Jossi Fresco wrote:
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
Jossi, you say that you are not against having many more admins, but you are against relaxing the criteria for becoming an admin. Do you have any useful suggestions for expanding the ranks?
Relaxing the criteria should have benefits beyond increasing the number of admins. It should help to eliminate the perception that being an admin is a "big thing". Yes, many non-admins overrate the prestige of becoming an admin--and many admins do as well.
I don't think it does anyone any good to minimize the real differences that exist. As an admin, I can view any deleted article any time I want with no permission, implicit or explicit, and no community review. This is a big deal to some non-admins, and there are presumed legal reasons for keeping this distinction. Just telling people to self-nominate for the current, restrictive RfA is not a viable solution to people who may have good reason to view those deleted articles. This is just one example.
If you haven't been following this list recently, I urge you to view the archives and review this thread and the thread on admin burn-out. I think it will help you to understand some of the issues that lie behind some of the recent posts.
-Rich