JAY JG wrote:
From: Timwi timwi@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