پرش به محتوا

ویکی‌پدیا:رأی اعتماد مجدد برای مدیران و دیوانسالاران

افزودن پیوند
از ویکی‌پدیا، دانشنامهٔ آزاد

As per discussion with Millosh, he proposed an mechanism in fa wiki to recall all Admins and Bureaucrats after specific period. IMO it would be a great idea and as I heard this mechanism is working in many Wikipedias. I know that this process will be time consuming but I think it worth and make the wiki atmosphere more calm and user can work here without any discrepancy. I think it is necessary for Admins and Crats to maintain at least 50% of the consensus after one year and it shows that they are trustable and all Wikipedians are content of having such Admins and Crats, Regarding this issue please leave your comment here and try to write in english and translate it to farsi for future access. Thanks --کامیار ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۶:۱۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Please bear in mind that, this mechanism may not be useful about Bureaucrats? What happens if such a re-election takes place for a Bureaucrat and he gets 70% supporting votes? Who is going to close the voting and call it a "yes" or "no"? Specially in our current situation, when we only have one active bureaucrat? ▬ حجت/بحث ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۷:۱۳ (UTC)[پاسخ]

ّI think this will be solved by stewarts. but I prefer Millosh describe it briefly and clarify whether this mechanism experienced it others wikis or not? --کامیار ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۸:۳۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

It won't happen, as there would be more than one bureaucrat in our wikipedia. By the way if it happened stewards will do that for us. --Wayiran (ب) ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۸:۴۳ (UTC)[پاسخ]


Well, I think we can solve this problem too. We are voting right now for another Bureaucrat so the problem will not occur because we will do revoting for one of them at a time. I think this process is very good but we should be more careful about timing and such thing. I propose we maintain a list for every admin and Bureaucrat. There will be votes in it when they were elected and if during the time if someone changed his idea about them like oppose to support or vice versa he changes his vote there and if it falls beyond certain percentage we will revote. What's your idea about this?پدرام ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۸:۴۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

This is not applicative. But the overall idea which is the contribution of fa wikipedians instead of respected stewards is welcomed. --Wayiran (ب) ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۸:۴۷ (UTC)[پاسخ]


Why this is not applicable? We will use steward help to fight overruling and it will not waste time. revoting takes two week but this process will give us a chance to do it when ever it is neccessary.پدرام ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۸:۵۱ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Some explanations

[ویرایش]

Here are the points and some more issues which I didn't describe earlier:

  1. Admins and bureaucrats should be elected, but not reelected, but confirmed. This is the same procedure used at Meta for admins and bureaucrats (stewards should be, also, confirmed yearly, but only stewards are voting about them [which, personally, I don't like]). --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۸:۵۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]
  2. Needed majority for electing admins is 70% and needed majority for electing bureaucrats is 80%. --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۸:۵۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]
  3. However, at the confirmation process, admin should reach at least 50% of support (so, not majority, equal support and oppose should be good enouth), while bureaucrats should reach 60% of support. --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۸:۵۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]
  4. If the same person is a bureaucrat and admin, you may divide process: To vote at one place for bureaucrats and at another for admins. But, you may make it simpler: to vote at one place and if bureaucrat gets less than 60% of support, but 50% or more support -- to remove to them just bureaucrat permissions. While the second option is more practical, the first is more fair: someone may be a good admin and bad bureaucrat or vice versa, so it would be good to separate confirmations. It is, of course, possible that some user is a bureaucrat, but not admin (and, of course, if a bureaucrat who is not an admin abuses their permissions and gives to themselves admin privileges, it is a clear example of permissions abuse and anyone from the project may poke stewards, who will remove both permissions to a bureaucrat who abused them. --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۸:۵۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]
  5. There is one more issue here: As far as I am introduced, someone may become an admin only if other admin proposed him or her. This custom is too restrictive and I suggest that you remove that rule. I'll give to you a couple of existing customs: (1) at en.wp anyone may suggest someone else to become an admin, while it is not preferred to do a selfnomination; (2) at sr.wp only selfnominations are accepted; it is not possible that someone else nominate you to become an admin; (3) I think that the most of other projects accept both: nominations and selfnominations. But, it is up to you to decide what would you use. Behind all principles there are some reasons and it is not possible to say what is the best. However, it is true that only-admin nomination is too restrictive. --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۸:۵۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Do you know such a confirmation in other projects if yes please let us know exept Meta? who will apply changes on privileges for example about Crats?--کامیار ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۹:۲۱ (UTC)[پاسخ]

