On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Lodewijk <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi all, > > I'd like to invite the interested people to submit some best practices from > their communities about the bureaucrat procedures. Please let me know what > works well and what not. Appointment, removal, rules of use of the bit. > > Thanks a lot. > > Best, eia > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > On eswiki, the bureaucrat and sysop bits come ina single package (users are entrusted to begin with) and never has ocurred that someone ops a user who hasn't been properly elected (tacit assumption it would imply removal of bits). I think the more trust, responsability and confidence you grant to your users, the more encouragement and chances they act responsibly. And indeed, bureaucrat tasks have come to be considered menial work (which was th reason for the name choosing) It helps that we have a clear set of rules for sysop elections: 75% threshold, no users with less than 100 edits / 1 month at beggining of election can vote, and votes are not required to be explained (after all it's a voting not a debate) although it's common to comment on them on the talk page. Renaming is pretty much standard: a request page, and whoever looking at them that day fulfills the requests. De-bureacratization means de-sysopping, so it¡s seldom done (commonly user resigns, a single case where user was desysopped and it of course also was decratized.). _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
