1/16 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
On 16 January 2011 07:45, Amir E. Aharoni amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
What they do in the Portuguese Wikipedia is not what i propose; it's only close to it. What's listed at [[en:Wikipedia:Perennial proposals]] is very different from what i propose. I don't propose limited adminship; i propose to retire the concept of adminship entirely, because it's an outdated lump of very different things. (And by the way, i have a habit of re-reading Perennial proposals every couple of months.)
You would have some people that have all the different things and some that only have a few. The former would, in essence, be admins and the latter limited admins.
Nope, it doesn't have to be this way. There should be no "full admins" and "partial admins"; there should be no "admins" at all. There should be people who protect pages and people who block vandals. Some people may have both permissions.
A checkuser, for example, is not a limited admin. He's a checkuser and it's good that it is this way.
Are there any checkusers that aren't admins already? Checkuser is an extra tool given to admins, not a tool given out independantly of other tools.
It's perfectly possible. Why does one need the permission to block, protect and delete in order to check IPs? I can see how blocking is related to that, but protection and deletion? - Not necessarily. It's just historical residue. In fact, some people may say that a checkuser shouldn't have the permission to block. It is simple to solve this: The technical permissions should be separate and each community can decide whether to allow checkusers to block.