I asked now people from #wikimedia-stewards channel and it seems that is a Meta-exclusive rule. A number of projects have the rule related to inactivity of admins (and bureaucrats): usually, they are desysopped after a short discussion. However, I think that the Meta rule is a very progressive one: periodical confirmation means that it is much easier to deal with probelmatic admins: no one need to be confronted with them. (But, again, this is what I think, and you should make rules for yourself.) --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۹:۴۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]

If community decided that someone is not a bureaucrat anymore (which is not so rare situation), stewards are removing rights. It is good enough just to give an explanation and a link to the voting result at meta:Requests for permissions (at the relevant section) and the first steward will remove bureaucrat permissions. This is something which stewards are doing routinely (and have a lot of experience with possible abusing of such reports). --Millosh ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۹:۴۵ (UTC)[پاسخ]

As I understand, yearly recall and confirmation Admins and BURs don't need to consensus and it would be counting the votes.
I'm thinking about an internal or Local Stewards of farsi wikipedia too and that they could be the same Fa.Wiki Arbitration Committee. Then it could be per case about probelmatic admins, not periodical confimation. صادق ب ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۰:۱۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Then Sandbad would you please make a first proposal?--کامیار ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۰:۱۶ (UTC)[پاسخ]

ویکی فارسی در حال اضافه کردن مدیر است. اصلا فرض کنیم سر سال ۱۰ مدیر+دیوانسالار داشته باشیم. رای اعتماد برای ۱۰ نفر یعنی ۱۰ صفحه رای گیری مجزا که اگر رای مثبت باشد، هرکدام حداقل ۱۰۰ ویرایش موافق و مخالف خواهد داشت. بحث و جدلها به کنار. و این یعنی ۱۰۰۰ تا ویرایش که اگر همه رای اعتماد باشد یعنی ۱۰۰۰تا ویرایش زیادی که میتوانست در مقالات صرف شود.
اما میتوان مبنا را بر اساس حسن نیت بر رای اعتماد گذاشت و رای‌گیری «رای اعتماد» را وابسته به «استیضاح» و «تحلف مدیر/دیوانسالار» کرد. بدین ترتیب که:
چنانکه گزارشات «تخلفات یک مدیر/دیوانسالار» به حد نصابی رسید یا توسط راههای وپ:میانجی و وپ:حل اختلاف و وپ:داوری حل نشده باقی ماند. آنگاه توسط «وپ:کمیته داوری» به «رای اعتماد» کاربران سپرده شود. اجماع توسط «هیات داوری(+دیوانسالاران)» جمعبندی شود و اگر نتیجه منفی بود. مباحث و نتیجه توسط «هیات داوری» ترجمه و به استوارتها اعلام و درخواست رسیدگی کنند. بدین ترتیب یک «استوارت محلی یا داخلی» خواهیم داشت که از جنجالها و اتلاف انرژی بیهوده در ویکی فارسی جلوگیری خواهد نمود. و این به نفع پروژه است. صادق ب ‏۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۱:۵۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]
من اندکی نظر اصلاحی دارم که با پیشنهاد صادق مخلوط می‌کنم و می‌نویسیم :
  • به نظر من انتخاب مجدد مدیران یا دیوانسالاران در ابتدای هر سال (یا هر وقت دیگری در سال) کاری دشوار و وقت‌گیر و تا حدی ناممکن می‌باشد. بهتر است این رای‌گیری مجدد در دو زمان زیر قابل اجرا باشد:
  1. یک بار پس از اینکه هر مدیری یا دیوان‌سالاری برگزیده‌شد لازم است دوباره صلاحیتش تایید شود و به نظر من یک سال بعد از اولین انتخاب مناسب است و البته تنها یک بار این اتفاق بیافتد. شرایطش هم برای مدیران آوردن حداقل ۵۰٪ و دیوان‌سالار ۶۰٪ اجماع کاربران باشد و روندی همانند روند انتخابات کنونی داشته باشد ولی نیاز به اجماعی کمتر می‌باشد. (مطابق با پیشنهاد میلوش که منطقی به نظر می‌رسد.)
  2. در مواردی که احتیاج به بازخوانی صلاحیت بود. در مواردی که کاربران به این نتیجه رسیدند که مدیر یا دیوان‌سالاری صلاحیت داشتن این اختیارات را ندارد و باید دوباره به اجماع کاربران دست یابند می‌توان این پروسه را (به شرط زیر که در ادامه می‌آید) ایجادکرد و تعداد آن برای هر مدیر یا دیوان‌سالار محدودیت نداشته باشد. و شرایط رای‌گیری و اجماع آن مانند بالا باشد.
  • مشروط به اینکه:

