Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Activation of view-deleted-pages

Global right?
Please note that there is talk of (and an ongoing poll Metapub, at meta) allowing Commons admins to view deleted material on all wikis other than those that opt out. (via a global rights mechanism...) I would urge en:wp to not opt out, or to grant this to Commons admins on request, more or less automatically. Viewing deleted image related descriptions is very very useful when dealing with the same image on Commons. ++Lar: t/c 15:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (Note for discussion - this is more about an opt-out on a different global option, than the topic of this page. Just in case it confuses anyone. And broadly agree, lar.) FT2 (Talk 17:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Conceptually related, but not the same, yes. Good thinking here should be propagated there and vice versa though... ++Lar: t/c 18:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Oversighters
Does the arbitration committee foresee the need for increased oversighters if this is enacted on a large scale? In the past we have had problems with certain deleted material "leaking" out before oversight was able hide it. Does the committee foresee this as a liabilty to enacting this user right? Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A good point and question. My "off the top of my head" answer, others'll have theirs:


 * This may not be hugely widely passed round, as a user right, and perhaps only to users with specific cause. How many is that, of all users, a small proportion... and mostly (presumably) decent ones. You can never tell. But, mostly.
 * Most oversight requests come in private, a person wont know they exist, whether or not they can see them.
 * We have 1600 admins; I wouldn't count on deletion as more than "stops most people".


 * Although i'd reconsider if a good case was made (for example, that someone might get privilege escalation then loiter in IRC to hear the extremely rare oversight request that's not in private)... my first reaction is "seems unlikely to be a significant problem" for these kinds of reasons. I could be wrong. FT2 (Talk 16:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, FT2. --Ali'i 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletionism has gone too far
CONTEXT :"(Side note - The right might conceivably also be given to long standing users in good standing as a general tool on request, but that is outside the purpose of this request and would be a communal decision. Our interest here lies more with limitations on participation, rather than prurient interest in reading content that has been deleted by administrators for good cause. We note the option but have no view on it; it is not germane.)"

