zetawoof wrote:
On 2/15/07, Flame Viper flameviper12@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@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