--- Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
Ray Saintonge schreef:
Birgitte SB wrote:
The english Wikipedia continues it's downward
spiral.
There is no accountability for administrators, I
was
even blocked last month without even being told I
was
doing anything wrong beforehand. We really need
to
make certain the en.WP institutes a yearly re-confirmation process like we use at en.WS.
Their
current policies cannot be allowed to continue. .
.
I don't think that yearly re-confirmation will
solve en.WP's problems.
It might get rid of people who have had long
absences, but they are not
the ones causing the problems. A rogue admin can
do a lot of damage
long before the time for his annual review comes
up. Wikisource is
still small enough that you can see what admins
are doing, and you can
more easily deal with a rogue. That doesn't scale
very well in a larger
project where there are entire sub-communities of
rogues.
Ec
A yearly re-confirmation exists on the dutch Wikipedia. There are now 82 sysops.
The are divided in to 4 groups. In the first round users can object against a sysop. The idea is that users evaluate the actions of those sysops and discuss problems. In really that does not really happen. A couple of difficult users object against a sysop and that is it, without any interest to discuss it rational.
Sysops who get objections go to a second round. The others are re-confirmed for one year. In the second round the sysops who have received objections need to be re-elected. The need to get 75% support, what the same is a for becoming a sysop.
I can not remember that ever someone has lost the re-election, if some have it is very rarely. The classic situation is that a very low number of users, mostly the ones who always get in to trouble and annoy people, frequently object against several sysops. And then everybody needs to re-elected them, mostly with very high % of support.
It does happen frequently that sysops who come up for re-confirmation use that opportunity to give up there self there sysop status.
On NL lose inactive sysops also there status after some time without any further procedure.
The concept of reconfirmation I find good but it gives a lot of administrative work to organize those reconfirmation procedures. And the procedure is also often abused be objecting against people by a few that results in a second round so that the community needs to vote again.
-- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community English - Deutsch - Español - Indonesia
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
That is a good procedure to keep in mind as en.WS grows. Right now there are so few sysops that the procedure is quite informal with single-round quaterly reconfirmations. I don't believe an active sysop has ever had a single complaint. So it pretty much is only used to weed out inactive sysops so far.
BirgitteSB
____________________________________________________________________________________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/