[WikiEN-l] Short-lived retreat

[Rich Holton]

zetawoof wrote:
> On 2/15/07, Flame Viper <flameviper12 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The point of this status is so that excellent EDITORS (not vandalfighters,  arbitrators, etc) would be able to have special tools that would allow them to easily edit.
> ...
>> The problem is that there are two different fields of Wikipedia work: Editing and maintenance. Editing is the general writing and improvement of articles, citing, cleanup, categorisation, etc...
> 
> None of which require an admin bit.
> 
> On 2/14/07, Flame Viper <flameviper12 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I propose that for the "editor" status (my proposal for a user right between user and sysop), one would have the capabilities to edit protected articles, view deleted revisions, and generally view admin-olny things (but not actually perform sysop actions per se). And they might have a toolbar that would allow them to nominate these things...
> 
> No. Protected articles and deleted articles are protected and deleted
> for a reason: for example, articles are most often protected to end
> edit wars; even admins are discouraged from editing protected articles
> in any nontrivial ways, so I see no reason that certain privileged
> editors should be allowed to ignore protection. For simple protection
> against vandalism, we already have semiprotection and blocking.
> Deleted revisions are similar: they're deleted because they shouldn't
> be visible. (Articles which are entirely deleted are a special case.
> But most admins will send you a copy of a deleted article, or undelete
> one to your userspace, if you ask nicely.)
> 
> So there's no good reason I see for *editors* to be given any tools
> beyond what they've already got. If they need some help with
> maintenance work (as you put it), that's another story - but simple
> editing is already available to everyone.
> 

I don't think that "this user doesn't need the tools" is ever a valid 
reason to deny adminship. Trust is a valid criteria. Need is not.

-Rich