هیئت داوری در زمان ایراد این درخواست وجود نداشته باشد. در صورت وجود هیئت داوری وظیفهٔ رسیدگی به لزوم بررسی مجدد صلاحیت مدیر یا دیوان‌سالار به عهدهٔ این هیئت می‌باشد و تصمیمات اتخاذ شده توسط این هیئت لازم‌الاجرا می‌باشد که البته بهتر است بند اول را شامل نشود و این تبدیل به سیاست شود که مدیران و دیوان‌سالاران حتماً بنا به قانون یک بار دیگر صلاحیتشان تایید شود.

  • اعمال تغییرات احتمالی نیز با اعلام به متا و ویکی‌بدها (مطابق بحث میلوش) قابل انجام است.

--کامیار ‏۸ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۵:۱۷ (UTC)[پاسخ]


بحث مرتبط. ٪ مرتضا ‏۸ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۰:۱۴ (UTC)[پاسخ]

All! Please keep the discussion in one language. There are many people who can help you find the correct translation for what you want to say.

About what صادق said (that 10 admins gives 1000 edits each year that could happen in other places) I have to disagree. I've noticed that a lack of such a confirmation process, has already resulted in "thousands" of edits made in talk pages, etc. I think, it is good for us to practice such organizational activities in this Wikiepdia, seriuosly. And finally, I view those 1000 edits as only ten more edits for each average user who votes in all of the confirmation votings. A user who can do 10 more edits in a period of two-weeks (regular voting duration) can surely do lots of useful edits in the article name space along side them too! ▬ حجت/بحث ‏۹ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۴:۲۶ (UTC)[پاسخ]

ترجمه (کلمه به کلمه نیست): ای همگان! لطفاً بحث را به یک زبان محدود کنید. افراد زیادی هستند که می‌توانند به شما کمک کنند تا ترجمهٔ درست آن‌چه می‌خواهید بگویید را بیابید.

در مورد چیزی که صادق گفت (که ۱۰ مدیر یعنی ۱۰۰۰ ویرایش در هر سال که می‌توانست جای بهتری انجام بشود) من مخالف هستم. به نظر من رسیده که نبود یک چنین روند تاییدی تا همان الان هم باعث هزاران ویرایش در صفحه‌های بحث و غیره شده‌است. من فکر می‌کنم که برای ما خوب است که چنین فعالیت‌های سازمانی‌ای را در این ویکی‌پدیا به طور جدی تمرین کنیم. دست آخر این که، از نظر من آن ۱۰۰۰ ویرایش به معنای تنها ۱۰ ویرایش بیشتر برای هر کاربر معمولی است که در تمام ۱۰ رای‌گیری رای بدهد. کاربری که در طی دو هفته (مدت زمان متداول رای‌گیری) می‌تواند ۱۰ ویرایش اضافی انجام بدهد، قادر است در کنار آن‌ها چندین ویرایش مفید دیگر هم در فضای نا اصلی انجام بدهد!

