[WikiEN-l] Who monitors Wikipedia?

[Ray Saintonge]

Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
> On Sunday 02 March 2008 08:04, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
>   
>> I share that view. IMHO there should be a mechanism to desysop
>> those who act like they're masters. Since administrators should serve
>> the community, they should not select their representatives
>> for a lifetime. Instead those administrators who loose public support,
>> should loose their administrative powers as well.
>>
>> In order to avoid permanent elections, we could implement a system,
>> in which every registered editor can choose his/her administrator.
>> After some phase-in period, those administrators who loose all
>> their supporting editors should loose their admin powers as well.
>>     
> I've suggested something similar in the past:
> For their initial confirmation, administrators are required to reach a 
> certain, objectively-defined and absolute threshold of votes (not 
> a "discussion", not "consensus", but an outright vote), discounting SPAs, 
> socks, and maybe a few others.  A week after their confirmation process 
> begins, if they meet that criteria they are admins.
>
> >From then on out, they must maintain that support.  A page is maintained for 
> each administrator.  It begins with the original confirmation request, and 
> from that individual users may add or withdraw their support for that 
> administrator as they see fit.  Once a week, on the same day as the admin was 
> initially confirmed, someone checks to see if they still meet that threshold.  
> If they fall below the threshold for two consecutive weeks, they are 
> de-adminned (requiring two consecutive weeks rather than just a single week 
> helps give admins a chance to explain why they did what they did, in the 
> event of a particularly controversial action that may nonetheless have been 
> the best thing to do in a particular situation).
I support the principle, even if I would approach the details 
differently.  I have in the past raised something of the sort in 
relation to policy adoption in general.

Permanent elections or permanent votes are just fine.  They more easily 
reflect changing times and attitudes without having to compete with the 
inertia that accompanies established decisions.  A lot of the people who 
are most vexatious about the strict application of rules seem like the 
kind of people who like to decide on a rule and go on without ever 
having to reconsider the issue again.

Ec