My own reflection reading this discussion is that there is a difference between vandalism and POV pushing.

For vandalism we have better routines in place and also tools like ORES, and also a system of steward who can acts in cases of crosswikivandals

For Pov pushing and especially cross wiki POV pushing we have no routines in place, and no roles like he steward who can help out for these cases.

I also have only positive experience interacting with stewards, both in their willingness to help and alertness. And they have a very good tone in conversations. And they are a bit separated from the communities.

And my loose thought in the end of my starting mail, was more to be open to having paid something like POV-stewards who can get involved in tough POVedits. And that these can offload the burden on admin when things getting nasty

I am not a supporter of paid editors, and think it would be too controversial having paid administrators.


Den 2018-05-26 kl. 09:38, skrev David Cuenca Tudela:
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 7:41 AM, James Salsman <> wrote:

I'm not sure that's true. Whether it started as a game of Nomic or
not, almost all of the admins have been elected through a certainly
established process.

That someone does an activity or that this person has been elected to
perform an activity doesn't mean that he or she is a professional. It might
be an occupation, but not a profession. On the en-wiki article about
"profession" there are several milestones listed as how an occupation
becomes a profession, the first one being that the occupation becomes a
full-time occupation, all the rest are related to the establishment of
professional bodies that regulate professionalization through training,
ethics regulation, and licensing.

In any case these matters are never clear-cut, they co-evolve over time
based on the needs of the people involved. At this point of time I feel
that the main need is talent retention while keeping the volunteer-driven
spirit. It is not easy to maintain the social order when implementing
changes like these, but I believe that with enough debate and
consensus-making it would be possible to reach a satisfactory solution.

 From my side, I am open to more input, and more exchange of views. After
this conversation it might be interesting to ask the people involved and
see how would they feel by being more supported and appreciated by the
community, then request to the community the necessary action to make it

I think the Signpost article and the email that Anders sent to this mailing
list are very serious and they should be addressed efficiently and
promptly. I personally cannot choose to ignore it, because I think that
there are steps that can be taken and I would like to urge anyone reading
this message to at least join this conversation.

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: and
New messages to:

Reply via email to