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