Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 19:40, 3 June 2024

• The proposal has been withdrawn, and the #Straw poll is closed. Please feel free to continue to discuss (or not) at your discretion.

Discussion on the proposal

• I welcome everyone's thoughts on this, and if anything seems unclear, please feel free to ask me to explain/clarify - jc37 16:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think this makes a lot of sense. I've just returned from a fairly lengthy wikibreak after dealing with some family health issues, and am finding it to still be frustrating at times. I am an OTRS member, and I often need to ping admins in order to see what a deleted file was or what the text on a deleted page was. It isn't that large of an inconvenience, but this proposal would streamline my work along with that of any other non-admin OTRS agents. I also think that some may not approve of just giving the ability to delete pages, files and revisions out to people just because they are on OTRS. I would humbly like to suggest perhaps a second user group for non-admin OTRS agents, with just the ability to view deleted files, pages, and undelete both as well. Anything that needs to be deleted or the like could be given to an admin, or an OS if the situation calls for it. Just my 2c. Regards, MacMed_stalk 17:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• OTRS sounds like a nice example of non-admins who are trying to help out with (among other things) content-related tasks. I don't see why an OTRS helper couldn't request this package from the community. - jc37 17:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think you miss-characterize the outcome of close related discussions. Only in the case of deletion discussion closing is there the outcome that non-admins should avoid closing close or contentious discussions. To the best of my knowledge, the contentious exception to non-admin closes has never extended to non-deletion discussions. Monty₈₄₅ 00:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  You're correct that I was indeed referring to XfD discussions. See also: this. Though I believe that this has also been affirmed for some others, like some RfCs and RMs. That said, my intent was in no way to mischaracterise. - jc37 00:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  I didn't mean to suggest any malfeasance on your part, just raise the issue. There is little documentation on closing outside the Deletion Process, and virtually none when it comes to non-admins, can you point to where an otherwise good close of anything other then a deletion discussion was reversed on the grounds that the closer was a non-admin? I just want to avoid perpetuating any misconceptions regarding the limits on non-admin closes. Monty₈₄₅ 00:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  I'd have to look, but I'm fairly sure that it's not uncommon to see non-admin contentious RM closes reverted. (It's one of the things that has been discussed at WT:MRV.) And I recently helped close an RfC where they specifically asked not only for an admin to close it, but 3 admins to close it. So it really depends and seems to be on a case-by-case basis. - jc37 01:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• By what stretch of the imagination is this a "Technical" proposal rather than a "Policy" proposal? If one wishes to change the policy that only administrators may use these tools, then the technical means of doing so is a straightforward addition to user group settings. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  I suppose if we want to get technical about it, it's a proposal for a technical change, which is designed to be in accordance with policy.

  So it kinda falls under all three VPs.

  That aside, the initial proposals were just for a user-right package to be created. Things just developed into more subsequent to that.

  Anyway, as this is merely a sub-page, I doubt it matters what page it is a subpage of.

  I've already placed notices at VP/TECH and VP/PROP. I'll gladly drop one at VP/POL too. - jc37 21:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  While I was at it, I dropped a note at VP/MISC too. - jc37 21:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• I believe in the basic principle of having a set of tools for people we trust to make (relatively) black-and-white decisions, without necessarily thinking that they should wade into the firing line on extremely controversial issues. So on the plus side, I think the proposed toolset is perfect. If viewing deleted pages requires community consensus, then mimicking RfA does make sense, and if done correctly, a third package would lessen the problems with RfA.However, in my experience the ability to close contentious XfDs is a massive, massive issue at RfA. This proposal is at an early stage, and thus it would be premature to decide that I am definitely against it at this stage. But I will throw my weight against this proposal if there is not a clear safeguard for contentious XfDs. A user with this ability should be considered capable of doing the equivalent of non-admin closures where the outcome is delete, and of actioning CSDs. But they should not be making knife-edge calls at AfD, TfD etc – if the community had faith in them to do so, they would already be able to pass RfA. —WFC— 08:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  If the community did not have faith (trust) in the individual requesting this package to close contentious content-related discussions, then, they should not receive this package.

  If we as a community did not trust the requester to assess consensus in contentious discussions, how would we trust them to assess CSD, or other such situations?

  The goal of this is not to make there to be any less scrutiny concerning the tools and responsibilities given. It's (among several other things, as noted in the various discussions on this page) to grant fewer tools so that the Request process is more focused. The community should not reduce it's scrutiny concerning: editing protected pages and handling deletion/moves/files, and related responsibilities, including assessing CSD, and closing contentious discussions.

  The candidate would not need community trust concerning block and protect or related responsibilities such as closing contentious RfC/Us, as they would not be receiving those tools and responsibilities, though there are those who may say that they would trust such an editor with all the tools (and thus the candidate might pass an RfA), but it should be up to the candidate, not the community to decide what tools and responsibilities they wish to request.

