At one of the wikipedias, the one in Swedish, a discussion has arisen if it would be possible to elect admins on a term of, say, one year. Admins whose actions often are questioned would then have little chance of getting re-elected, and choosing not so perfect admins would not be such a big problem as it currently is.
At a previous stage, soneome at svwiki said that this would simply not be possible, since it is so difficult to get someone de-admined. Today there is a functioning structure of stewarts, and I wonder - if svwiki started this system, where admins aren't elected forever but for a term of a predetermined time, would "the international" object? Would stewarts get tired of demand after demand from svwiki to take the admin rights from admins whose one year term run out, or would it be seen as OK?
It is difficult to puch the question, as long as we don't know if the argument "it would not be allowed" is correct or not.
Best, Hanna
On 9/30/05, Habj sweetadelaide@gmail.com wrote:
At one of the wikipedias, the one in Swedish, a discussion has arisen if it would be possible to elect admins on a term of, say, one year. Admins whose actions often are questioned would then have little chance of getting re-elected, and choosing not so perfect admins would not be such a big problem as it currently is.
At a previous stage, soneome at svwiki said that this would simply not be possible, since it is so difficult to get someone de-admined. Today there is a functioning structure of stewarts, and I wonder - if svwiki started this system, where admins aren't elected forever but for a term of a predetermined time, would "the international" object? Would stewarts get tired of demand after demand from svwiki to take the admin rights from admins whose one year term run out, or would it be seen as OK?
It is difficult to puch the question, as long as we don't know if the argument "it would not be allowed" is correct or not.
Considering that de, nl, and meta all currently elect admins for terms, I should imagine that it would be permitted.
Kelly
On 9/30/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Considering that de, nl, and meta all currently elect admins for terms, I should imagine that it would be permitted.
I don't see any reason it wouldn't be permitted, since the stewards are here to make actions the community itself wants. I can see the stewards getting annoyed if there are a lot of desysoppings though.
On 9/30/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any reason it wouldn't be permitted, since the stewards are here to make actions the community itself wants. I can see the stewards getting annoyed if there are a lot of desysoppings though.
If they get annoyed, they ignore the requests. There's no requirement for any particular steward to deal with requests they don't want to do. It would easy enough to find some more people to be stewards if the workload really became too much.
Angela
On 9/30/05, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
If they get annoyed, they ignore the requests. There's no requirement for any particular steward to deal with requests they don't want to do. It would easy enough to find some more people to be stewards if the workload really became too much.
True, and I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to be stewards (mmm power). But if several get annoyed it might take a while to respond to the requests.... :)
You would probably annoy the stewards if you desysop a lot of people, but I really don't think you'll have to desysop as many as you think. This is a good idea, and I tried to get something similar passed on en wiki, and it didn't work....obviously. We have 500 *active* admins, we would have to run several re-elections all the time, constantly. So, remember, this won't scale well.
On 9/30/05, Habj sweetadelaide@gmail.com wrote:
At one of the wikipedias, the one in Swedish, a discussion has arisen if it would be possible to elect admins on a term of, say, one year. Admins whose actions often are questioned would then have little chance of getting re-elected, and choosing not so perfect admins would not be such a big problem as it currently is.
At a previous stage, soneome at svwiki said that this would simply not be possible, since it is so difficult to get someone de-admined. Today there is a functioning structure of stewarts, and I wonder - if svwiki started this system, where admins aren't elected forever but for a term of a predetermined time, would "the international" object? Would stewarts get tired of demand after demand from svwiki to take the admin rights from admins whose one year term run out, or would it be seen as OK?
It is difficult to puch the question, as long as we don't know if the argument "it would not be allowed" is correct or not.
Best, Hanna _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 30/09/05, Phroziac phroziac@gmail.com wrote:
You would probably annoy the stewards if you desysop a lot of people, but I really don't think you'll have to desysop as many as you think. This is a good idea, and I tried to get something similar passed on en wiki, and it didn't work....obviously. We have 500 *active* admins, we would have to run several re-elections all the time, constantly. So, remember, this won't scale well.
500 admins... hmm, at a one-week "election" period, you'd need ten on the go at any given time. We have twelve just now, and it seems to be about that, give or take half a dozen, in the recent past.
Yeah, doubling would clog the page up a bit. Especially *starting* to implement it...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Phroziac wrote:
You would probably annoy the stewards if you desysop a lot of people, but I really don't think you'll have to desysop as many as you think. This is a good idea, and I tried to get something similar passed on en wiki, and it didn't work....obviously. We have 500 *active* admins, we would have to run several re-elections all the time, constantly. So, remember, this won't scale well.
Playing Devil's Advocate, I dispute that number.
