many active user there are. The have 34700 articles.
25 bureaucrats on such a small project doesn't make sense considering the limited duties that are reserved for bureaucrats. Still it's up to the sr community to sort that one out.
Ec
The fact that we have that many bureaucrats comes from our character as a community: up until recently we've been pretty open and hadn't made a big deal out of administrators and bureaucrats. But now, with what's been happening recently, I think that there's a consensus that we should reduce the number of bureaucrats to a minimum (5 or so) that would carry out the bureaucrat tasks when they are asked.
Filip _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 8/12/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
40 admins, 25 are bureaucrats? Yikes! I thought having 42 admins with 4 bureaucrats was a lot!
Certian projects tend to promote people to bureaucrat rather than admin. Species for one.
geni wrote:
On 8/12/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
40 admins, 25 are bureaucrats? Yikes! I thought having 42 admins with 4 bureaucrats was a lot!
Certian projects tend to promote people to bureaucrat rather than admin. Species for one.
In Serbian Wikipedia, on the other hand, there was a lax policy regarding admin/bureau. promotions. Namely, after 1 month of active contributions, you could become an admin and after 1 more month, a bureaucrat. That has changed in the past half a year or so. Now, with regards to some recent situations, I wouldn't be surprised if the policy becomes ever so restrictive. I, for example, became an admin in 11 days (fastest in sr: wikipedia). :) But that was more than a year ago...
Filip
I can imagine that it works well for a lot of wiki's. As I understood also WiktionaryZ is very easy on the behalf of making someone sysop. And other wiki's are as well. It is very like "adminship is no big deal". And maybe it shouldn't. But then deamminship shouldn't be a big deal either i think. Because when someone is adminned easely, the chance that you grab someone who doesn't fit the profile is easier, and deadminning should be easier, so you can fix it quick as well. I've seen little misuse of people with adminship, apart from things like easier blocking etc. But that is something the community can and should solve anyway. You will have the same issues on that behalf when s.o. is after a hard procedure admin. And regarding bureaucrat, that shouldn't be a big deal either maybe. Because a sysop is supposed to be trusted, the bureaucrat is as well. As long as you watch closely what each bc is doing.
greetings, Lodewijk
2006/8/12, Filip Maljkovic dungodung@gmail.com:
geni wrote:
On 8/12/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
40 admins, 25 are bureaucrats? Yikes! I thought having 42 admins with 4 bureaucrats was a lot!
Certian projects tend to promote people to bureaucrat rather than admin. Species for one.
In Serbian Wikipedia, on the other hand, there was a lax policy regarding admin/bureau. promotions. Namely, after 1 month of active contributions, you could become an admin and after 1 more month, a bureaucrat. That has changed in the past half a year or so. Now, with regards to some recent situations, I wouldn't be surprised if the policy becomes ever so restrictive. I, for example, became an admin in 11 days (fastest in sr: wikipedia). :) But that was more than a year ago...
Filip _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, As WiktionaryZ is dragged into this discussion, let me explain how it is at this moment. At this moment we have people edit WiktionaryZ that we trust / know / come recomended / ask. We are at this time in a pre-alpha stage, we do not have versioning, being an admin is not a big thing. Being able to edit is. When someone proves that he either does not understand the concept of what we are trying to do. When someone does not communicate his/her concerns and makes a mess, we will protect our data and revoke the edit right. The admin right goes with it.
We have been clear about this notion. We do not want to discuss this really as it is not compatible with the state of our project. The notion of having to watch closely is in my mind problematic because by arguing that this is needed, there will always be people that either think that it is there place to complain and want things different even though they have no knowledge about a project (assume that everything is like Wikipedia).
Every project has it's own way of doing things. WiktionaryZ is different because not only is it a project where we are in a pre-alpha state, it is also a project where we aim to have people from all nationalities and languages work together. This requires that things are particular to WiktionaryZ. We welcome people to contribute to WiktionaryZ. We ask to be judged on what we are and what we do and not to be judged by what some consider "normal".
Thanks, GerardM
effe iets anders wrote:
I can imagine that it works well for a lot of wiki's. As I understood also WiktionaryZ is very easy on the behalf of making someone sysop. And other wiki's are as well. It is very like "adminship is no big deal". And maybe it shouldn't. But then deamminship shouldn't be a big deal either i think. Because when someone is adminned easely, the chance that you grab someone who doesn't fit the profile is easier, and deadminning should be easier, so you can fix it quick as well. I've seen little misuse of people with adminship, apart from things like easier blocking etc. But that is something the community can and should solve anyway. You will have the same issues on that behalf when s.o. is after a hard procedure admin. And regarding bureaucrat, that shouldn't be a big deal either maybe. Because a sysop is supposed to be trusted, the bureaucrat is as well. As long as you watch closely what each bc is doing.
greetings, Lodewijk
2006/8/12, Filip Maljkovic dungodung@gmail.com:
geni wrote:
On 8/12/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
40 admins, 25 are bureaucrats? Yikes! I thought having 42 admins with 4 bureaucrats was a lot!
Certian projects tend to promote people to bureaucrat rather than admin. Species for one.
In Serbian Wikipedia, on the other hand, there was a lax policy regarding admin/bureau. promotions. Namely, after 1 month of active contributions, you could become an admin and after 1 more month, a bureaucrat. That has changed in the past half a year or so. Now, with regards to some recent situations, I wouldn't be surprised if the policy becomes ever so restrictive. I, for example, became an admin in 11 days (fastest in sr: wikipedia). :) But that was more than a year ago...
Filip
On 8/9/06, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
This might just be a sign that new steward elections are required.
I've thought this since *at least* May, when I ran stats and found that Jon Harald Soby was responsible for roughly 40% of all steward actions in April & May. The fact that a good number of our stewards also hold other positions (developer, Board, CFO, Office) makes it difficult for them to really be active in the day-to-day steward work, though they definately have need for the access. I'd like to see new steward elections very soon, though the Board election may make that difficult.
Essjay ----- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia http://www.wikipedia.org/
On 8/14/06, - Essjay - essjaywiki@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to see new steward elections very soon, though the Board election may make that difficult.
I think it would be a good idea to hold a call for new stewards after the conclusion of the board elections.
Kelly
On 8/7/06, Wildrick Steele wildrick.steele@gmail.com wrote:
With this in mind, I've been thinking whether it would be wise to have some kind of feature that disallows admins from unblocking themselves and while blocked not being able to perform admin actions.
I think there are at least 2 ways of doing this within the current softwear setup. The simplest would probably be to have a bot repeate ban them every few seconds.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org