On 8/7/06, Ligulem ligulem@pobox.com wrote:
The problem is rather the other way round: those that are trusted and knowledgeable to edit [[MediaWiki:Common.css]] or [[template:cite book]] shouldn't need to go requesting the whole set of admin tools (or an ambassador title, as someone put it on en :).
Yes, certainly. The tools given to admins are pretty varied, and don't represent one specific role. You could group them like this:
Vandalism: Rollback, [un]banning, [un/semi]protection Page management: Moving special cases, deletion, undeletion (restoring old pages), renaming categories Site development: Modifying special pages like style sheets, skins etc Publishing: Modifying pages like main page which are Wikipeida's public face
The category of "page management" above could even be split to reflect the fact that being able to see old versions of ceratin pages involves a certain amount of trust due to confidential revisions being present...
What else am I missing? Is this a fair categorisation of the tools avaliable to admins?
Now, there are admins (on en) who have been knocked back for admin despite most people agreeing they would make good use of vandal fighting tools. Why? Because they weren't mature enough to handle the other roles.
Should we consider breaking up the "admin" role into these subroles and being more selective about what rights we give whom?
Steve