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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
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.