I don't think that all 500 are *active*.
We could try it out for Bureaucrats first...
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
Ok, but they would still have to be reconfirmed all the time under a proposal like that...
On 10/1/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Phroziac wrote:
You would probably annoy the stewards if you desysop a lot of people, but I really don't think you'll have to desysop as many as you think. This is a good idea, and I tried to get something similar passed on en wiki, and it didn't work....obviously. We have 500 *active* admins, we would have to run several re-elections all the time, constantly. So, remember, this won't scale well.
Playing Devil's Advocate, I dispute that number.
I don't think that all 500 are *active*.
We could try it out for Bureaucrats first...
Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQz33crMAAH8MeUlWAQgREQf7BavwN/HhYj2tgKUu9ZFLZ2fg+Qxz7wDf oO5SLBC1+GjrZWfkZWVkcZCs8SzWbY1JI/9jPnCjEAVBaxHcxx8zyIPz+ZqLhj/7 W1rsuTU1Vf+tNijPScl9wugBaaRYQJExDoM1yehsFYHToZ46rAjdEvSIQ9XmKa4F HDSmxViJyKAkLrO4/uNSXl0lMlwAiYOE+e+lnUT3j/QYgHgNEvHhEKOvsm6U1LOZ qBAKHYjG8c7sc3XydHRxo0kbnR3uXpSvFCIMHBy9ruj8E3oomdZ2MjLYkyFjjEj8 GTkznrh7fKE3QCulOGTNlKtGGm0MAewvrzCdWjlpB4/Zg0+Rp+0LOQ== =Lzrp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Habj wrote:
At one of the wikipedias, the one in Swedish, a discussion has arisen if it would be possible to elect admins on a term of, say, one year. Admins whose actions often are questioned would then have little chance of getting re-elected, and choosing not so perfect admins would not be such a big problem as it currently is.
At a previous stage, soneome at svwiki said that this would simply not be possible, since it is so difficult to get someone de-admined. Today there is a functioning structure of stewarts, and I wonder - if svwiki started this system, where admins aren't elected forever but for a term of a predetermined time, would "the international" object? Would stewarts get tired of demand after demand from svwiki to take the admin rights from admins whose one year term run out, or would it be seen as OK?
It is difficult to puch the question, as long as we don't know if the argument "it would not be allowed" is correct or not.
Best, Hanna
I think you should just do what you guys think is best in your current situation. Right now, german and dutch wikipedia are working this way, with a renewal per year. On meta, inactive sysops are removed and we suggest "inappropriate" admins to be removed after a year as well.
So, in all three cases, some admins are regularly removed. Usually, it is not a problem because * there is no urgency (as there might be in case of an abusing sysop) * there is no dispute (as the request can point out to a voting page where a steward can check if the removal is legitimate).
So, it is not a tiring job for stewards.
As for "being allowed", my best answer is "this is your community to decide what you feel is best".
Best
Ant
possible, since it is so difficult to get someone de-admined. Today there is a functioning structure of stewarts, and I wonder - if svwiki started this system, where admins aren't elected forever but for a term of a predetermined time, would "the international" object? Would stewarts get tired of demand after demand from svwiki to take the admin rights from admins whose one year term run out, or would it be seen as OK?
It is difficult to puch the question, as long as we don't know if the argument "it would not be allowed" is correct or not.
Best, Hanna
I think you should just do what you guys think is best in your current situation. Right now, german and dutch wikipedia are working this way, with a renewal per year. On meta, inactive sysops are removed and we suggest "inappropriate" admins to be removed after a year as well.
So, in all three cases, some admins are regularly removed. Usually, it is not a problem because
- there is no urgency (as there might be in case of an abusing sysop)
- there is no dispute (as the request can point out to a voting page
where a steward can check if the removal is legitimate).
So, it is not a tiring job for stewards.
I agree with Anthere .... sofar no-one on nl: who had to go for re-election has not made it, so there was no problem sofar.
Waerth/Walter
Walter van Kalken wrote:
possible, since it is so difficult to get someone de-admined. Today there is a functioning structure of stewarts, and I wonder - if svwiki started this system, where admins aren't elected forever but for a term of a predetermined time, would "the international" object? Would stewarts get tired of demand after demand from svwiki to take the admin rights from admins whose one year term run out, or would it be seen as OK?
It is difficult to puch the question, as long as we don't know if the argument "it would not be allowed" is correct or not.
Best, Hanna
I think you should just do what you guys think is best in your current situation. Right now, german and dutch wikipedia are working this way, with a renewal per year. On meta, inactive sysops are removed and we suggest "inappropriate" admins to be removed after a year as well.
