[WikiEN-l] Re: Fixed term sysops.

[Rich Holton]

--- Timwi <timwi at gmx.net> wrote:
> Rich Holton wrote:
> 
> > It's important to de-sysop (without prejudice) the
> > inactive. Otherwise we're deceiving ourselves
> about
> > how many sysops we have.
> 
> I agree with this, but I don't agree to having
> sysops re-voted-on and 
> re-elected every 6 months. It should be possible by
> software to 
> determine inactive sysops and de-sysop them without
> inconveniencing 
> active sysops so much.

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I was not
necessarily connecting the two: I'd say a good first
step in any event is to find out who is inactive and
de-sysop them unless and until they become active
again. This should either be done periodically.

Also, I'm open on the question of how often to review
(re-elect?) sysops. However, time passes very quickly
on Wikipedia. 6 months actually seems like a long
time. (what was happening on Wikipedia 6 months ago?)

> 
> > If indeed being a sysop is "no big deal" as it
> says on
> > [[wikipedia:Administrators]]
> >
>
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators]),
> > then being voted out as one should also be "no big
> > deal", right?
> 
> That page only says it to reduce the amount of hard
> feelings and 
> resulting flaming a little. In practice, however, it
> *is* a big deal in 
> the sense that sysop status is seen as an elevated
> status or a position 
> of authority, consciously or not. I'm sure many
> sysops also feel 
> slightly more powerful or influential than they did
> before they were 
> sysopped, even though few will admit it.
> De-sysopping for such a 
> frivolous reason is thus likely to cause hard
> feelings for the ex-sysop 
> in question.

Of course you're right, Timwi. Being a sysop is _not_ 
"no big deal." Or, to eliminate the double negative,
being a sysop is a big deal. It is an important role,
with some additional privileges. All the more reason
to make sure that the role is performed responsibly.

Voting may not be the best answer. But I truly believe
that we need to give this matter serious and careful
thought. I foresee sysops only becoming more powerful
as Wikipedia grows -- for no other reason than it will
be necessary. Do we have an adequate method of keeping
sysops in line? According to [[Wikipedia:List of
administrators]] 
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators]),
there are exactly 10 former sysops since 2002, of
which apparently only 3 were involuntary. Is this
indicative of a superlative record at naming excellent
sysops, or of inadequate monitoring and discipline?

Please understand that I have had nothing but good
experiences in my dealings with sysops. I have no axe
to grind, no one in particular that I'd like to see
booted.  But there does seem to be some flaws in the
current system.

-Rich Holton ([[User:Rholton]]



	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/