Difference between revisions of "Janitorial audit, June 2008"
Latest revision as of 18:57, 17 June 2008
Since the Liaison Reports have been comatose and because of the recent targeted spamming of our less-monitored language versions (:eo), I thought a sitewide audit might be useful.
This only covers sysop activity across language versions, so it might fail somewhat to catch significant janitorial activity by non-admins. But I'll try to cover that in comments (and I'll do a better job for versions that have alphabets that I understand). I'm also skipping :shared and :en, since there is not a significant problem on either, and because anyone reading this can presumably check for themselves. I'm definitely not doing this to put pressure on anyone, or anything like that, I'm most interested to see which language versions are in trouble and might need to be shut down to anon contributions, or shut down completely for the time being. Hopefully, this should also give our tech support team some help in determining priorities.
I left out sysops who clearly do not participate on each language versions (like Evan & KevinSours). Terminology: Active = edits near-daily, Moderate = edits regularly (enough to patrol vandalism at least), Low = infrequent editing, inactive = no edits for 2 months.
The one language version that we might actually consider shutting down is :eo. In addition to being dead, it's been spammed to hell, & I don't think there is any serious effort to get things on this version in working order. Perhaps disabling anon edits is enough, though.
The following smaller language versions have little administrative attention and should be considered in risk of deteriorating: ca, he, hi, hu, ro (:ro to a lesser extent than the others).
Lastly, :fr & :it are both larger language versions and have a good amount of activity, but no administrative support! That's a bit of a surprise, and hopefully we can recruit some new admins for these two sites (or maybe email existing ones to see if they could do some recruiting?).
Carmepla looks like she keeps an eye on things, and overall activity is low. But given the last spam attack, IB disabled anon editing for this version—we might want to review that decision.
de is in reasonably good shape, with a good level of administrative & contributor activity (although Flip's presence is missed).
eo is dead. It suffered miserably under neglect, and there has been so much spam that it would be difficult to get rid of it all. We've disabled anonymous editing, and may need to simply remove the version altogether IMO.
es is still kicking, but not as healthy as one might wish. Administratively, it is covered (right now by Texugo, but at other times in the recent past by Hwk & Nanow jesús madrid), but it's a little dismaying that the enormous flood of new contributors following its feature on El País & Spanish broadcast television didn't produce any new long-term users. Contributions are fairly low, but daily.
Administratively in very good health, and I really can't read Finnish!
This one was a surprise to me—for a reasonably developed language version, it has way too little administrative monitoring. In the last couple weeks I saw what looked like a lot of valid anon edits, but only two logged-in users were contributing! I don't know that anyone is looking out for vandalism on :fr, and that's a little worrisome.
Not much activity on :he. While it's ideal to have at least one moderate user as an admin, :he at least does not look abandoned, and has fairly few daily contributions to patrol.
Despite having a bunch of big-time names on that list, :hi is dead! In the past month there have been only 5 edits. The upshot is that it looks like Cacahuate is watching the site, so :eo-style vandalism shouldn't be a big worry here.
Only 1-3 edits daily on :hu, and only one low-activity administrator on board. This version should be considered at risk for spam attacks.
it is one of our more active language versions, and was recently targeted by spammers. Episteme cleaned it up and IB has disabled anonymous editing, but that's not an ideal situation to be in—:it was getting what appeared to be a lot of good anon contributions. But as long as no administrator's are keeping a closer eye on things, we might have to leave it as is to prevent the spamming from getting out of hand.
A nice healthy language version with lots of active monitoring & contributions. I don't know if it always looks this good, but I'd say :ja should be the envy of the non-English language versions.j
Another healthy version, with a good level of participation beyond the admins keeping watch.
Aside from a generally low level of contributions, :pl is no cause for worry, since Drozdp is keeping a close watch.
Following the spam migration to :pt, IB disabled anon editing, but I think that's too harsh for this language version, as it has very good levels of administrative monitoring.
Fairly low contributions, but Vlad is paying attention on a non-daily basis. The spammers could make a mess here, but only for a few days before getting caught & reverted.
I've been busier with other things than I'd like to be, but a (currently) non-admin is keeping very close watch on :ru. I'd say the version is in great health except for the very small contributions base—we really only have 3 people collaborating right now, with somewhere around 1 anon edit every two days or so. To really make it in the long term, :ru will need more anon contributors showing up, but I'm not sure how to make that happen. Anyway, no need to worry about vandalism on this version.
In great shape, with a respectable contributor base & very active administrator participation.
Virtually nothing is going on here. I presume Jani checks in on it, but the site is dead quiet right now and may be vulnerable to out-of-control spamming. Fortunately, since the site is still very small, spam/vandalism would be very easy to clean up, so I don't think there should be too much concern for now.