Deletionism has gone too far. I would like to view deleted article pages and discussions about them to see if I could rescue articles that were marginal enough to delete, but could have been saved with a little effort. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thought you were an admin already. But the principle is valid for non admins... there IS a concern here, though, about deleted BLP stuff "leaking out" but I think that can be dealt with... ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "already" as in this is an expected leveling-up? Perhaps another word would be more appropriate than "already"? I don't want to be an admin and have never asked to be one. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies. no slight intended. :) You just carry the aura of someone who knows where their towel is (whatever disagreements we may have had)... my bad for assuming and being too lazy to check. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) A use I hadn't thought of. FT2 (Talk 17:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * which? ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Deleted articles that might give inspiration for good ones". I'm hoping there would be some discrimination as to article, though, by the tone of speech, and not just 20000 re-creations of pokemon and non notable bands though :) FT2 (Talk 18:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if the closing admin made efforts to allow maximum use of the articles by putting borderline cases in an area that non-admin signed in users could see but not others. Articles in this area could be categorized in accord with how close they are to being a useful article to help others to know where their time could be usefully spent; this could also be done by the closing admin. This would make deletion less of a binary choice and allow for flexibility. While I'm at it, I'd like to recommend that admins closing a deletion seriously consider placing the article in user space rather than delete. Some appear to get pleasure at destroying the work of others. Kelly Martin recently admitted at WR that she really got a kick out of pushing others around. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points. The "admins willing to undelete" category is helpful. But I hardly ever get requests... so it's not the entireity. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A number of comparable ideas have been proposed in the past; see WP:PEREN. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the title of this section. Some are moving away from building a comprehensive encyclopedia.  Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Support
I support implementing this right. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is a good idea. I assume a reasonable vetting process, somewhere between rollbacker and RFA.  And an easy come easy go attitude for abuse akin to rollbacker - e.g. using it to recreate articles eligible for WP:CSD.  GRBerry 20:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to be an excellent idea which may take some of the heat out of AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is a sensible move and as said below deletion review should certainly be in the eligable list. Davewild (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If someone has a good reason to see the page (such as a DRV regular) and isn't mental (and it doesn't cause the software major problems, as brought up below), I think this is a good idea. I'm not in favor of widespread use of this because most deleted pages are deleted for a reason and if there's truly a need, a number of admins will provide a copy.--Fabrictramp | talk to me  23:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the ARBCOM proposal proposal made in the name of ARBCOM, but not opening this up as a general user-right unless it is either limited to very long-time and trusted users who could easily pass RfA, including former administrators who left in good standing and those who for personal reasons choose not to ask for the mop and broom, or it had its own RfA-like community-approval mechanism. In his strong oppostion below, MzMcBride brings up some interesting technical points that must be addressed before this goes forward.  I also agree with ARBCOM that when this right is granted to facilitate an editor's participation in a particular area, the right should be revoked when the user no longer has a demonstrated need.  If the right is granted to very long-time, trusted users or is granted after a community referendum/!vote/discussion, then there is no need to revoke it based on lack of need, since it wasn't granted based on need. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Updated by davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  on 19:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC) to reflect new information that this may not be an ARBCOM proposal after all.
 * Yes, fine, let's have it like rollback. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, why not? If a user is active at DRV, AfD or otherwise has demonstrated appropriate need, what purpose is there in restricting her/him from contributing as fully as possible to an area in which they all ready have proven that they can benefit the encyclopedia? The right should be implemented. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  04:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Echoing some of Abeg92's sentiments in the "strong support" section below, I generally support any proposal which gives finer granularity in determining access to user rights than the current system of admin or normal user with virtually nothing in between. Clearly for each right to be granted, there need to be appropriate acceptance criteria, and I take no view on whether the specific criteria proposed in respect of this particular right are the most suitable. But as a general principle, I believe that there may be many users who could contribute more effectively to the project given access to a subset of admin rights appropriate to their actvities, but who have not devoted sufficient accumulated time to the project in order to tick all the relevant boxes likely needed to pass an RfA. &mdash; Alan✉ 04:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

STRONG SUPPORT

 * I strongly support per Village pump %28proposals%29. I cannot think of any logical reason why after making 20,000+ edits since 2006 and having rollback rights I shouldn't be able to see all of my contributions.  Plus, I believe my comments in RfAs and DRVs would be better.  Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly support this, as this is the only administrator function that I have any interest in having. I am a regular contributer to AfD and frequently rescue AfDed and prodded articles, and feel that I could also help at DRV if I could actually read the articles being discussed. I have no wish to go through an RFA because I can already imagine the response I would get if I said that I have no interest in deleting articles, blocking users etc, which most applicants seem to think are the most important activities on Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely support this. There is no good reason why we shouldn't trust established and productive editors with access to deleted material. And there is no good reason to force editors to go through the highly politicized process that is RfA in order to get that access. DHowell (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly in favor. I support this fragmentation of rights, as I see it is returning adminship to be No Big Deal, piece by piece. Plus I think it would be really useful for my work at DRV. Ab e g92 contribs 15:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly support this since it would make it much easier for non-admins to participate in DRVs, RfAs, etc. As mentioned at [version 3.21 (version number estimated)], only 1800 or so users have rollback, and yet it is given out to nearly everybody that asks for it.  As long as the requirements for viewdeleted are significant (9 months, around 1000 edits, actively contributing, and in good standing), there wouldn't be that many people who would have this right.  Also, not everyone who would pass an RfA has the time or is willing to take part in the more involved admin tasks.  -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly support, because deletion could be used in the future for censorship. --Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Eligible groups
One group I'd definitely like to see on the eligible list is non-admins that are DRV regulars. They are regularly involving themselves in deciding whether or not a deletion was correct, and thus seeing the deleted versions of the article in question is obviously relevant. GRBerry 20:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong opposition
I strongly oppose this idea from both a software standpoint and a social standpoint, and I imagine others will certainly agree. Related bugs to this are 12524 and 12667. The former bug was resolved wontfix, while the latter has been suggested to be resolved wontfix.