  So this package gives editors another option, instead of requesting all the admin tools, they can request only those in this package. - jc37 13:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Changing visibility proposal

Here is a half-baked idea that might lead to something useful; imagine that someone is working on something that involves making things invisible. (Despite this proposal saying "view deleted text and changes between deleted revisions" it really isn't deletion; it is changing visibility.) He is given two options; first, he can choose to make the material invisible to most editors but visible to those with this new user right. This would be for things like a page that is deleted through AfD or Prod. Second, he can make it invisible to everyone except admins. This would be for things like revealing personal information or copyright violations. Things that are made invisible to everyone but admins should show a brief description of what was deleted and why. Something like "person information about another editor" or "material copyrighted by Tom Clancy". The requirement to provide a description for the visible-only-to-admins material and not to visible-to-trusted-editors material will encourage marking things as being visible to trusted editors whenever possible.

Because this would require software changes, the proposal should specify that all visibility remains as it is pending software support and that after it is turned on all visibility of existing invisible material will be set to visible-only-to-admins unless an admin changes it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I work with OTRS. While I support the gist of your proposal, I often need to see copyrighted info that has been deleted in order to verify that it is the same as what is released in the ticket. Implementing this would reduce the bottleneck occasionally, but given the material usually dealt with on OTRS it wouldn't help too much. Perhaps visible to admins and OTRS members would work for the copyright material that gets deleted. Regards, MacMed_stalk 20:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting ideas. I seem to recall something in the distant past regarding something like the user-right you suggest. I'll have to find it. (it's on meta.) - jc37 20:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

meta:Pure wiki deletion system (proposal)/Misplaced Pages:Pure wiki deletion system - Though note, I have strong doubts on PWD ever gaining consensus. - jc37 20:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Another idea: how about requiring two admins to approve the new user right? That would make it harder to obtain than rollbacker but easier than admin, and would lessen any concerns about abuse anyone may have. We could say that after a year we will have a RfC on whether that number should be one, two, or three admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, this is just an idea I am throwing out there for discussion. I think the process described in the present proposal is superior to this idea. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  In my experience from past discussions, the ability to view deleted material likely won't fly unless gained through community consensus. - jc37 20:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So, why would anyone want this?

"So why would anyone want to request this? Well, believe it or not, such a user-right group has actually been requested repeatedly for a very long time. Variations of: admin-lite; a two-tier adminship; split adminship; probationary adminship; non-blocking adminship; "someone to help with the backlogs"; and so on."

"Admin-lite" has been requested before on the basis that it would incur a similarly "liter" process than RfA, otherwise this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Have I missed something? Equazcion 07:38, 24 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "liter". (See #Just a rant, below.)

But afaik, the ability to see deleted pages will only be considered acceptable if gained through community consensus. My understanding is that this requirement is pretty much non-negotiable due to WMF concerns.

As for it making sense, see Quinn1's comments below. I have seen such comments over and over again over the years. In particular, there are Wikipedians who consider themselves Wikignomes, and as such really don't want anything to do with the block/protect tools, or being expected to deal with behavioural issues. for them, this would be a perfect fit.

Imagine it's like forcing a conscientious objector to carry a gun. They don't want it, they don't want it, they don't want it. And they have little problem with the requirement to go through the full process to get the other tools that may be necessary for them to help out, but please don't ask them to carry a gun.

But you don't have to ever take it out of your holster, some might say. It doesn't matter. They just don't want to carry it or to have any of the potential responsibilities that go with it.

We have a tradition on Misplaced Pages that people may contribute at whatever level they are comfortable with.

This is merely an extension of that tradition. - jc37 14:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to convince me that there are people who would want this rights package as opposed to adminship. I get that. The question is why anyone would request it, if they have to essentially go through an RfA to get it. The proposals for an admin-lite position in the past haven't been rationalized by people merely wanting less rights than adminship, but also a lesser process than RfA to get them. If there are people who merely want something less-than-adminship and want to go through RfA nonetheless to get it, I guess this would give them what they want, but I doubt there are many and this isn't worth the trouble just to give it to them. If viewing deleted edits was the deal-breaker for the WMF, I would remove that right and change the proposal back to requiring a lesser process, as that actually has a chance at providing a significant new benefit to the encyclopedia. Equazcion 20:32, 24 Jun 2012 (UTC)

That's the other thing. One of the things that causes RfA to be what it is, is the idea that it's essentially "for life".

This package has a removal process assigned from the start. The community giveth, the comunity taketh away : )

So I honestly think that this request process won't be anywhere near as "nasty" (as someone else called it). Tough and discerning? Sure. "Nasty"? Not so much. - jc37 22:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You're assuming that the de-facto effect would be a smoother process, but I'm not so sure. I'm not even sure if it should be. The ability to close contentious deletion discussions makes me nervous, as I think that's one of the things that should only be granted to those who've convinced us of their wisdom, ability to self-check, and to remain fiercely neutral, as in RfA. I see it as about on the level of blocking. The ability to remove isn't a comfort on its own either, because judging someone's debate-closing decisions and forming a consensus based on it would be another harrowing experience (everyone who thinks a closing decision was bad and was on the losing side would likely be pigeonholed, for one thing). Equazcion 22:45, 24 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say "smoother". That suggests that there won't be any unsuccessful requests.

