Wikipedia talk:Experienced users can give permission

Proposal

Administrators can give permissions to users requesting permissions at WP:PERM. Similarly, trusted users who do not abuse their tools may be considered on this. He/She may give permissions to users of their same user group requesting rights. For example, a rollbacker may give rollback rights to his user group, thus reducing the workload of administrators.Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 13:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Something like this could be workable, and has some merit. My concern and where I would not agree is if Autoconfirmed was able to confer the confirmed user right. A four day old account with ten edits simply has no reasonable expectation of clue to be in such a position. My76Strat (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Definitely, there are more than 15 million users who are autoconfirmed. But what I try say, is stated clearly above. I think it is great. What is your views? Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 12:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The comments below are valid concerns, and enough for me to agree that this well intentioned proposal is not a solution to any problem and is actually more likely to itself be problematic. My76Strat (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• This strikes me as a slightly bizarre proposal, lacking in thought and need. There are no backlogs on the permissions pages, and since members of this group are not community-vetted, I would not trust members of these groups to decide who should also be added to them. Especially true with specific flags such as IP block exemption and account creators. Clearly this is a flawed proposal, so it should be rejected. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• I must echo Peter. There is no backlog on WP:PERM; the workload there is relatively minor. Realistically this would probably have to be limited to rollbackers being able to give out rollback, as I would not trust account creator and edit filter flags especially being distributed by those flagholders, and as for something like IP block exemption, I'd say two out of three requests aren't even dealt with by admins (checkusers will verify if there is a need). But the bottom line is that these are administrative flags and should only be distributed by those whose role as an administrator has been supported by the community. WilliamH (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Just because a user has demonstrated that they can reliably exercise a permission, it does not follow that they are qualified to allow that permission to others. To give a real world example: if I have a driver's license, does that allow me to issue licenses to other people? No. The third bullet point under "Guidelines" actually illustrates a potential problem quite well. How do we know who a user's real-life friends are? Rather than making less work for admins, I see a risk that this proposal would create more work – clearing up mess. – Wdchk (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Groups which require special attention, i.e Edit Filter manager, Account Creator will not be given this facility. This has IP Block exemptors also, as they won't know where the users are situated. Others like Autopatrolled, Rollbacker, File mover, and those will be given this facility.An to Wdchk, we can see them from the user's log, checking who had reverted and whom not. Autopatrolled (WP:PERM/A) is being flooded by NoomBot. Anything in doubt, now?? Dipankan ^{In the woods?} 11:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Four users is hardly a flood. →Στc. 00:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This is a flawed solution to a backlog that doesn't exist. WilliamH (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that this proposal doesn't seem necessary. There are good arguments to be made for reforming some of our administrative processes, but this doesn't seem like one of them. For me, the main issue is that of trust - we may trust rollbackers to use rollback, but that doesn't extend to trusting them to give other users rollback rights. The two things require different skill-sets. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• No. It seems like a fine example of a "solution" looking for a problem. And even then, it has too many inherent faults to be a solution, were one necessary. Sorry. Begoon ^talk 12:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• If there was a backlog or a lack of admins help with WP:PERM then yes, but there isn't one right now, so no.--Breawycker public (talk) main account (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as per comments of User:PeterSymonds. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 21:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry to pile on, but I just don't see what the problem is that this would solve. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• This is not needed, and has the potential to cause problems that we really don't need. LadyofShalott 20:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)