Wikipediadiskussion:Administratörer/Arkiv 2012-2013

Borttagande av ej valda och valda personer från listan för val av administratörer

17 juli 2012 kl. 09.26‎ gjorde Rrohdin en redigering av Allexim ogjord med motiveringen "Till och med juli" och gjorde så att det står kvar "Natox. Ej omvald." Andra personer som ej har blivit valda och personer som har blivit valda har fått sina användaridentieteter borttagna. Detta borde också gälla för Natox när nu valet är avslutat för Natox. --Allexim (disk) 17 juli 2012 kl. 09.44 (CEST)

Användare som blir omvalda flyttas upp till listan för nästa period, dvs "t.o.m. juli 2013" eftersom de har fått förtroende ytterligare ett år. Användare som tackat nej eller inte blir omvalda har kvar sina verktyg månaden ut och blir alltså kvar i listan månaden ut. De som är kvar i listan när månaden är slut blir då av med verktygen. --MagnusA 17 juli 2012 kl. 09.48 (CEST)

Den gamla listan brukar inte tas bort förrän verktygen är borttagna (eller åtminstone när användarna är anmälda för borttagning). --MagnusA 17 juli 2012 kl. 09.54 (CEST)

Tack så mycket för förklaringen, MagnusA! Tack också för att du har tålamod med mig och tar dig tid att förklara Wikipediavärlden. Det är mycket som jag fortfarande inte har förstått mig på i Wikipedias värld, trots många år här! Min intention var bara att hjälpa till med städningen. Jag ser ju hur mycket jobb som du gör och tänkte att jag kunde lätta din arbetsbörda lite och då gick det istället käpprätt åt h-vete! Livet är inte alltid lätt! Ha de´! --Allexim (disk) 17 juli 2012 kl. 10.07 (CEST)

Hjälp!!! Allt försvann

Flyttat 21 februari 2013 kl. 08.19 till Wikipediafrågor.

Reelection of administrators

Hi, and apologies for writing in English. Since I barely understand written Swedish, I would appreciate responses in English or German.

My name is Andras Malatinszky, I am one of the administrators of the Hungarian Wikipedia (huwiki). On huwiki, administrators are elected for an indefinite term: once you become an admin, you remain an admin until you resign, become inactive or until you are explicitly removed by a two-thirds majority vote. A group of editors is proposing to change this practice to one where admins would be elected to a fixed term of one or two years, after which they would have to run for reelection. If I'm reading your rules correctly, this is the system you are using.

I would be curious: Is this system working well for you? How often do admins fail to get reelected? Is this the source of any kind of conflict? What are the advantages or disadvantages? Do you ever see cases where an admin makes a controversial decision and then those who don't like the decision vote him/her out at the end of the term? Do you ever see cases where admins avoid making controversial decisions because they are afraid they won't be reelected? If so, is this good or bad?

I'll be watching this space for your responsese. Tack så mycket! Malatinszky (disk) 21 maj 2013 kl. 15.31 (CEST)

Maybe this discussion can be hold at Wikipediadiskussion:Administratörer, better place than the generic village pump? The discussions prior to the yearly elections (in Swedish) are found at Wikipedia:Administratörer#Se även --MagnusA 21 maj 2013 kl. 15.46 (CEST)

I think it is a good way to have it to avoid too huge conflicts if an admin is not doing a good job and you do not want to start a trial. The admin will then prety sure not be elected if he/she is not good. Also if you are inactive you will not be reelected, and thats good too, because new rules might come during a long time out. Adville (disk) 21 maj 2013 kl. 23.15 (CEST)

I will try to answer the questions as I believe the majority of editors would. Still, the answers probably reflect some of my own opinions.

Is this system working well for you?

I think most editors think it works well. Only a small fraction of the elections lead to discussions, even fewer to conflicts. The elections work out smooth with few but not zero exceptions.

How often do admins fail to get reelected?

As far as I can remember between five and ten active administrators have lost their adminship since 2007. This is not counting inactive administrators.

Is this the source of any kind of conflict?

Not in the sense that the de-elected administrators ever claim they should have the rights back. The elections sometimes lead to rather heated discussions, but that does not differ from "first time" elections.