I understand that you may see trust with certain tools equivalent to other tools. But that brings us back to forcing tools on editors who don't want them.

This proposal doesn't stop you from checking an editor's contribs to ascertain trustworthy-ness with the tools and responsiblities being requested. Not at all. - jc37 22:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the things that causes RfA to be what it is, is the idea that it's essentially "for life" At the risk of being repetitive, I will mention again that this is not the main issue for the RfA system being reconsidered. The actual problem is the low number of genuine nominations. This is clearly due to the climate that reigns on RfA. Any criteria for 'pass' or 'fail' are set anew at each individual RfA. Why? Becuse not all the same voters vote every time, every voter has their own set of criteria (if any), and some votes are simply in defiance of adminship in general, some votes are 'fan' votes, while others are unresearched pile-ons, vengeance, or simply from new users who do not understand adminship or its election process. Solve these problems, and the issue of the lack of candidates will solve itself. It is unlikely that any proposals to unbundle the tools will achieve consensus, unless some criteria for responsible new page patrolling are introduced - NPP would be one new user right that I would support, and it could include some (very) limited access to the deletion tool. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing domino effect: The fears/concerns about trusting a candidate with adminship "for life" are a key part of the causes of the current "tone" at RfA. And then that "current tone" keeps editors from wanting to apply. Round and round the vicious circle goes.

So addressing the concerns of those commenting would seem to be the way to eventually (domino effect) get what you would seem to wish to see: More qualified people applying.

As RfA is ever reliant upon commenters "trust"ing a candidate with the tools, this will always be subjective. We need to change the paradigm.

So one way to address that is to reduce the number of things which a commenter would need to trust the candidate with. As everyone has different criteria to assign their "trust-level", obviously they will not agree on where that should be.

I chose content-related tools for many reasons. The the uses of many tools are interdependent. And these seem to work decently as a separate package. And at the same time, it removes the behaviour assessment tools and responsibilities which has been long requested as a separate option.

So this proposal simultaneously should help adjust the tone at RfA (though of course domino effects do not happen over night), it helps those who want to help withe the backlog, it provides the opportunity for those who do not want the behaviour-related tools and responsibilities, it provides an opportunity for a smaller group of tools and responsibilities to learn for those who wish adminship to be a two-step process, and so on.

No we can never make everyone happy, but I think this proposal goes a long way towards satisfying many requests that have been made over the years. - jc37 02:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't wish to belittle your idea, I can see that a lot of hard work went into this and it is not just something you threw together in a few minutes, but I think it has a fatal flaw: The community will not trust users with the delete button without the same level of scrutiny as a full RFA, meaning question after question about deletion and strong, instant opposition should they get an answer wrong. In my opinion this is more or less as it should be, deletion is at least as sensitive an area as blocking, as the community has made clear at RFA again and again. Therefore anyone running for this position might as well run for full adminship as the standards will be just as high anyway. we ca tell the community to lower the bar for these users, but we can't make them and anyway standards should be high for being trusted with such powerful tools. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

" The community will not trust users with the delete button without the same level of scrutiny as a full RFA, meaning question after question about deletion and strong, instant opposition should they get an answer wrong. " - I don't disagree. Which is part of why, to get these tools, the requester WILL need to go through what you are calling "a full RFA". I say that very clearly in the proposal. We're not lowering "the bar" (the expectation needed) for trust to use delete or any of the other tools and responsibilities that go in this package.

Though I will say that this mistaken opinion has been said/asked several times on this talk page, so I think I will add a clarification on that point to the proposal to hopefully make that more clear. My apologies that the proposal was apparently not clear on this. - jc37 18:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No, actually it was my impression that it would essentially be an RFA. Which is why I can't imagine anyone bothering with it. For the same amount of grief you could be a full admin and be able to solve problems yourself without having to constantly ask for help from a real admin. There's no point to lowering the level of trust we place in these users while still subjecting them to the same level of scrutiny beforehand. in shortthere is no payoff to this proposal. I can't see how it could possibly help the project to subject someone to the same process as an admin candiddate and then only give them some of the tools, tools which despite the contentions inherint in this proposal have just as great a potential for real harm as the tools they won't be getting. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: "I can't imagine anyone bothering with it", this kind of implies that you either can't imagine that I exist or you can't imagine that I find the power to block to be undesirable. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(de-dent) We're not "...lowering the level of trust we place in these users...". I would want JohnDoe the admin and RickRoe the mod to both be clearly/fully trustworthy with the delete tool before entrusting it to either of them.

And afaik, I never said that the tools and responsibilities that go with being a mod are any less a potential for great harm, quite the contrary. However, I have talked about what other individuals have said/felt. (Some feel that block is.) But that all stems from one's perspective. Personally, I think that most (if not all) of the admin tools, have a potential for disruption. - jc37 23:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-administrator closes

The arguments that would be made against restricting certain closes to non-administrator closes I would make against restricting closes of non-trusty/non-administrator closes. In both circumstances a technical restriction is being used as an illegitimate proxy for a social restriction. However, this is an advance in terms of differentiating the use of the mop to implement content decisions by the community, versus the use of the mop to implement conduct decisions by the community. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have backlogs?