  • I agree with the proposal of annual voting (Hojat's argument is right). there is no harm

in it and it is very useful and it increases the users participation. when there is a strong consensus or lack there of, voting produces results quickly. only when we have something in between we would have longer voting sessions and then the more debate, the better for Wikipedia!عزیزی ‏۹ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۳:۰۰ (UTC)[پاسخ]

  • ترجمه: با پیشنهاد رای‌گیری هر سال موافق هستم. (استدلال حجت درست است.) هیچ زیانی ندارد و بسیار مفید است و باعث افزایش مشارکت کاربران می‌شود. در مواردی که اجماع قاطع وجود دارد/یا ندارد رای‌گیری سریع به نتیجه می‌رسد. فقط در موارد بینابینی رای‌گیری طولانی می‌شود که هر چقدر بحث شود به‌سود ویکی‌پیدا است. عزیزی ‏۹ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۲:۱۶ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Due to other talkings, now I'm agree with the Millosh proposal. "Yearly Admin & BUR Confirmation" but in a simpler way than Electing. It could be just a counting voting not a consensus. In good/regular times, when there is No problematic admin or BUR, there might be even "No Vote" that meant "confirmed". صادق ب ‏۱۱ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۳:۲۱ (UTC) چپ‌چین}}[پاسخ]

Some more issues to think about them

[ویرایش]

This discussion was started as a pure technical one. I think that it is the time to start to think about the meaning. Instead of "voting for friends and against enemies", I suggest that you should define your own rules to be discussed when you are voting about promotion of one contributor to admin or bureaucrat and when you are talking about their confirmation.

So, let's try to define desirable and undesirable characteristics for those situation. Characteristics are divided into "necessary", "desirable", "undesirable" and "unacceptable" for each group. I hope that division is clear enough: One admin has to have necessary characteristics, mustn't have unacceptable characteristics, while "desirable" and "undesirable" characteristics should be used for preference voting. I'll try to add the initial couple of such characteristics, but it should be your job, not outsider's one. Also, when someone is voting pro and contra, they should give a rationale with relevant diffs. To be honest, without relevant rationale I wouldn't count votes; however, again, this is my POV, not necessary your position. --Millosh ‏۹ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۸:۵۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Promotion

[ویرایش]

Necessary

[ویرایش]

Desirable

[ویرایش]

Undesirable

[ویرایش]
  • (add your own)

Unacceptable

[ویرایش]
++Lar: t/c ‏۲۴ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۳:۰۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]
  • (add your own)

Confirmation

[ویرایش]

Necessary

[ویرایش]
  • For admins: Performing 10 or more admin activities in each month. ▬ حجت/بحث ‏۱۲ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸،

ساعت ۱۶:۰۷ (UTC)

It may be too restrictive. It is possible to edit a lot and not have any reason why to act as an admin. Maybe 10 per 3 months? Or one per month? --Millosh ‏۱۳ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۰:۱۳ (UTC)[پاسخ]
This may be, also, too restrictive. If interwiki bots would be globally resolved, renaming calm down and you have, let's say 3 active bureaucrats; it would mean that you will have to have 9 new admins each month as well as bureaucrats should be support each other by not giving permissions if they filled the quota. Something lesser should be better: One per three months or, let's say 5 per year. --Millosh ‏۱۳ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۰:۱۳ (UTC)[پاسخ]

In both cases lesser amount of time (one per month for admins and one per three months for bureaucrats) would be better than longer periods. Admins and bureaucrats should show that they are constantly acting as admins or bureaucrats, but not that they are using their permissions often. --Millosh ‏۱۳ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۰:۱۳ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Of course these values are negotiable, and should be set after thorough review of the previous levels of activities of admins of this wiki, not by personal preference. ▬ حجت/بحث ‏۱۷ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۰:۵۰ (UTC)

agree with Millosh. ٪ مرتضا ‏۱۴ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۴:۳۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

  • (add your own)

Desirable

[ویرایش]

Undesirable

[ویرایش]

Unacceptable

[ویرایش]

Any inactive sysop on Fa.Wikipedia for "6"[نیازمند منبع] months, will be "Removed". They may re-apply through the regular way.