There are a variety of issues that I'm seeing. The primary issue is that from a logical standpoint, there is a reason this right has not been available in the past to users. Certainly, it is helpful to be able to know that you're not crazy and that you did contribute to a page that no longer exists. However, as others have pointed out in the past, the reason we don't generally allow users to see deleted content is that ... it's supposed to be deleted. There's no guarantee that deleted content will stay around for any period of time, in fact we have been assured that the exact opposite is true. At any time deleted content could simply vanish, though the likelihood of this happening is currently pretty low.

The second issue with this userright is that it further separates user rights. It began with the rollback group. Now we have both accountcreator and ip-block-exempt. Rights are being split more and more often to serve very small and narrow purposes, something that the software was never really intended to handle. Now, of course, the software is in a constant state of change and userrights could be split into a far more customizeable form, however, at this time, it requires a new usergroup, which of course furthers bureaucracy. Stewards are currently able to create global usergroups with custom rights, and that ability may soon be extended to local bureaucrats, but even then, having a usergroup with only one right is rather silly. If the community is strongly in favor of being able to view their deleted contributions and have access to other similar rights, we should strongly consider a 'trusted' user group of some sort. This individualization and customization (which currently requires a 'shell' or 'root' user, of which there are about seven, only two of whom are willing to do en.wiki shell requests) is getting a bit out of hand.

Looking from another angle, the purpose of this proposal is to grant the ability to view deleted content without being able to undelete it. However, nothing stops a user from re-creating a page using deleted content, either on this site or elsewhere. This may not be a huge issue for a lot of pages (and, in fact, may not be done at all by those who would be given this new userright), however it is a concern to take into consideration. We regularly delete articles to only see them quickly re-appear on other sites, directly from Special:Undelete, and that occurs with only admins able to view the content. The problem could really only worsen with more users able to see deleted content.

From the second bug report (linked far above), it also seems that quite a bit of software work would be required to implement this particular feature request (see 12667). I've yet to see any commitment by any developer to work on this issue, so the entire proposal / debate / consensus-gathering may be moot anyway. In addition, even if a developer were to work on resolving this particular bug, I've seen no indication that the sysadmins would be willing to activate such a feature request on this site. (And yes, the unspoken reality is that no matter the consensus reached here, it is ultimately up to those with the ability to change the live configuration files, as we've seen previously.)

All of the above also doesn't take into account that we may soon have Bitfields for rev deleted that may or may not be implemented sometime in the near future. Which, of course, would only complicate any possible software changes.

Upon re-reading portions of the proposal, it would also seem to me that any user who would be granted this right should surely be able to pass an RfA. If not, it truly does call into question why that is. Users who are actively involved in AN, AN/I, suspected sockpuppetry, Mediation Cabal, etc. should, in my mind, all easily be able to pass RfA. Which, of course, would automatically grant them this userright.

