geni wrote:
On 12/14/05, Kelly Martin
<kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/14/05, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 12/14/05, Kelly Martin
<kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
There are way too many admins who shouldn't
be, then.
It isn't as if we have the luxery to say that.
Just what do you mean by that? There's no reason why we need to
continue to grant admin privileges to people who abuse them.
Kelly
We don't have enough active admins. Roveing the ones we do have on any
reasonable scale is not an option.
--
geni
No big deal, remember? Deopping should be as easy as opping, IMO.
Anyway, I think a lot of admins (including myself) have misused rollback
at one time or another, or just misclicked (due to impulse?). I support
hitting people who misuse rollback on the head with a cluestick, but
unless the admin refuses to heed the advice, I'm not sure deopping would
be the right thing. (Though it's always up to the community.) This is
also why I think removing rolled back edits from the page history is a
*bad thing*. Just because it's no longer in the article doesn't make a
particular edit bad. In addition, as others have noted, we'll lose
history of vandalism and disputes. (Although it would be funny to see a
user talk littered with {{test5}}s but nothing in
[[Special:Contributions]].)
John Lee
([[User:Johnleemk]])