[WikiEN-l] Major dysfunction in RfA Culture

[Ray Saintonge]

David Gerard wrote:

>On 15/04/07, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>On 4/15/07, John Lee <johnleemk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>While casually browsing through old RfAs recently, I found a comment I'd
>>>made about adminship being no big deal. I basically expressed my philosophy
>>>as that if you won't do harm (or, more precisely, the harm you do is so
>>>minuscule that it is vastly outweighed by your positive contributions) with
>>>the mop and bucket, you deserve it.
>>>      
>>>
>>Given the number of de-facto inactive admins we already have I don't
>>see much benefit in that approach.
>>    
>>
>1. It would reduce the harmfulness to the community of the present RFA.
>2. "De-facto inactive admins" do not harm the project.
>
The inactive admin argument is a red herring.  I would not object to 
de-sysopping long absent admins providing that if they come back the 
status could be reinstated on request without any fuss.  If they behaved 
themselves while they were here before, why should they fe forced to run 
the RfA gauntlet again.

It would really be nice to see some real statistics about the damage 
caused by inactive admins.  Does anyone have this information?

Ec