Wikipedia talk:Adminship in other languages

Using my profound polyglot skills (*coughbabelfishcough*) I have compiled this list from the various other Wikipedia projects. I apologize in advance for any mistakes in translation as may occur - I'm pretty sure I got the numbers straight but I may have missed an extra clause or something. This list seemed like a good idea because there appears to be strong discontent at WT:RFA (I haven't read into depth yet as to why that is) and it never hurts seeing how other projects do things. Feedback welcome, and if people would want to add to the list I suppose the next five would be Japanese, Esperanto, Suomi, Solvencina and Chinese (all with 50000+ articles).

There are some blatant differences between how this works in various languages, which is kind of funny to read about; I'll leave interpretation to others for now.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is very interesting. Many thanks for going to the effort.  What I find interesting is the common factors between most other Wikis which are not repeated here - most others seem to have a straight vote, explicit percentages for promotion, defined sufferage limits, and criteria for de-admin without formal dispute resolution. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, would it be ok to discuss adminship on other wikis? (not just wikipedia). The most recent large wiki might be wiktionaryZ which applies the principle of first trust. Basically you start out as an admin, and get stripped of privileges if you show you can't be trusted with them. Kim Bruning 09:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Great page, Radiant! I added the Swedish deop stuff and the Norwegian bokmål profile. I'll go and check how things are at the Danish one, I haven't been as active there. Haukur 20:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the Danes don't seem to have a very formalized process, with usually fewer than 10 people commenting. All administrators so far seem to have had unanimous support while all who have got significant objections have retracted their applications. The Norwegian nynorsk Wikipedia has a vote but no rules for interpreting it - the text says "if you feel more formal guidelines are needed please feel free to propose some", suggesting they could be based on the English ones or the Norwegian bokmål ones. The Icelandic and Faroese Wikipedias are small and have an informal process. Along with what we already have this exhausts the supply of languages I understand. Haukur 21:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What on earth is a bokmal? (/me reads bokmal) ah, you learn something new every day :) Anyway, I deliberately left out the not-really-big wikis even if I could read or translate them, because they tend to not yet have formalized process of any kind. There's over a hundred wikis with <50000 articles.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the boundary seems to lie around 50k - Bokmål has 75.407 articles and a formal process while Danish has 49.074 articles and a less formal process. Haukur 10:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Table
I think this would read better as a table (with links) since its purpose is comparison (not watching, please )  czar  05:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)