Do you ever see cases where an admin makes a controversial decision and then those who don't like the decision vote him/her out at the end of the term?

No. When administrators have not been re-elected it has not been because of controversial decisions, but rather questions of good/bad behaviour towards other editors, the ability to understand "consensus", the use of the administrator tools against consensus and so on.

Do you ever see cases where admins avoid making controversial decisions because they are afraid they won't be reelected? If so, is this good or bad?

In my opinion it would be bad. But I am not sure I have seen it. On the contrary I think the annual re-elections, at least to some extent, prevents "admin wars" and bad administrator behaviour in general. Administrators who use their tools for edit-warring or ad libitum blocking don't get re-elected – and we know that.

/NH 21 maj 2013 kl. 23.51 (CEST)

What NH wrote generally reflects my own opinion, except that I don't think that it's a bad idea if an administrator avoids a controversial decision for fear of not getting reelected. I haven't seen it, but I can imagine it happening. Administrators should follow consensus like everybody else, so I would hope that an administrator would consider the risk of not getting reelected when he or she considers an action that goes against consensus. (But maybe NH and I have different definitions of "controversial decision". Sjö (disk) 22 maj 2013 kl. 06.57 (CEST)

I agree with that. I was thinking of cases where there is consensus for a certain desicion (a block, say), but also clear that some editors will raise objections. In that case it would be bad if administrators refrained from doing what the community requests only because they were afraid of being thrown out by an angry minority in next election. /NH 22 maj 2013 kl. 07.51 (CEST)

I'm not sure, but I think it became easier to get elected the first time after we introduced this. Before people were thinking "I don't know the candidate that well, maybe he will become a bad admin", and now it's more like "He hasn't made any big mistakes yet, let's try a year as an admin". ⬤Bοⅰⅵе 22 maj 2013 kl. 08.10 (CEST)

We do not have any possibilty to nominate anybody to loose their adminship. We have tried, but not been able to agree about the definition of a successful deadmin-election. A Steward can still desysop somebody in emergency, but we have no other formal process than waiting until the 12-13 months have ended. A few of the most unpopular admins (I can only remember one) have choosen to not ask for a re-election, rather than run a hopeless re-election.

The most frequent reasons that somebody fail to be re-elected is that the activity-level is to low. -- Lavallen (blockera) 22 maj 2013 kl. 08.48 (CEST)

Of the seven cases I remember from last four years who did not get reelected

• three were young and immature, and had problem to listen and to follow consensus and understand the Wikipedia mission.
• two used (too) harsh language. As we in general want to have a nice way of interacting, this has helped us improving our user dialogue
• one turned out to be a troll, before this was found out, he generated a lot of animated disussions

These cases above left us stronger with a more functional community and admincommunity

• then there is one case where I am not sure the No was good for the community. It was one that was very productive but acted a bit too hasty, but redid his actions when given feedback.

Yger (disk) 22 maj 2013 kl. 14.27 (CEST)

During the first two years with reelections, close calls were more common as somewhat unpopular admins came up for reelection, and, as Lavallen mentions, some admins "disappeared" rather than facing reelection. Since then, the system has stabilized. I would expect something similar to happen at huwp.

There have been a couple of suggestions to lower the supermajority needed for election from the current 75%, mostly when almost completely inactive admins nevertheless ran for reelection and failed, but the consensus to stick with the current rules has been quite clear. I have observed that the percentage of support tends to hover around 75% in contested cases, so voting behaviour certainly adapts to the probability that a single vote will make a difference. This also means that if the "angry minority" that NH refers to shows up, they will be offset by users who otherwise would not have bothered if the actions of the admin truly reflect consensus. On the other hand, this means that there's a psychological barrier to voting against in a reelection, since a vote against needs a written motivation to be effective, but such motivations have a tendency to stir up heated discussion. (I write this as somebody who is probably slightly more likely than the average to vote against a candidate for reelection, but I'm more concerned about deletion than about blocks, so I don't think I'm part of the group NH alludes to.)

