On Feb 19, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Rich Holton wrote:
What consequences, Jossi? If "editors can do
as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing AfDs",
then
what possible consequences would there be in having many more admins?
I am not
against having more admins. We have an RfA process, that
although not perfect, it has served us quite well so far. Is there
room for improving that process? Sure.
The reality is that there are significant differences (far more
than you
suggested) between admins and non-admins. Deleting, viewing, and
restoring articles, blocking and unblocking users, protecting and
unprotecting articles...those pop to mind quickly.
Sure, but those tasks are
performed under quite strict guidelines and
our performance evaluated by other editors. That is what we have WP:ANI
But even in that reality, the vague imperative to "think of the
consequences" is not helpful. If you believe there would be
significant
consequences, please tell us about them.
That's is easy, Rich. Adminship carries some necessary and basic
responsibilities based on a deep understanding of how Wikipedia
works. Without such understanding, the consequences of having these
extra privileges in the hands of many will be utter chaos. Don't you
think so?
Those editors that want to carry the burden of the additional
responsibilities of adminship, are welcome to self-nominate, or wait
until a fellow editor nominates them.
-- Jossi