"Sysop Inactivity" have 2 edges:
"Editing Inactivity" means no edits in the past 6 months and less than 50 edits in the last year.
"Sysop Actions Inactivity" means that he have edited but haven't performed sysop actions in the last "2 "[نیازمند منبع]months صادق-Sadegh ب ‏۱۲ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۰:۰۱ (UTC)[پاسخ]
  • (add your own)

Discussion

[ویرایش]

Temporary sysop status

It is helpful for some people to have access to some protected pages on Wiki . In such cases, two options are possible:

  • Temporary unprotection of these pages, so that the user can quietly work on them for a limited time.
  • Temporary sysoping of the user in question so they can edit the protected pages. In this case, the adminship shall be granted with no requirements and approval, but the user will promise to limit their activity to the necessity of their local project. Preferably, the admin status will be temporary.
  • Temporary sysop status will be removed after 30 days.
I think, It needs to be discussed too. صادق-Sadegh ب ‏۱۲ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۰۰:۱۷ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Meta rules as useful for the beginning

[ویرایش]

Just to add that you may adapt Meta rules for the technical part of the adminship. There are some useful rules, like "confirmation doesn't need quorum" and so on. Of course, as I said, if you are willing to do so, you should take them and adapt for yourselves. It is very possible that some rules are not the best one for fa.wp. --Millosh ‏۹ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۸:۵۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

The name

[ویرایش]

I realized now that the name of this article is something like "recalling procedure". I think that you should define one unified policy for adminship (and derivation for bureaucratship). I don't think that some special "recalling procedure" is needed. Maybe you are thinking now a lot about this, but there is no need for two policies related to adminship, for example (one for electing, the other for recalling). Also, strictly speaking, I think that you shouldn't deal with recalling, but with confirmation; as I mentioned before: You will have much more tensions inside of the community if you have a possibility to recall every admin or bureaucrat whenever someone wants that. (Of course, if some admin gonna mad, stewards are online all the time and you are able to call any of them to remove permissions to such admin.) So, the most important is that you should think about admins when the situation is calmed. Non-confirmation of some admin or bureaucrat shouldn't be a kind of revenge, but a reasonable decision: is someone really so bad not to be confirmed? --Millosh ‏۹ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۹:۴۸ (UTC)[پاسخ]

  • Dear Millosh, Best Regards for your mention and spending time for us.
Ofcourse we don't like to recall everytime someone wants. but I talked about recalling admin whenever a quantity of: complaint is available.
I thought that yearly confirmation for whole admins is not necessary and may waste users time and project. but we can recall an admin if there is a number of problem with him.صادق-Sadegh ب ‏۹ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۰:۲۲ (UTC)[پاسخ]

Yes exactly it is not recall but I wrote quick comment under each links there for more clarification. The real name in persian is: Reconfirmation for Admins and Crats I am realy sorry for mistranslation but it was better than nothing there. --کامیار ‏۹ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۲۱:۰۹ (UTC)[پاسخ]

To Sadegh50ir: Confirmation doesn't require quorum. If no one said anything about some admin, this one is confirmed. For example, I am always missing my reconfirmation at Meta :) (as a Meta admin). As well as I am very occasionally a participant of confirmation (usually, to say "confirmed"). In good/regular times, reconfirmation of admins will not be a big deal. While I think that you would have some talks during the first confirmation, I am sure that the second one will be generally very quiet. --Millosh ‏۱۱ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۰:۱۴ (UTC)[پاسخ]

To Kamix: Don't worry. This is not my only misunderstanding here. I am not introduced in my your community and I don't know your language. This means that if I think something, I have to confirm that in talk. And I really don't expect that I understood perfectly everything from the beginning. I realized, too, that I misunderstood your process of nomination (I heard that it is possible that anyone nominates any contributor to be an admin, as well as self-nominations are accepted; I thought before that only admins are able to make nominations). --Millosh ‏۱۱ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۰۸، ساعت ۱۰:۱۴ (UTC)[پاسخ]

برگرفته از «https://fa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ویکی‌پدیا:رأی_اعتماد_مجدد_برای_مدیران_و_دیوانسالاران&oldid=21280281»