1/16 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dal...@gmail.com>: > On 16 January 2011 07:45, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.ahar...@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 entirely, because it's an outdated lump of very different things.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. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