Given the above, I believe that allowing more users to have access to deleted content serves little benefit, while causing (or potentially causing) unnecessary bureaucracy, drama, and further embarrassments to the project. (For example, BLP violations that are speedily deleted should not re-appear moments later on another site.) I'm more than happy to discuss one of the many points presented here. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * there are quite a number of well-established editor who do not have admin rights because of problems such as incivility, or lack of interest in some key admin parts of policy--very good reasons not to make someone an admin, but they do not cause problems with passive access. Then there are those who, because of strong views on something or other, know or suspect they  would induce enough people to oppose to make a Rfa unlikely to be successful. There are also many who might pass, but know they will be exposed to negative criticism, and would prefer not to have the experience. And there are modest types also--I know we dont hear about them much, but they are there and doing good work. DGG (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Of all the points I made, you chose that one to discuss. ; - ) From the way I read this, and I bear in mind that this is simply a proposal, the right would be granted to those who are actively involved in particular areas where viewing deleted contributions would be helpful, such as deletion discussions and matters related to Arbitration cases, etc. From what I've personally seen around this site, we only allow those who are civil and who don't anger many people to work in these areas. And those who may be more brusque or uncivil at times are already admins(!). I see two different issues with the line of thought that you presented. The first is the scenario that this proposal is implemented and we allow community votes on who is able to receive the userright. Regardless of the need or merit of the person's need, those who have been uncivil or have induced a good deal of animosity toward them will not be able to gain the support necessary to obtain the userright. The second is the line of thought is that if the community is willing to allow people to have access to this information, they should be equally willing to 'lower' RfA standards for certain contentious people to allow them to become administrators. That is, if a particular person is on MedCom or constantly helps with CfD, MfD, etc., one imagines that their other flaws (the occasional incivility, etc.), could be 'overlooked' by the community, and they would be made an administrator. I hope this makes sense, as it's a bit of a difficult train of thought to articulate. In short, if the community is willing to trust certain individuals with this right, it makes sense (to me, at least) that we should also be able to trust these individuals with the full bit (as it stands today). The type of editor you're describing, one who is helpful in many areas but is unable to pass an RfA suggests to me more of an issue with RfA (which is community-run) than it does to suggest an issue with a particular editor. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well RFA is not going to be reformed, not with the cliques' power at stake. Do you need to be reminded about the travesty of the Gracenotes RFA or the Cla68 RFA? In both cases, it is pretty much a given that SlimVirgin and wikipedia-stalking-l crew decided to purposely tank them because they didn't adopt her views on BADSITES. Do you think that someone as exceptional as SandyGeorgia would stand a chance? And see what happened to Giggy? Keeping RFA political is just what enough administrators and editors want that hope for reform is DOA. Sorry to be cynical, but we should work around the polemics of adminship by reallocating the responsibilities to the point that adminship becomes irrelevant. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * First, please, do not attack other editors. While I agree that RfA is not a Good Thing, you're expecting the same community that currently engages is this process to not create exactly the same type of situation here. If you're so convinced that SandyGeorgia can't become an admin, what makes you believe a vote to give her +view-deleted-revs will pass? A cabal's a cabal, no? And, there's the point that you present: that we should slowly erode the single usergroup in favor of individual rights in an attempt to make adminship (once again) no big deal. However, the issue that I'm trying to point out is that there's a scale issue. How many usergroups do we really want? At this moment, as an admin, I have 43 individual userrights. While some of them obviously would never become their own group (read, edit, createpage), others certainly could be. Which is why perhaps a 'trusted' user group should be examined. If the community trusts these users to view deleted content, is there any reason they shouldn't be able to restore it? I can think of plenty of people who would benefit from the ability to edit the MediaWiki interface or people who would benefit from being able to use apihighlights (allowing queries with &limit=5000 instead of &limit=500). But having individual usergroups for each right is silly with the current setup. Both the software and the community have a bad track record of using poorly-implemented systems instead of finding or implementing a better one. If we want to break up the admin bit, we should do so in a logical and reasonable fashion. Perhaps, as I mentioned in the original post, by allowing bureaucrats to create custom usergroups similar to what stewards can currently create. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, technically the Wikipedia interface is just a php frontend to an RCS database. With the RCS model, things are deleted to keep out of general circulation but not to hide from fellow contributors. In other words, the spirit of deletion is still enforced — the content will not be distributed downstream, but it is still available to the upstream editors for review at a later time. Why is this so wrong? It's worked for over 20 years or more.
 * As for what other sites do with bad things, who the fuck cares? It isn't our business nor our responsibility. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We've emptied the old revisions table previously before, and there's no guarantee it won't be done tomorrow, was my point. And, of course it's our responsibility to ensure that the content that comes from our site represents us well and doesn't do any harm. If we're producing bad things, we certainly shouldn't encourage them to be spread. And as for the issue of why it's so 'wrong' to keep old revisions, the larger issue is one of space and volume. Each revision must be stored, taking more and more hard drive space, and of course, these revisions must be backed up. And with millions and millions of revisions, the likelihood of backing up failing or having issues increases dramatically. However, none of that is really relevant to the issue at hand. The issue at hand is whether we want to add another single-right usergroup. Do you have thoughts on that? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I was originally going to support this, but the more thought I give it, the more problems I have with it. A) There's no log of accessing deleted content, I'm not necessarily saying there should be, but if someone posts the content offsite, we really have no way of knowing who it was, though right now we can restrict it to one of about 1000 active admins. B) There are many things that shouldn't be very accessible. Besides libel and copyright violations, there's a possibility of other illegal content (especially in the image namespace) and things like personal info deleted from userpages. This is more an argument for expanded use of oversight, but as that is less likely to happen, it applies here as well. C) By giving access to deleted history and revision content, one could "pseudo-undelete" an article by copying the text of the last revision and copying the history information to the talk page to maintain the edit history. My support would be contingent on how the right would be handed out. If we hand it out like rollback, then deletion is almost pointless as anyone willing to put in a bit of effort could see any deleted page. If we make restrictions too strong, anyone eligible for it could probably pass RFA, and if they can't, we need to decide if they can be trusted with any admin tools. If its given out automatically based on editcount and account age, we lose all control over who can get it (I don't believe blocking a user restricts this right). Mr.Z-man 21:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are people who could pass RfA but who do not want the headaches that go with the mop and broom. As for content that is blatantly and obviously illegal where the servers are located or where removal has been ordered by a court, oversight or even a server-level deletion with no possibility of recovery other than from backup media might be the way to go. Such perma-deletions should be made only as office actions, however. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well when they give the OTRS quality queue volunteers oversight, that might be possible, but for now oversight is rarely used for things like libel. There are no "headaches that go with the mop and broom" - any headaches are dependent on how they use the mop. Mr.Z-man 23:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was being tongue-and-cheek with the headaches remark. Although, in all seriousness, some people don't want the responsibility that comes with access to these tools or the real, perceived, or self-imposed duty to actually administer the encyclopedia in all areas rather than in the 1 or 2 areas they want to work.  It also goes along with the principle of least privilege in systems administration:  Give people the administrative tools they need, and no more.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I normally avoid per X, but in this case per MZMcBride. All of my concerns have been voiced eloquently. KnightLago (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose depending on how this permission/right/flag/bit/tool/group whatever is given out. Some content, such as BLP violations, personal information etc., needs to stay deleted and hidden. My main concern is if it is given out without stringency, as without stringency it becomes possible to use the tool maliciously. Currently, in order to see deleted content, no small amount of time and energy needs to be put into an account so that it can pass an RfA. If we greatly reduce this requirement, it becomes much easier for someone who wants to see the content for malicious reasons to do so. There are other concerns about the ease of recreating deleted material, explained above and elsewhere, which, while still concerning, are of lesser importance in my mind. If there are very stringent requirements for receiving it, then I am less opposed. Personally, however, my standards would be similar to that of those for an RfA. The reasons for this proposal are also less than convincing. I remain unconvinced that the problem is as large as FT2 claims it to be. As for those who comment at DRV, we have dozens of administrators who will assist an editor in recovering deleted content. There is no reason why an editor cannot ask one of these administrators if he needs to see the content to cast an informed opinion at DRV. Should this proposal pass, I strongly recommend that use of the oversight tool, and what it can be used to hide, be largely expanded, so that the greatly increased risk of private information being released is lessened. On a somewhat related note, I think bundling the new permissions (e.g. rollback, account creator), but not this one, into one new group is a good idea. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on The Villiage Pump (proposals)
Village pump (proposals) has further discussion. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  00:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

