On 4/15/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/15/07, Earle Martin wikipedia@downlode.org wrote:
On 15/04/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/04/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Given the number of de-facto inactive admins we already have I don't see much benefit in that approach.
- It would reduce the harmfulness to the community of the present
RFA.
- "De-facto inactive admins" do not harm the project.
I have never understood why Geni considers "paper admins" (a phrase he has used a number of times since I've been reading this list) to be harmful. Geni, would you care to explain?
1)lowers the social pressure on admins to be active.
100 admin actions a month can be less than an hour a month depending on what you are doing. If we could get that our of people our backlogs would be shorter. At the moment we have maybe 300 admins who are active at that rate.
The upshot of this lack of expectations is that people can get the social benefits of adminship without doing the work. It would be nice to change that.
"Social benefits of adminship"? Wikipedia ain't a club.