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.