How is this an arbcom issue?
If arbcom, as a group of editors, want to help raise this proposal, then fine, but this really is not an Arbitration Committee issue. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not know who should or should not be deciding this, but so long as someone decides in favor of allowing editors like myself who typically participate in DRVs and RFAs, who have been around for years, have thousands of edits, and rollback rights to finally see our deleted contribs, then it will assuredly be a good thing. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how I feel about it, but .. I would like to be able to be someone who could see deleted articles. I like the idea, I like the idea of talking about it and seeing where it goes, but it's not an arbcom issue. The words slippery slope come to mind here. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree completely it should be done in the usual fashion by the community. It would be wrong to accept this as an arb com mandate for it will only encourage them to bring mandates and other legislation, which is none of their business and outside their scope and competence. They can decide cases, and make rules for procedure before them, and that's it.   DGG (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said, it does not matter much to me who should make the decision, I just want after two years of editing and over 20,000 edits to be able to see all the contribs I made and to be able to more accurately comment in DRVs and RfAs. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not an ArbCom issue, this is a community issue that should be developed through discussion and consensus, not fiat. The ArbCom exists "...to impose solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, nor mediation have been able to resolve..." This doesn't qualify as a dispute, there has been no community discussion, etc. This is frankly none of the ArbCom's business. KnightLago (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with DGG and others who have said this is not in the scope of dispute resolution and is outside Arb Com's mandate. I don't care if individual arbitrators want to press for this in the community but they should do so as editors and not as arbitrators. Things like this should be decided in the normal way by the community and not under arb com direction. Sarah 04:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But even if arb com proposed it, that does not automatically make it a poor idea. We should treat this as a proposal from any other editor or group of editors with experience at Wikipedia. There's no reason not to consider it. DGG (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Include WikiProject Spam volunteers
As a fairly new admin (Dec 2007), the most useful tool I received was the view deletions tool. Because my admin work primarily involves spam investigations, I use this much more than the other admin tools I got. If this decision is implemented, I'd like to see our active "spam wardens" get this tool.

