David Gerard wrote:
On 15/04/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/15/07, John Lee johnleemk@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.
- It would reduce the harmfulness to the community of the present RFA.
- "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