"If backlogs are a problem, get some more admins or find a way to make the ones we have more active."
"To the extent that a backlog of administrative tasks is a problem, the solution is to elect more administrators."
"We've got to do something."

As instructed, I've read the full proposal thoroughly, and I can't see any analysis of backlogs and why they occur. Anyway, even where a significant backlog exists, throwing more people at it isn't the only solution. Take AFD as a test case: what could be done to reduce the number of articles that get nominated? is there a pattern about the way these articles got created? which types of editor prefer to nominate an article for deletion rather than improve it – can we nudge them in the other direction? could we speed things up by having a more efficient way to determine notability? ...and so on. We should investigate such issues before tinkering with admin selection.

Surely it's time to a bit more businesslike about the way things work here. Misplaced Pages is already receiving less commitment from experienced editors and finding it harder to attract clueful new contributors, and that's not going to change overnight. A "real-world" organization can't assume unlimited resources, and we can't either. Rather than artificially increasing the size of our admin pool, we need to slim down our processes. - Pointillist (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC) C/E 22:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion split

• Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37/Discussion

Discussion of the proposal has been moved to a subpage (and it thus obscured). In my view, this is contrary to WP:NOTVOTE and turns substantive discussion into a poll. That limits development of the proposal and the potential for consensus to develop. I don't think that is in the best interest of the proposal or the community. --RA (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your comcerns, but this is done for accessibility reasons. And the page was moved prior to the split to ensure that the new discussion page would be on everyone's watchlists.

This is common practice in large discussions and straw polls such as this one.

I strongly support consensus (as anyone who's interacted with me knows full well). And whoever closes this will obviously take everything into account, regardless of whether the discussion and straw poll occupy the same page - jc37 17:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Doing so unilaterally doesn't look good IMO. Concerns were raised already that you were haranguing those who !voted against the proposal. Moving discussion of the proposal, including criticism of it and alternative proposals, to a sub page could look like you are trying to hide contrary views.

I suggest you stand back a little from "managing" the discussion. If consensus is that the page is too long and to move discussion onto a sub page then fine and good. Another approach would be to move polling onto a subpage. However, first and foremost, this is a talk page. I suggest we follow Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines, including Misplaced Pages:Closing discussions and Misplaced Pages:Archiving. --RA (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

If this gets long enough, we'll likely have to sub-page the straw poll too.

Nothing is being "hidden". (As if we could hide something like this on Misplaced Pages?) I even made sure this would pop on people's watchlists. I've done nothing but try to make sure this was an open discussion (as you even noted that I asked for the watchlist notice.)

Incidentally I had just finished reading the policies related to accessibility, talk page guidelines, page size, and so on.

There's no sinister foul play at work here.

I welcome discussion - I think you would be hard-pressed to suggest that I do not. - jc37 18:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Then let's move it back and follow normal archiving practice until a consensus to the contrary develops? --RA (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

At this point, more shuffling would seem disruptive.

Now I know you will again accuse me of trying to support "hiding" but I'm not. As a matter of fact, I opposed the collapsing of discussion comments. This should be free and open.

But what think I will do is go ahead and provide you with some links showing this to be common practice. After all, policy typically comes from common practice, not the other way round. - jc37 18:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The current Village pump proposals page is about double the size of the poll+discussion pages combined. It's common practice to split when needed, but it wasn't needed at this point, and should've been discussed first. Equazcion 18:36, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the move either. I think a lot of people are going to miss the discussion now. I changed the header to hopefully make it more apparent, but for the record, I don't think this was a good solution, if there was a problem. Equazcion 18:27, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

The box, and the re-order of notices was a good idea. - jc37 18:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This Discussion split went in entirely the wrong direction. I and others expressed concern that the lengthy threads after each oppose vote (but not after the support votes) is haranguing, and that discussion should be in the discussion section, not interspersed among the oppose votes. Instead of addressing that concern, the discussion section was moved where fewer people see it, as evidenced by the fact that anything posted to the subpage gets far fewer replies. If an editor wants his comments to be read, his best strategy is to pick a support or oppose vote and place his comment in the ever-growing threads that each oppose vote generates. In other words, we are rewarding haranguing and punishing posting to the discussion section. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

History merge

I reverted the split, and did a history merge. - jc37 16:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Foundation: selection criteria "exactly the same" as for adminship

Unfortunately, Jc37 insists on removing the following from the top of the page, it is from the Foundation's statement on the proposal:

"...the selection processes for moderators remain exactly the same as that for administrators- using the same criteria, operating on the same page. If the selection criteria or processes should drift from that used for the selection of administrators, we would need to reconsider the position." (emphasis in original)

This is re-iterated by in a clarification from Philippe of the Foundation:

"...while we don't care what the criteria for getting adminship is (i mean, we do, to a certain extent), we do care that it is exactly the same for moderators as for administrators. No setting two different sets of standards.

