Ciciarada Wikipedia:Aministradur

Lista

I'd suggest to put a list of the current administrators with dates of service, what do you think? / Suggerirei di aggiungere una lista degli amministratori attuali con le date di elezione, cosa dite? Snowolf 20:42, 17 feb 2008 (UTC)

Fatto, qualcuno riesce a tradurre l'intestazione? Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:52, 18 feb 2008 (UTC)

Policy

Please understand that my background is from English Wikipedia and forgive ideas that may be stupid for small wikis ;-)

First, I think we need to establish a clear policy on reconfirmations, whether you feel there should or shouldn't take place.

Personally, maybe mainly because of my involvement within the English Wikipedia, where there is not such thing as a reconfirmation, I don't like it very much. But a way of holding admins accountable should exist, shouldn't it? On enwiki we have an Arbitration Committee, but such thing is out of the question here, due to the small size of the community.

So, unless there are others ideas - which I think everybody familiar with reconfirmations will probably welcome - I must concede that they are the only way to deal with the accountability is reconfirmation.

I think that we should take into consideration that this is a small community. How about that if anybody who has suffrage (another thing to establish) ask for reconfirmation, we run it?

I'd also like to hear about the suffrage. Coming from enwiki, I like the idea of theoretical suffrage for any registered user. But it goes along with a good number of 'crats and plenty of discretional authority. More than one controversial RFA (Request for Adminship, the name of the adminship candidates pages on enwiki) has been ended with a onwiki "Bureaucrat chat". But let's not get carried away.

So, especially since I understand that the last candidate has been promoted by a steward as our only 'crat, Kemmotar, is currently inactive (I'm not aware if he was emailed, as I found him responsive in the past - I just sent him a mail regarding the queue we have on bot approvals - any steward which happens to read this, please do not approve yet, if we don't hear from him, and as the other 'crat has retired, the community, with all due respects to the current 'crats will probably hold an election on the subject), I think we need a clear suffrage requirement.

While I feel uncomfortable with naming numbers, I recognize somebody has to, so my proposal is something around 50 edits 1-2 months before the election starts? Just to say a number, it doesn't mean much to me. Feel free to blast me, of course. I'll surely appreciate ;-)

As for the % about RFAs, my roots in the English Wikipedia community suggest me something like from 75% on nearly automatic, from 70% 'crat discretion. But's it's not a major issue. Some input from the current crat would be probably helpful.

Also I suggest that there would be no requisite (or, if you prefer, only the suffrage - not major for me) for the candidates. It will be up to the community to not allow unworthy candidates to pass election, not to policy (in my humble view).

As for 'crat elections, I feel that something like 80-85% should do, again IMHO.

Other question, should flags be removed for inactivity? As just notice, enwiki doesn't, but maybe something like a modified version of Meta's system should work. What about no requisite of activity, but we set a guideline as what active means and we suggest that users with suffrage can ask not to reconfirm because of inactivity.

Also I'd suggest we run thing more informally here, no need for hundreds of policies to do anything, while I must say that I enjoy trying to help in policy writing, as I definitive suck as article writer ;-)

I'm sure there was more that I wanted to state, but I think I've bored you all enough ;-) I hope to hear back from you on my proposal. Sorry for not being able to written in any Lombard dialect, I'm sincerely sorry, but I'm not able to. If it's needed, I can translate this in Italian, drop me a note on my talk ;-)

Looking forward to build finally a great Lombard Encyclopedia, I wish you all happy editing,

Snowolf 00:08, 18 feb 2008 (UTC)

No further input? :( Snowolf ^{Comè che pòdi juttà?} 01:06, 22 mrz 2008 (UTC)

Nessuno interessato? Traduco in Italiano? Snowolf ^{Comè che pòdi juttà?} 13:19, 6 apr 2008 (UTC)

Further considerations

I've noticed that much of the administrators have come here just to delete pages created by the bots and then gradually left, when the work to build a solid community still has to be done. As I've already said, I'm awfully sorry not to be able to contribute more, but I really can't write or speak Lombard and I have major problems even in reading it. I believe that we should implement a activity requirement, and remove some admins who have done little or no admin work, and are inactive even as editors. It seems to me that some admins forgot there was a Lombard Wikipedia as soon as the easy work (deleting crap) was done and the hard one (rebuilding the project, translate, etc) started. It's very sad. Snowolf ^{Comè che pòdi juttà?} 17:44, 16 apr 2008 (UTC)

So d'acord sa tüt. --L'om da pi de Coldom 20:55, 16 apr 2008 (UTC)

Mi pare di aver già scritto in tempi non sospetti che la mia candidatura era a termine e dovuta all'emergenza (che percepivo). Non so quanto tempo potrò dedicare a lmo, credo molto poco, anche alla luce del fatto che (in generale) sto dedicando molto meno sforzo di un tempo a favore dei progetti wiki*. E' contrario alla mia filosofia wikipediana dimettermi dalle funzioni di amministratore, ma non troverei nulla di male, o di sorprendente, se mi venissero tolte le funzioni aggiuntive alla luce di quanto ho appena ribadito. --Draco "Brambilla Piras" Roboter 22:12, 16 apr 2008 (UTC)