--A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Editprotect
Remove extraneous ) in notice box at the top. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Technical implementation possibilities
The determination of how to implement the right is of course already being discussed. There seems to be no mention of deciding what group is to apply and remove the right:


 * Administrators currently have the ability to grant several rights such as rollback and ipblockexempt. Granting this one (provisionally named trusted per VPP conversation) makes sense, but the decision deserves discussion.


 * Bureaucrats can currently grant rights, of course, but I wonder at adding more work to the current bureaucrat workload, especially given the rise due to SUL issues.


 * Checkusers and oversights aren't chosen to grant userrights of any sort. I could potentially see this being in the bailiwick of oversight decisions, especially granting some sort of professional relationship between a trusted user and the oversight who granted them the rights, but that is (again) a community decision.

A point to consider may be that usergroup configuration in MediaWiki is rather flexible. You could grant, for instance, the ability to add or remove the permission to bureaucrats, checkusers, and oversights, and give administrators only the ability to only remove the permission. Or vice-versa. Or create an entire new group to handle rights management on Wikipedia for ipblockexempt, trusted, rollback, and Account creator (say, Manager as a lesser form of Bureaucrat, who would inherit the ability to toggle these groups also).

I'm personally in favor of the "Manager" idea, which could be granted by Bureaucrats (technically). Whether we want an RfA type process for this, ArbCom selection, or something else, is immaterial to the Sysadmins. Kylu (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll
As this topic has been discussed at Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals for several months, I have created a straw poll at Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals/Straw poll for view-deleted. Please share your opinions there, and direct any further discussion to Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals. Cheers! ~ JohnnyMrNinja  08:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The proposal has been marked as "failed to gain consensus", following a statement by the legal counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. See the straw poll page for details.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 23:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)