I think it is important to re-iterate this since it seemingly pours cold water on the idea that (a) access to the proposed user group would easier to attain than adminship; or (b) access to the group would be along different criteria to RfA. --RA (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Cherry picking quotes out of context is simply not neutral. adding the quote without adding the request for clarification is disingenuous in my humble opinion. I presume that every Wikipedian knows how to read, and can click a link. Please calm yourself. people will interpret however they wish to interpret. The best I can do is clarify my proposal, and after that, whatever they decide is fully up to them. - jc37 22:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The Foundation's position is very important. Ultimately, they will decide if the proposal goes ahead and under what terms. Quoting the most significant part of their statement is helpful. The full statement is linked, if you feel that quote lacks neutrality somehow. Alternatively, putting the whole statement at the top of this page would be positive.

You've set out your stall, but I think you now need to take a little step back. Haranguing oppose !voters, moving discussion to a sub-page, and now reverting the Foundation's statement (while at the same time telling others they need to "calm themselves down", etc.) is not conducive to a healthy discussion or consensus building.

Finally (in reply to this post), yes, it is our job is to debate (and convince people of) different things in straw polls. This is because polling is not a substitute for discussion. --RA (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"significant" is in the eye of the beholder. But regardless, my original post applies: cherry picking is not neutral.

And I disagree about "harranguing". Go look through all my comments in the oppose AND support section. I very clearly did not argue with anyone's personal opinion about whether this proposal should "pass". As a matter of fact, I made a point to clearly say that I feel everyone is entitled to express their opinion. I merely have clarified statements, responded to questions/accusation, and of course responded to whatever was said to me.

I think you said something about about how consensus is not a vote. you can't have it both ways. either people should discuss, or they shouldn't.

This needn't be adversarial (hence the 'calm down" comment - though you apparently interpreted that differently than intended.)

I've invited you to discuss several times, and you've continually declined, instead telling me that I should leave so you can do what you want. So how should one interpret that?

I wrote the proposal. If it's opposed, so be it. life on Misplaced Pages goes on. But as it stands, it is what it is (most proposals - except the most black and white ones - by their nature are not necessarily neutral, as they express the perspective of the proposer).

I'd appreciate it if others did not try to bias the consensusal process in their direction. I assure you I'm not trying to bias the process, I have no need to as the proposal already is what it is, and the opposers are clearly speaking what specifically they disagree with. That's how this system is supposed to work. And I trust that the community will assess it however they see fit. - jc37 22:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

@Jc37: You need to stop responding to every "oppose" !vote or critical comment. Even if it isn't harrassment (and I don't think it is) it creates a chilling effect which may prevent people from expressing their opinions. Unless you have something new to say, not every comment requires your response. You crafted this proposal, and opened it to the community, so it's now out of your hands, you need to let it go, and allow the community to freely express its various thoughts. Please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I have offered clarification regardless of whether someone opposed OR supported OR was neutral. Go look. And note, I have NOT commented on every oppose. And further not only have I not prevented others from expressing their opinions, I noted that they are welcome to do so. Go re-read my comments. You're looking for a problem where this isn't one. Besides, RfA and adminship is one of the most debated topics on Misplaced Pages. Does anyone feel that anything said by anyone here is going to stop people from commenting? Very unlikely.

Straw polling isn't a "vote". Please don't treat is like one. - jc37 11:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

However, To (hopefully) reduce the need to clarify a few things here, I have added a section to the proposal. I think (hope) it will help clarify. - jc37 12:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Since we don't have any objective, universal, criteria for adminship, the foundation's statement is meaningless. It doesn't surprise me that a lawyer would write such a thing. They can't possibly mean "just as arbitrary and whimsical". Our actual criteria for adminship is "the approval of 60-70% of the people who bother to comment at RfA" and that's it. Gigs (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

And I think that such community approval would be easier to attain for this intermediate status. That would be logical: less power, less reason to be overly scrupulous and bothersome at giving it out. Debresser (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

As various users have commented, deletion is among the tasks most likely to cause lasting harm. (An editor whose contributions are deleted might never return.) Likewise, the ability to view deleted pages carries significant legal/privacy issues.

Therefore, only the most trustworthy users should possess these tools. The omission of other tools requiring this level of trust doesn't change that. —David Levy 07:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. If someone is trusted enough for "delete" then they can have the lot. --RA (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with the opinion that "If someone is trusted with delete, they can be trusted with all of the adminship tools". But that doesn't mean that they must or even should have all the tools. If we trust them to not abuse the tools in question why do we not trust them to decide that they do not wish tools wish assess others' edits or can affect the ability of an individual to edit?

