"Meanwhile, the stewards have had to combat an increasing amount of vandalism on the small wikis, and even though global rollbackers can help some, blocking vandals and deleting nonsense pages ultimately becomes the job of just a few of the active stewards." If global sysops is such a controversial idea, why don't we abandon it in favor of either:
A) More stewards, possibly even with a special election on an emergency basis. B) Get a sysop recruitment drive going on those wikis which need sysops. Either drum up support from within these smaller communities or try and attract interest from older wikis that have plenty of sysops. Of course, the big barrier here might be language. Steven Walling On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Andrew Leung <andrewcle...@hotmail.com>wrote: > > I doubt it will generate enough interest this time around. Many of us are > just tired of seeing this proposal (and its variants) dragging on and on, to > the point that we just don't bother to show up and say no. > > Andrew > > "Fill the world with children who care and things start looking up." > > > > > > From: nw.wikipe...@gmail.com > > Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:55:25 -0400 > > To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Subject: [Foundation-l] Opt-out global sysop proposal > > > > Many of the list regulars might remember the global sysop proposal that > had > > been brought up around May and June 2009. The idea ultimately fizzled, > > because there was simply not enough support to actually have a global, > > non-opt out sysop group. Since then, a new proposal has been drawn up, > which > > is currently running, that allows communities to opt-in to a global sysop > > wikiset, which would allow users in the global sysop usergroup to act as > > sysops only on those wikis. However, the issue with this is that no > project > > has actually bothered to opt-in, so the process has been dead for the > better > > part of a year. Meanwhile, the stewards have had to combat an increasing > > amount of vandalism on the small wikis, and even though global > rollbackers > > can help some, blocking vandals and deleting nonsense pages ultimately > > becomes the job of just a few of the active stewards. > > > > The situation could be easily remedied if there were a global sysop > group; > > there are a good number of trustworthy global rollbackers who would be > > excellent global sysops. I drew up a proposal to automatically opt-in > "small > > wikis" (as defined within the below proposal) into a global sysop > wikiset. > > Global sysops would have full administrator tools on those wikis, but > would > > use them only in response to blatant vandalism. Please take a look at the > > third link and give your opinions about the proposal on the talk page. > > > > 2008 Proposal: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_sysops_(2008_proposal) > > Current process (opt-in), inactive: > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_sysops > > Opt-out proposal: > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_sysops/opt-out_proposal > > > > ---- > > User:NuclearWarfare on all WMF wikis > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > _________________________________________________________________ > New! Faster Messenger access on the new MSN homepage > http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9677406 > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
