Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane

From: Garion1000 <garion1000-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w <at> public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of Wikipedia
Newsgroups: gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english
Date: Friday 9th June 2006 22:31:32 UTC (over 12 years ago)
On 6/9/06, Kelly Martin
 wrote:
>
> On 6/9/06, geni  wrote:
> > Not really. No one wikipedian could really effect something with that
> > much inertia.  With admins picking up increaseing control RFA is one
> > of the last ways none admins can really infulence the project.
> > Realisticaly you are looking at a cold dead hands situation if you
> > want to remove it.
>
> Exactly why it needs to be removed now before it becomes completely
> entrenched.  First we started getting people who wanted adminship to
> have control, and now they have adminship, and are taking control.  We
> should have stopped this a year ago, but we weren't paying attention,
> and now we have a lot of bad admins to show for it.


What do you want to use instead? Personally I don't mind RFA that much.
Although I do think the editcountis is getting out of hand. When I started
looking at it in september I think, the limit most people used was 1000
edits, now I already see oppose votes for less then 3000 edits.

If we have bad admins, perhaps it should be made easier to de-admin them. I
do agree that this should not be done by the community, since that could
turn out to be a lynching. (userbox issue for instance) Perhaps by arbcom?
They don't seem to be that busy anyway. :)

Garion96
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
 
CD: 8ms