JAY JG wrote:
As soon as you argue that there is *any* reason to restrict these powers, all your arguments about Wikipedia "assume good faith" principles fly out the window. Now what you're really arguing is not that these restrictions violate Wikipedia principles, but that in your opinion the bar for admins is set too high; that's an entirely different argument.
I don't agree that it's an entirely different argument. I think people are acting in an un-wiki way precisely because the bar is set too high. Having a low bar to entry is precisely the wiki principle.
No, it also makes sense if the abilities are not ones needed to create or write articles, but rather merely needed to administer the project.
You are essentially saying that some people should not be allowed to help Wikipedia in ways other than writing articles. Paradoxical? I find that distinction of yours between "writing articles" and "administering the project" to be arbitrary. Both are examples of helping Wikipedia. I probably do way more of the latter one. It seems that you have chosen that distinction only to support your own argument.
Very little is truly irreversible, but the amount of effort it takes to repair damage goes up exponentially with each power added;
This may or may not apply to the current software situation, but need not necessarily be universally true. The original idea in wiki was to make it easier to repair damage than to cause damage. I don't see why this can't be made to apply to any administrative function too. If a rogue admin goes on a deletion/blocking/protecting/whatever spree, ideally there should be a button for another admin to revert all those changes en masse. That en-masse reversion button wouldn't be useful for causing damage by undoing legitimate actions because legitimate actions do not tend to come in bursts.
prudence balances the damage that can be done with the benefit the power adds.
Yes, but what makes you so sure you're striking the right balance? If there is someone who (assuming this for a second) would use a lot of administrative functions for a lot of good, but is denied adminship out of prudence, then clearly the balance is too far towards the prudence.
Adding admin powers to hundreds of new editors, who have gone through almost no vetting process, will inevitably create all sorts of damage which will almost certainly outweigh any tangible benefits to the project.
As I already said, this is the thinking that leads people to believing that Wikipedia can't work if everyone can edit.
But not only have I refuted this argument already (it doesn't hurt to have more if they don't abuse it),
You can't "refute" an argument by inserting a huge (and likely erroneous) conditional statement in your "refutation".
It is quite a bold assertion of yours that the statement is "likely erroneous". I am no-where near proposing anything that runs the risk of making any substantial number of potential abusers admins. You, like most of the regulars in the adminship votes it seems, think that almost everyone is a potential abuser if they haven't shown otherwise with hundreds of edits every day over several months.
Yes, it doesn't hurt to have more IF they don't abuse it; but the whole process of creating admins is geared towards ensuring that new admins will not be the ones likely to abuse admin powers, and that's just the process you want to remove.
I've said this before -- the current process DOES NOT ensure that anyone won't abuse any powers. It ONLY ensures that the new admins have support in the community. Which is all the worse, because it means that IF they end up abusing their powers, they will even have other admins back them up. It also happens to mean that not abusing any powers is not enough for becoming admin -- rather, you have to fulfill everyone's arbitrary and irrelevant criteria such as submitting more than XYZ edits per day or something. Under the current system, it would even be possible to vote ''oppose'' based on physical appearance, nationality, or any other irrelevant criterion -- the only reason people don't do it is because it's considered politically incorrect.
No, I simply don't know if they're sensible.
Right, but you're also denying them the chance to show you that they are.
They can edit productively and comment sensibly, and in so doing build a track record that indicates they are likely to be a sensible admin as well.
And that is exactly what I would like to be the case, but clearly it isn't -- users (well, at least the one I've nominated) who have done exactly that, are still not admins.
Right, so just because some of these people exist, others should be denied adminship because there is a vague chance they might be one of them. Is that what you're saying?
What is this "denied adminship"? You say it as if its a fundamental right. As for "vague chance", try "high likelihood if we relax they requirements in the way you suggest".
Obviously, I don't think it should be a fundamental right to be admin. But I still think it is a fundamental right to be treated somewhat fairly and sensibly.
Your "high likelihood" assertion is dubious at best. By that logic, most editors should be abusive. In reality, however, a small percentage of potential editors are potential editors-in-bad-faith.
No-one "deserves" admin powers
Right, so we deny it to anyone we please, regardless if we have any reasonable grounds or not?
Here's a bit of an extreme analogy. No-one "deserves" a highly-paid job at our company that requires technical skills. So let's deny it to homosexuals! Don't care how skilled and qualified they are...
If a user with >600 edits, >1.5 edits per day, nominated by an existing admin, and absolutely no history of trouble or ill-behaving for over a year, cannot become admin, the current process is clearly *not* working well.
Why not?
Because this user should be an admin.
Again, I remind you that assertions are neither arguments nor proofs.
Just because you can't see my argument doesn't mean it isn't one.
But what do you think about my first proposal, to just make it so that you cannot vote "oppose" based on number of edits or any other criterion that isn't indicative of bad faith or other problematic behaviour?
As stated above, the former is shorthand for "I don't know enough about this editor yet to trust him with admin powers", and the latter is highly subjective and easily gamed. I would only support this if "support" votes were subject to the same restrictions.
Such as?
Timwi