So, in all three cases, some admins are regularly removed. Usually, it is not a problem because
- there is no urgency (as there might be in case of an abusing sysop)
- there is no dispute (as the request can point out to a voting page
where a steward can check if the removal is legitimate).
So, it is not a tiring job for stewards.
I agree with Anthere .... sofar no-one on nl: who had to go for re-election has not made it, so there was no problem sofar.
Waerth/Walter _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
We had recently a debate on this topic on it.wiki and we rejected the idea of confirm votation for sysops on the basis that there would be always one reconfirm elecion going on (current election duration is 2 weeks on itwiki). Anyway, I suppose reasons why sysop wouldn't be recofirmed could be inactivity (not a critical problem in the short term IMHO) or abuse of sysop powers (which should be dealt ASAP).
Cruccone/Marco
On 9/30/05, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
We had recently a debate on this topic on it.wiki and we rejected the idea of confirm votation for sysops on the basis that there would be always one reconfirm elecion going on (current election duration is 2 weeks on itwiki). Anyway, I suppose reasons why sysop wouldn't be recofirmed could be inactivity (not a critical problem in the short term IMHO) or abuse of sysop powers (which should be dealt ASAP).
The only real reason to desysop someone permanently is if they're abusing the power, go crazy (This happened on EN wiktionary a few weeks ago), or being fools. Inactive admins will not harm the project, unless they suddenly come back and assume the rules have not changed in the six months they were gone. I've heard people saying it's a security problem, but I think the more visible admins are more likely to be security reasons.
Additionally, we are using a *plain text* password authentication system. Passwords are encrypted in the database, but if someone intercepts the login packets when an admin is logging in, they have the password. Hacking our system is pretty trivial at the moment. Additionally, there are always viruses and trojans that include keyloggers, which someone could use to gain the password. But, once you get an admin with a keylogger, all security for his account is completely gone, even with an encrypted login form.
And, in the cases of a rogue or hacked admin, it really doesn't take that much effort to get a steward, or in the absence of one, a developer, to desysop them. If their account was hacked, when they return they can explain the situation, fix any keyloggers, etc, change their password, and get the adminship back. If they had a password stealing trojan, they should be taught a crash course on avoiding viruses. I can help with the latter if it's ever needed and they speak english, I'm a virus helper on an IRC network. If they cannot keep their account from being compromised more then once or twice, then de-adminship should be considered, as they are a security risk.
I really think that on the EN wiki, de-adminship should be *much* easier. If there was a process to easily get rid of admins that are harming the system, then people wouldn't make adminship such a big deal. We really need more admins, and nobody is helping by making rediculous oppose votes, like "Has less then 999999999999 edits". Of course, even with such a process in place, we would still have very few admins removed....unless there was a sudden influx of bad admins.
Hi,
On de:, we had this discussion some months ago. Finally, we came to the conclusion that there would be nearly 3 re-elections starting every week which would be to much; nobody can or wans to vote three times a week in re-elections and additionally in new adminship requests. I don't know the situation in sv:; I think you have less admins than de: so it might be possible for you to act like you proposed. I don't think anyone would object if any Wikipedia started to change adminship elections, this is no "international" subject... On de: this problem is now handled like this: If any sysop does "critical" things, everybody can start a desysop request. If a defined number of users agree to this, the admin is desysoped and has to re-request for adminship. If he fails, he won't be admitted to request adminship fro several months; on the other side, if the desysop-request fails, nobody might start another request within 4 months (Yeah, this is german bureaucracy ;-) ).
rdb
Habj schrieb:
At one of the wikipedias, the one in Swedish, a discussion has arisen if it would be possible to elect admins on a term of, say, one year. Admins whose actions often are questioned would then have little chance of getting re-elected, and choosing not so perfect admins would not be such a big problem as it currently is.
At a previous stage, soneome at svwiki said that this would simply not be possible, since it is so difficult to get someone de-admined. Today there is a functioning structure of stewarts, and I wonder - if svwiki started this system, where admins aren't elected forever but for a term of a predetermined time, would "the international" object? Would stewarts get tired of demand after demand from svwiki to take the admin rights from admins whose one year term run out, or would it be seen as OK?
It is difficult to puch the question, as long as we don't know if the argument "it would not be allowed" is correct or not.
Best, Hanna _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
2005/9/30, Raphael Wiegand rdb_wikipedia@gmx.de:
Hi,
On de:, we had this discussion some months ago. Finally, we came to the conclusion that there would be nearly 3 re-elections starting every week which would be to much; nobody can or wans to vote three times a week in re-elections and additionally in new adminship requests
On nl: re-elections are done en masse 4 times a year; this might be too much for de: (50 re-elections at once), but a system where all re-elections are being combined once a month could work out.
Andre Engels
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org