As a further point to what Boivie said, I also think that it has become easier to drift back and forth between adminship and non-adminship, since no special action is needed to resign other than to wait for the term to end, and since returning to adminship is like a regular reelection. This might help to avoid admin wikiholism (again, speaking from my own experience) and further the idea that adminship is no big deal. //Essin (disk) 23 maj 2013 kl. 00.55 (CEST)

I appreciate your responses so far, and will be checking back for additional comments. Malatinszky (disk) 23 maj 2013 kl. 18.11 (CEST)

I'll have to report a partially deviating point of view in a few details. However, my general opinion is that our system works much better than the alternative with desysopping only after an active vote of no confidence, for a "relatively large" wp (in terms of editors), like ours. However, the system IMHO isn't perfect (but, on the other hand, there is probabily no possible perfect system).

IMHO, there is no absolute distinction between "active" and "inactive" users. We had one admin who (in practise) lost the rights in January (with 28 vots pro and 13 contra renewed adminship; thus more than 2/3 but less than 3/4 for).Actually, the user missed the actual date, and the referendum was held in February. This was typically such a question; was the user sufficiently active or not? A majority, but not a large enough majority, thought that the activity was sufficient.

I might also mention that I've found out that my own activity pattern is incompatible with the svwp consensus about admin continuous activity. I am rather active some months, and then totally absent others (due to other activities, such as teaching). Others asked whether they will candidate for a new or a renewed adminship now and then decline for similar reasons, I think.

Conclusion: If you introduce this system, it might be good to discuss what levels of activities are reasonable first.

One of your questions was Do you ever see cases where an admin makes a controversial decision and then those who don't like the decision vote him/her out at the end of the term? I would say that such effects sometimes may have contributed to an admin missing the 3/4 majority. However, most critics prefer to avoid referring mainly to actions only directed directly against themselves; if they mention them, they do this as part of a more generic criticism.

On the other hand, the vote about prolonged rights to use admin rights of course in a very basic manner concerns whether or not they have used these tools in an appropriate manner. Therefore, less good use of their tools very often is mentioned explicitly or is inferred in the election discussions.

Finally, I'll give a very short résumé of the latest time (last April), when an admin was not reelected. The votes for re-election went 32 to 13; again more than 2/3 but less than 3/4. (I didn't participate myself.) The candidate actually was our outstandingly most active administrator, and a "veteran" administrator. The explicit arguments against (as formulated by the opponents) were mainly concerned about a certain arrogance in discussions, a reluctance to accept that his opinions were not more worth than those of others. There were a few explicit negative references to the usage of his tools among the critics; he had at some point mentined the risk for blocking to a beginner over an issue where he was involved, in such a manner that the newbie thought this to be threat he himself might perform the blocking. There were also several minor examples of this disregard for others. Ironically enough, one was that the user suggested a 2/3 instead of a 3/4 majority limit for electing admins twice within half a year, motivated by several recent elections where admins narrowly lost their rights because between 1/4 an 1/3 of the voters were of the opinion that the admins had been insufficiently active. (It was considered as one of the examples of disregards for "consensi" to suggest this once more so soon.)

Conclusion: If you introduce this system, do try to consider reasonable fractions for qualified majorities carefully. Best, Jörgen B (disk) 26 maj 2013 kl. 00.14 (CEST)

Nomineringsperiod

I texten står att nomineringar kan göras veckan innan månaden så att avslutet kan göras i sista månaden. Vid varje rubrik i listan över admins står det dock att nomineringar kan göras från den första i månaden. Ska vi ta bort texten om veckan innan då detta (i alla fall vad jag vet) inte återspeglar praxis (som verkar vara den första dagen i sista månaden)? /Hangsna (disk) 24 juli 2013 kl. 18.11 (CEST)

Ordinarie omvalsperiod är kalendermånad (för närvarande juli) men visst, vill man av någon anledning börja något tidigare så så är det inte hela världen. Det viktiga är tidpunkten då valet avslutas. Ett tag stod exakta datum (typ 24 juni eller vad någon nu hade räknat fram) men det byttes rätt snart tillbaka till det jämnare 1. --MagnusA 24 juli 2013 kl. 18.24 (CEST)