At some point, we have to decide whether we actually trust them. Else we're just lying to ourselves. - jc37 14:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, we at Misplaced Pages do not even trust admins with all the tools available. CU and oversight and bureaucrat tools, just to name a few. (And some tools aren't even currently assigned to any user group.) - jc37 14:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The Foundation's statement comes as a refreshing engagement. I don't agree with everything the WMF does over the community's heads and consensuses, but I had a hunch that this would be coming. The problem is, that if the community cannot resolve the issue of the bad faith voting and squabbling at RfA, then then only the WMF can come up with a solution - and sooner or later they probably will, or at least when the number of truly active admins falls below par for the essential work. The current proposal, like the one earlier this year, does not address the issue which is purely and simply that mature editors are not going to allow themselves to be pilloried for 7 days. Systems also need to be in place to ensure that the wrong people do not get elected by an overwhelming mass of fan votes, which could present a dilemma for even the most conscientious closing bureaucrat (not that here have been many instances of this). Fears that we have ineffective methods for desysoping are unfounded and are hence not part of the equation, but they would be if there were to be a lowering of the bar or creation of a bunch of mini adminships. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

"... mature editors are not going to allow themselves to be pilloried for 7 days." LOL. This captures AfD perfectly. IMHO the issue is a secret but very deeply seeded belief that adminship really is something special (regardless of whatever Jimbo had to say).

I don't agree with the "pacifist" argument in this proposal — if someone doesn't want to use a particular a tool, they don't have to — but I do know a number of excellent editors (some of whom actually rely on the admin tools) that are put off becoming an admin because of RfA, and all the hassle, accusation and suspicion that follows. Even the Economist (incorrectly) blames admins for all that's wrong with Misplaced Pages. --RA (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There's further clarification now on Phillipe's talk page. Basically they don't want it to be automatic, the way that rollbacker or autopatroller is handed out. As long as we are voting based on trust and not mechanical criteria, they seem to be OK with it. Gigs (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where Philippe said that. On July 1, Philippe added, "...we can't have moderators be 'admin-lite', or a training ground for admins. Promotion must be taken just as seriously ..." That doesn't strike as being any different from the previous position that Philippe said there would be, "No setting two different sets of standards", between requests for "administrator" and requests for "moderator". --RA (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Unlike administrators, moderators should not be able to view deleted material

The proposal continues to allow this proposed "moderator" to have access to deleted material, for example, illegal material.

I would propose that either

• the right to view deleted material be removed from the list of powers, or
• the moderator candidate must state that they are of the age of majority (e.g. 18-21) in their country.

Since the second alternative lacks consensus, I propose that the first alternative be adopted.

• Proposal: Unlike administrators, moderators shall not be able to view deleted material.

Sincerely Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I support this proposal, and this is really the reason I haven't placed support either way. --Nathan2055 17:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Admins are not required this, so this should not be required of moderators, which are merely performing some tasks that admins perform. - jc37 18:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  Hi Jc37,

  Please read the proposal before commenting. The proposal is to remove the "viewing of deleted material" from the enumerated powers of the moderator. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  Hi Kiefer. I did indeed read it, Thanks for checking : )

  I read where you said "I would propose that either..."

  As for the latter part of your proposal, I believe there's also a similar proposal at the /Discussion page. And I have already commented my thoughts on this there. - jc37 19:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion

• Proposal: Unlike administrators, moderators shall not be able to view deleted material.

  Motivation. Children should not view deleted illegal material, because of liability and ethics. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Whilst you are correct, the point is moot - (a) we already have child admins who can view deleted material, and more importantly (b) illegal material should be oversighted anyway, ensuring no-one under 18 can view it as oversighters have to self-identify. Black Kite (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  Hi Black Kite,

  I am concerned about also non-illegal material, such as persons having written personal information. Often such information then is only revert-deleted (without being oversighted). I would prefer that the ability to view such information be bundled with blocking, because of the maturity needed to resist temptation. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• You're welcome to oppose this proposal on those grounds. Otherwise, please feel free to start a separate proposal. To so drastically change the contents of this user-right package now after so many have commented would be disruptive. - jc37 19:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Jc37, you don't own the proposal. Please let the community speak and avoid using "disruptive", which is a blocking offense, stupidly. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• "disruptive" to the consensus process. - jc37 20:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• My amendment facilitates organized discussion of concerns, which have been raised repeatedly by others, in the badly organized discussion of a badly written proposal. Amendment-making is an important procedure for legislation, in non-authoritarian organizations. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Question: have you looked at the arguments made for and against during the last few times the exact same change to the Jc37 proposal has been suggested? Perhaps listing the arguments made here in an unbiased manner would help to clarify this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Back to basics: IMHO Anyone who is to be trusted with 'admin lite' tools should be trustworthy enough to run for RfA. I have serious concerns for having minors as admins, but as this led me to being branded as a child hater in the past, and as there is no policy that regulates it, for me, it's not up for discussion. That said, no new proposal should be considered disruptive - somehow we have to clear up the problems with RfA and the dearth of candidates they have caused.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• It should be made clear that this isn't part of the proposal people are straw polling on. Gigs (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It is an amendment to the proposal on which people continue to vote. If somebody creates a section for voting on this amendment, and if this amendment were to receive more support than opposes (qualitatively), then it would force the deletion of this power from the enumerated powers of the moderator (or force another RfC on that point, if implementation of the majority was not respected). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternatives to "moderator"

From my trusty thesaurus:

Administrator: a person who manages or directs something (a hospital administrator)

Synonyms: administrant, boss, bureaucrat, captain, CEO, chair, chairperson, chief, commander, commissioner, consul, controller, custodian, director, executive, functionary, governor, head, inspector, leader, manager, minister, officer, official, organizer, overseer, producer, superintendent, supervisor.

