Wikipedia talk:Limited administrators

message: I created this after seeing the Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges and since I have been thinking about this for a while now (and I hope I'm not copying another endeavor).  There are tons of admins being created recently and while I don't know if this has any corrolation to the recent admin infighting I do find it all worrisome. I didn't add it to the page because it seemed unseemly but this is in many senses to test the waters with some people.  Give them some incentive to stay and show signs of trust while saying, make more edits, do more good and you will become an admin.  It almost seems like at a certain point an editor who isn't quarrelsome and has many edits and has contributed a lot deserves to be an admin.  I feel like Boothy (who opposed me :D) when I say this but I think sometimes adminship is being designated by a lack to those with a lack of bad deeds.  Obviously not universal but I suppose you understand.  Wheel wars are not good things and this can be part of a precautionary measure for a massively growing community (and seems faster paced to me) with systems set up when the community was smaller.  gren グレン 13:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: * Suggestion A: Part of RfA. You can vote support, oppose, or limited admin if you oppose the user for adminship but think he would be served well there.  It could count as an oppose for admin but a support for limited admin.  Supports would count for supports for limited admin if he failed to make admin.  Opposes would, of course, count for oppose to either.
* Suggestion B: Stand alone.  Some page with a process like RfA.  Straigthforward but could be more hassle for bureaucrats.
Discuss? --gren グレン 13:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Process 

message: Please just write if you think this is a good idea, bad idea, what this idea needs to be good, etc.  Just to test the waters. gren グレン 13:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feelings 

message: I wrote something similar around half a year ago, see User:Talrias/Adminship reform. Talrias (t | e | c) 04:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is interesting.  I like the idea of mentors but it seems more impractical for some reason.  It seems like it would take a lot of work to setup and which admins would make good mentors, etc.  You may be right since it does get rid of a lot of what is disliked in RfAs which my idea didn't.  About getting reform, any kind of it, do you think a page like this is the best way to go? or... what do you think? gren グレン ? 10:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the problem with this proposal is that it's going to require a lot of technical alterations. I've had enough troubles attempting to get the tech stuff behind Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges put together, and I originally drafted that proposal in late June. This proposal requires a lot more and it's going to be a major stopping point in getting this implemented if people agree that it's the right way to go forwards. For that reason, I think it's better to come up with a solution which requires little or no software alterations. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You weren't poking the right devs. ;-) Rob Church (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I encourage people to poke Robchurch, he's very responsive.  :)  Anyway, I updated the page to note that there are a few privileges that are more or less already implemented via User access levels, and which are probably even easier to pass than being able to delete articles that are three days old.  --Interiot 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: I'm not opposed to a merge.  Too much odd stuff is going on lately for me to really see any ideas through. gren グレン ? 09:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge