[Foundation-l] retire the administrator privilege

[Amir E. Aharoni]

1/16 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
> On 16 January 2011 07:45, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.aharoni at 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 entirely, because it's an outdated lump of very different things.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.