Moderator: a person in charge of a meeting (the moderator should make sure that everyone gets a chance to speak)

Synonyms: alleviator, ambassador, archon, attaché, boss, bureaucrat, captain, chargé d'affaires, conciliator, consul, diplomat, director, emissary, envoy, legate, mediator, minister, mitigator, monitor, peacemaker, plenipotentiary, presider, principal, prolocutor, referee, soother, stabilizer, symposiarch.

My ideas:

Grand Poobah?
Fountain guard?
Guardian of the Gates?
Necron?
Dalek Supreme?
Tisroc?
Village idiot?
Barrayaran Imperial Auditor?
Steward of Gondor?

--Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that for the purposes elsewhere, content and behaviour is lumped together. So most terms are going to have been used for both at some place or other.

Moderator has a couple things going for it:

• It's a universally known term online as someone who deals with discussions/text/"substance".
• It's fairly neutral term
• It's easily abbreviated to "mod" (compare to administrator/admin)
• AFAIK it should translate fairly easily

Though, I won't spoil the fun : )

How about Grand_Nagus? : ) - jc37 21:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• I !Vote for village idiot... on a more serious note, I think Moderator denotes too much authority... what about Janitor? (What we probably should have called admins in the first place) Monty₈₄₅ 00:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• How about Trusted Editor ("you will have to ask an admin or tred to make that change")? I am really hoping for Dalek Supreme, though... --Guy Macon (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• I refuse to support anything other than Grand Poobah. In actuality, I'm unsure of a great name, but moderator in my opinion has normally been associated with moderating editors/behavior, so it doesn't seem entirely appropriate. I'm not sure of a good alternative though, trusted editor is a good one. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Trusted editor applies to every user group... - jc37 01:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Personally, I like Trusty. It has certain connotations that would reflect accurately on anyone who requests this type of job :) Quinn 04:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  Interesting read : )

  Course, that has the problem of likening editors to incarcerated prisoners or convicted criminals : ) - jc37 05:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

  Definite strong oppose for "trusted editor" - it blatantly states that all other users are untrustworthy. Isn't building an encyclopedia and trust what Misplaced Pages is all about? Hmmm... CyanGardevoir 09:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not crazy about moderator, as (IIRC) I've previously seen it used as a synonym for admin. That is, I think it would be confusing for newbies who would think that admin = mod. Then again, I've been a big fan of changing admin to janitor for a long time—maybe it could be considered as an option here instead?Also, I think Shirriff should be added to the list. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 18:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• I like Archon, but then, I've studied Classical Athens. - Jorgath (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  Great name! : )

  Though I dunno if best for this.

  If we ever approve en.wiki stewards, I'd support them being called archons : ) - jc37 20:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The more I think about "trusted users" the more I like "moderators". The phrase just seems to imply that we don't trust the other editors. Plus, it's hard to shorten. Compare "mods" with "TUs". --Guy Macon (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think moderator is the perfect term to use and we should stick with that. Long before wikis, the terms "mod" and "admin" were used on BBSs to differentiate between a user who is more concerned with controlling content, and one who is more concerned with the bigger picture. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 10:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a rant

This is just a rant, and it won't have a large effect on the proposal at all, but these are some thoughts that came to mind. I feel like a large number of administrators are opposed because of lack of experience in content work. It usually comes down to CSD and AFD work. That means a decent number of the recent non NOTNOW RfA fails wouldn't make it through this. Would this be generally a means for editors who have templates like User:Octane/userboxes/Admin-no to get enhanced editing tools? In addition, while I don't know if it is an official requirement, adminship is a necessary stepping stone for bureaucratship. Would this become a necessary stepping stone for adminship? Would editors be expected to run for "moderatorship" or "trusted editorship" before they ran for adminship? Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This is just off the top of my head, but I seem to recall several examples where someone said their intention was to help in CSD and/or AfD. In which case, a commenter wishing more contributions there doesn't sound beyond the pale (everyone has their own requirement criteria for supporting requests, to be sure). Are there those who oppose even without that expressed interest? probably. My point was: "Ok, we still may see that, but we now won't see any of the blocking ones, page protection ones, edit warring ones, and so on. So we'll be reducing the types of opposes by a fair amount I think, due to the focusing of the user-rights involved.

Octane could request tools just like anyone else, I presume? (If they don't wish to, then that too is their choice?)

It's been re-affirmed several times that while all current bureaucrats happen to be admins, there is no requirement.

And in my opinion, NO. This is designed to be an additional user group to help out, the same way rollbacker and account creator help out reducing the load for admins. In this case, content-related tasks.

