Rebecca a écrit:
On 6/22/05, Anthere <anthere9(a)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