From: Timwi
<timwi(a)gmx.net>
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was just trying
to say that if there are more admins, then it will be easier to keep
problem users with administrative privileges under control,
But that's never been a problem, has it? And that's because there's a
process that ensures that admins are not "problem users". What you're
proposing is to do away with the process, make just about everyone
admins, and then fix the inevitable problem of "problem users with
administrative privileges" by creating even more admins to deal with them.
That is entirely correct - but you're making it sound worse than it is.
We are *already* allowing just about everyone to edit, and then we fix
the inevitable problem of "problem users" simply by having enough
"sensible" editors to deal with them. We have already shown that this
process works well!
My proposal is to fix a completely different problem -- namely the fact
that the current "process that ensures that admins are not problem
users" excludes a load of users who wouldn't be problem users, but
people oppose their adminship because they have some vague fear that
they may somehow turn bad.
(I find it amazing that I have to argue for the wiki principle here; the
only arguments I am using are extensions of all the arguments all of you
use when you tell normal people about wiki and they are sceptical that
it would work.)
Timwi