On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/2/11 Charlotte Webb <[email protected]>: >> On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Patton 123 <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I know a de-admining process is proposed practically every other day, but >>> this >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EVula/opining/RfA_overhaul>doesn't appear >>> to have had much discussion. What do you think about it? Personally I think >>> it's a good idea, the only draw back being new accounts abusing it. >> >> If the numbers really matter so much, the simplest and fairest >> approach would be to a reconfirmation poll, where anyone can raise >> concerns but "voting" is limited to those who participated previously >> in the user's successful RFA. Sure there may still be sockpuppets or >> meatpuppets, etc. for or against the user in the reconfirmation >> shin-dig, but only if they were already present during the first RFA. >> If we are only looking at the net change in approval rating within the >> same audience, they would not likely have a pivotal impact. > > That doesn't work for admins that have been around a while - most of > the people that contributed to their RFA will have left the project.
And that tells us what? That they were trusted at one stage and might or might not be now. Someone should bring up a list of the really old admins (in terms of RfA) and how many people commented at their RFA and how many of those people are still around. Are there any "mailing list" admins still around (in the very old days, admins were given the bit based on a mailing list discussion)? Of course, many of these old admins are themselves inactive now. Carcharoth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
