Well said. And guess what: Next year, there will probably be more than there were this year, and so on. Nothing alarming here, really.
On Dec 27, 2007 3:55 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/27/07, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Majorly wrote:
How many of those were because of bad admins though? Sometimes, an
admin
needs a break from seeing extra buttons they no longer want to be
dealing
with, so will request to be desysopped. I don't see that as a problem.
Bad admins of course are a problem, and so are compromised accounts.
Less of
that next year of course, but admins can resign whenever they wish -
it
isn't a problem at all.
Yes, but this is more than we've ever had. I know that Wikipedia has some admins retire, but we had more than last year. I'm not trying to alarm everyone, but this is scaring me just a bit. I've seen a few retirements because of a problem with another editor. THAT is what I'm saying we need to get our act together about.
~Jonathan
Of course there were more than ever before. There are more admins than ever before. There are more articles than ever before. There were more edits than ever before. One must have a sense of proportion here. What * percentage* of admins was desysopped year over year, by reason for desysopping? That would give us a reasonable comparison point, raw numbers are meaningless.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l