[Wikipedia-l] Terms for adminship

Raphael Wiegand rdb_wikipedia at gmx.de
Fri Sep 30 16:53:28 UTC 2005


Hi,

On de:, we had this discussion some months ago. Finally, we came to the 
conclusion that there would be nearly 3 re-elections starting every week 
which would be to much; nobody can or wans to vote three times a week in 
re-elections and additionally in new adminship requests. I don't know 
the situation in sv:; I think you have less admins than de: so it might 
be possible for you to act like you proposed.
I don't think anyone would object if any Wikipedia started to change 
adminship elections, this is no "international" subject...
On de: this problem is now handled like this:
If any sysop does "critical" things, everybody can start a desysop 
request. If a defined number of users agree to this, the admin is 
desysoped and has to re-request for adminship. If he fails, he won't be 
admitted to request adminship fro several months; on the other side, if 
the desysop-request fails, nobody might start another request within 4 
months (Yeah, this is german bureaucracy ;-) ).

rdb

Habj schrieb:

>At one of the wikipedias, the one in Swedish, a discussion has arisen if it
>would be possible to elect admins on a term of, say, one year. Admins whose
>actions often are questioned would then have little chance of getting
>re-elected, and choosing not so perfect admins would not be such a big
>problem as it currently is.
>
>At a previous stage, soneome at svwiki said that this would simply not be
>possible, since it is so difficult to get someone de-admined. Today there is
>a functioning structure of stewarts, and I wonder - if svwiki started this
>system, where admins aren't elected forever but for a term of a
>predetermined time, would "the international" object? Would stewarts get
>tired of demand after demand from svwiki to take the admin rights from
>admins whose one year term run out, or would it be seen as OK?
>
>It is difficult to puch the question, as long as we don't know if the
>argument "it would not be allowed" is correct or not.
>
>Best,
>Hanna
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l at Wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>  
>




More information about the Wikipedia-l mailing list