[WikiEN-l] Re: RickK leaving: adminship has become much more than "no big deal" and that's poisonous

Tue Jun 21 22:40:29 UTC 2005

Rebecca a écrit:
> On 6/22/05, Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>If only because rules and habits are no more the same now that they were
>>3 years ago. There is an expectation that the candidate sysop knows the
>>project quite well, know the people, know the rules... and I believe
>>this is also why there is this requirement of number of edits which the
>>english wikipedia insist so much upon. I do not say it is good or not
>>good, I just observe it.
> 
> 
> Have we ever had someone return from hiatus and not know the rules -
> or have serious problems because of changes made while they're away?
> I've never seen such a case.

I do not know the rules any more. In particular the specificities on the 
3R rules :-)

I will not use sysop power any more on en.wikipedia but for issues which 
appear entirely obvious to me; because I think I could possibly not do 
what is currently supported by the community.

Not that it is an issue at all, just a statement.

>>I also think that if an editor away for 3 years just came back now... he
>>would neither know the rules, nor be known himself by current editors.
> 
> 
> If this becomes an issue, deal with it. As it has never happened
> before, I'm a bit cynical.
> 
> 
>>Trust can be gained, or lost. But if it is lost, I see no point in
>>pretending it is still there. It means work for the community to "check"
>>each action of a non-trusted sysop.
> 
> 
> And where's the evidence that this is the case? We've had three sysops
> desysopped, and even then, I don't recall anyone having to
> specifically check each of their actions. There's a big difference
> between angering a small, but vocal bunch of people who hang around
> VFD and RFA all the time, and having serious issues that actually need
> action. In the eventuality that that does happen, this is what we have
> the arbitration committee for.
> 
> -- ambi

Hmmm, whatever.
I do not want to imply you are wrong and I am right Ambi. Please do not.

Only that your certainty in the previous mail that it would be
" a terrible, terrible idea, Anthere" is just a tiny bit shaken by the 
fact already two projects as I know of, chose this way of reconfirmation 
of sysophood (annually I think, not certain though). I do not list meta 
within these two, as indeed it is a bit special project, with less 
chance of edit wars (though there are some).

But the point is, some communities on other wikipedia projects chose 
this path voluntarily. There is no real reason why a community would be 
entirely right to go one way and another entirely wrong to go another, 
and vice-versa. I do not know which is the best way and I doubt I could 
find out alone. But this path was already chosen voluntarily by 
*consensus*. So, it can't be entirely a terrible idea :-).

Ant