User:Addihockey10/Admin-by-function

=Anti-Vandalism admins=

Abilities

 * Blocking tool to deal only with vandals and inappropriate usernames at WP:UAA
 * Deletion tool - To be used in blatant vandalism/attack page deletion.
 * Revdelete - Please read Revdelete article
 * Page protection - To protect pages listed at WP:RPP

Problems

 * Issue 1: Going out of the "approved" areas of work.
 * Solution: Ideas?
 * Most blocks and unblocks that become controversial are of vested contributors. If Anti-Vandal adminlites were limited by the developers so they simply couldn't block or unblock accounts with over 100 edits then the situation would be resolved as few vandalism only accounts get to 100 edits before being blocked.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Issue 2: Deletion and revdelete are specifically excluded by the Foundation from being given to anyone except administrators.
 * Solution: Remove revision delete and WP:Deletion from their rights I guess.
 * Alt Solution. If the foundation was unwilling to allow non-admins to see deleted revisions then we wouldn't have been able to get the researcher right created. My understanding of the situation is that for data privacy reasons the foundation is only willing to have users given the right to see deleted revisions if they have been through some sort of vetting process. But that vetting process does not have to be of the nature of an RFA.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, I believe researchers cannot see deleted text, just the usernames and dates of the deleted edits. In other words they have deletedhistory but not deletedtext.  See Special:ListGroupRights.  Also, I could be mistaken; nobody's ever told me this, it's just what I've concluded based on that page.  —  Soap  —  00:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Additional concerns
Would you say that if it was a sockpuppeteer leaving inappropriate comments on a user's talk page that isn't necessarily vandalism. Would they be "allowed" to block it? Or would they have to wait for a regular admin? -- Addi hockey  10  e-mail 14:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If the tools only allowed them to block where an admin would and if the account has fewer than 100 edits, then the answer is clear in each case, and sometimes only a full admin could block.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions
= Commons copiers =

Commons copiers would help clear out the copy to commons backlog, they would clear the Category:Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons categories as needed. They would also help out with the Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons category and delete the duplicated files themselves.

Abilities

 * The deletion tool restricted to the File: and File talk: namespaces - to delete the duped enwiki->commons images.

Problems

 * Issue 1: Commons copiers potentially going out of the File: Namespace and deleting other things in other namespaces
 * Solution : Restrict the right for them only to be able to delete unprotected files.
 * Comments :
 * Issue 2: Who will want to go for a full RFA if they already have the relevant rights they need anyhow?
 * Solution :
 * Comments : If they do not need the extra rights - they most likely wouldn't go for a "full RfA" unless they're interested in going into different areas. -- Addi hockey  10  e-mail 21:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Issue 3: Will it be a temporary thing, i.e You go for a full RFA after 6 months/1 year or permanent as long as they do their job?
 * Solution :
 * Comments : I don't see why it should be considered temporary - if the user is interested in going into other areas it's their right to decide if they want to go for a full RfA or not, otherwise, they shouldn't be "forced" into going for a full RfA if they don't need/want to. They can decide if they want to stay with the rights they have or to go for more. -- Addi hockey  10  e-mail 21:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Issue 4: Will it be automatically removed if they're dormant for a while, like say 3 months?
 * Solution :
 * Comments : Personally I'd have to disagree. People go on vacation from time to time, people have real-life issues that take priority over Wikipedia. Having their rights removed would only complicate getting them back if they return. -- Addi hockey  10  e-mail 21:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Trawling for info  for my  research  on  RfA as a process, I  have come accross a lot of admins who  do not  appear to  be captured by  the active/inactive stats. To remain  classed as active they  need an extraordinary  low number of edits per month. This is what  gives us a false reading  on  the number of truly  active admins who are making, for example, an average of 5 or more admin interventions per day. Kudpung (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional concerns

 * High administrator standards help ensure a general proficiency with most non-niche areas of Wikipedia work, and lowering these standards while handing out the most powerful tools available to janitors is not something that would help maintain the overall quality of the project. Leo 20:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The standards, as they exist now, are akin to winning a noble prize while training a grizzly bear to ride a tricycle. Compare RfAs from 3-4 years ago with what happens today and you'll likely be shocked. I support the unbundling of these tools and their assignment on a case-by-case basis. Basket of Puppies  04:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This kind of proposal for unbundling the tools has been put forward many times in the past, in many different variations, ie. "admin-lite" etc. you can find many of them in the RfA talk archives. It has never been able to receive widespread consensus. The only thing different I'm seeing about this proposal is the specialized "Commons copiers" idea, which I think could work, if we could restrict the deletion only to the file namespace. -- &oelig; &trade; 21:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a massive consensus right now on VP proposals for the unbundling of filemover from adminship. Now there was discussion of bundling it with something, and this seems promising, but would have had a much better chance of getting a hearing there had this come to my attention last week. It's here by the way.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not all the unbundling proposals have failed. Standards inflation and declining numbers of active admins are not just an EN wiki problem, and I believe that a couple of other language projects have created versions of admin lite. Here on EN wiki WP:Rollback was unbundled three years ago and presumably Account creator was at some point unbundled. What I think would be truer to say is that the community has historically been very reluctant to make such changes, but when they have been implemented they have been very successful.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  13:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with people above, if you just don't have the courage to RfA yourself, then you are no admin. "admin-lite" functions would simply decrease real-administrator's functions and their usability, too. What will be the point of becoming an administrator then if you will be an "admin-lite" with nearly the same functions that most admins do? --Diego Grez (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the Anti-Vandalism right proposal, which personally I don't see going very far, I think the "commons helper" right is an idea with potential. We have backlogs from 2008, (fine 2007 if you count the 1 image), related to transfered enwiki files to commons. Even a bigger backlog to Copy to Wikimedia Commons. Not many regular sysops take care of this, but I notice User:Zscout370 work with it extensively, (forgive me if I haven't named you), but other editors are fully capable to perform the checks related to appropriately licensed media that has been transferred to commons, yet they are prevented from actually clicking the "delete" button, and then 2 years later a sysop comes by and re-checks the image and finally deletes it, rather than a fully capable editor being able to delete it then and there. Just because a user is only interested in specific areas does not mean that they should be forced to branch out to other areas and go up for a regular RFA. -- Addi hockey  10  e-mail 05:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think that the delete function should only be used by administrators. Diego Grez (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the argument against granting prolific anti-vandalism and UAA patrollers who are not admins with specific tools to assist with their goals? Basket of Puppies  05:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That it would lower the Sysop standards -- Addi hockey  10  e-mail 14:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean lowering the standards that are apparently so high as to cause mention in a recent Signpost about a drought of new admins? (See Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-14/Features and admins. I do agree with Basket of Puppies' comment above - I went through RfA several years ago but I wouldn't want to go through the same process as it is now. Tabercil (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying that's one of the common arguments. I agree with you and BoP. -- Addi hockey  10  e-mail 22:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think one school of thought is that these proposals are treating the symptom not the problem and that we should make these editors proper admins not admin lites. Another school of thought is that unless you are a content creator you should not be given the tools to block someone who is. My suggestion earlier on this page might resolve the latter argument but not the former.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Page protection
Rather than a complex unbundling with a package of tools I would suggest further unbundling like the unbundling of Rollback - one specific admin tool that can be used independently of others. Protection/unprotection seems a logical one to me. Occasionally the reasons for a protection or unprotection will involve deleted revisions, and editing protected pages will sometimes require an ability to judge consensus on a talkpage but otherwise the tool is used independently of others. I can see editors whose views on sourcing, incivility or trigger happiness with deletion tags renders them unsuitable for adminship but who could be trusted with a protection button.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)