WIll others want that? I dunno. Are there commenters who may wish someone to have rollback before requesting adminship? probably. But no, no such requirement whatsoever is intended as a part of this proposal. - jc37 01:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that for all but the most SNOW approved admin candidates, there will be a strong pressure to go through moderatorship first. Its unlikely that such is the intent of those who support it, but I think its almost inevitable. Monty₈₄₅ 01:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, and I sincerely hope not. This is intended to be an option for editors. - jc37 01:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Monty, and I don't think that that is necessarily a bad thing. As long as the process of becoming a mod (use the working title I suppose) doesn't turn into the flameouts that are so often RFAs, this kind of seems like exactly what the community wants. Why not allow editors to gain more experience with certain aspects of the mop before diving in headfirst? Sounds similar to the perennial proposal to implement some form of trial adminship. If this becomes something of a stepping stone to adminship, so what? New admins know how to use the content related tools (the abuse of which is easily reverted for the most part) and just have to adjust to the editor related buttons (block, protect etc). In any case, there will always be hat collectors who want rights for the sake of rights, and will apply to this vigorously and repeatedly. Having this be a "stepping stone" wouldn't increase that number too dramatically in my humble opinion. Regards, MacMed_stalk 02:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't oppose that. I oppose it being required for every potential admin candidate. If someone comes along and wants to run for adminship, they shouldn't be required an intermediary step if it isn't necessary in their case. - jc37 02:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't be officially required, but realistically, if you are working in the areas that require the mop, you would get access to the mod toolkit first. If it's easier to get, and helps you in your work (as it should most potential admin candidates), then why wouldn't you have it? Admittedly there are candidates whose contributions lie in other areas, and as such wouldn't need this toolkit. However, any admin candidate with a stated intention of working in XfDs, clearing CSD backlogs, or anything else that falls under this "mod" umbrella would likely be expected by the community to have experience with this mini mop first. It allows them to demonstrate to their fellow editors that they are level headed and can manage a close. Regards, MacMed_stalk 02:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't oppose the idea of individuals using this as a learning opportunity rather than jumping directly into adminship.

Something else you didn't mention were those individuals who do not want the behaviour-related tools. This would be an opportunity for them to help as well.

The overall goal here is to get certain tools in the hands of trusted editors who could use them. The otrs example above is just one of many examples. - jc37 03:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I like this statement. Personally, if I became an admin I would stay as far, far away from the block and protect buttons as possible. The rights described in this proposal would be just right for my desired level of participation. Quinn 04:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MacMed that this would eventually be seen as a pre-admin requirement. Not necessarily a terrible thing, but it would make the RfA process even harder than it currently is. If the real problem is too few admins to do the work of admins we should be working to make the process less painful. If we're not getting enough admins because we're afraid of the problems that arise when we put too much trust in them, then let's encourage steps to make admins more trustworthy and accountable (such as asking for confirmed real names from administrators; encouraging them to be above the age of majority; temporarily and automatically removing admin privileges from accounts that have been dormant for over nine months; etc.). There is also a lot of work that can still be done without additional privileges that needs to be done (I'm trying to cleanup the backlog of AfDs that closed with "Merge" that haven't ever been merged). I think WP needs more innovative ideas, so I applaud Jc37 for taking the initiative here, but I'm afraid it'll lead to more problems than the current problem. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

required? no. I'm certain it won't in the same way other user-rights aren't "required". In the same way that even now, a discussion closure doesn't "require" an admin. In the same way we don't have hard rules (per the 5th pillar).

But besides that, "...it'll lead to more problems..." - such as? - jc37 03:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Its likely that all the problems/perceived problems that plague full RFAs would migrate to the requests for this right once it became established as an 'optional' prerequisite for RFA. At which point those seeking full admin would effectively need to run the RFA gauntlet twice. Monty₈₄₅ 04:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"all" would not, if only because this user group would not have anywhere near "all" the admin tools.

I understand the fear. But actually go back and look at the questions and comments in RfAs over the last few years. Many have to do with hypotheticals concerning edit warring and/or blocking.

Also, all those "fear"-based "voters" who oppose anyone else getting the ability to block. And so on.

The actual RfAs simply do not confirm what you seem to be afraid that a request for these tools "could" become.

I'm sure we can "cherry pick" certain rfAs focused on deletion (for example) but overall, The problems with RfA tend to be directly proportional to trust, and with fewer tools, there are simply fewer things to be concerned about trust-wise - jc37 04:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if RfM became the more difficult process and RfA became easier. That being said, I believe RfM would be easier than RfA currently is. I see this as creating less problems. Even if it requires "running the gauntlet twice" (assuming both are passed), it may lessen the number of people running the gauntlet thrice. In addition, each run will probably be easier and separated by enough time to make it a less significant impact. I also feel that something like this would lessen the number of editors who burn out during their RfA. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

All this is a solution looking for the wrong problem.`We don't need a whole new batch of user rights, admin-lite, or trial adminships for the unqualified hat collectors out there. There are enough wannabe 'moderators' who mess with NPP, AfD, AIV, etc, who have very little experience themselves, and putting right what they do wrong, or monitoring their performance always creates extra work for someone - and it's those issues that won't go away. The problems of the lack of RfA nominations has been clearly identified, and the solution is to keep inexperienced voters, trolls, vengeance seekers, and fan club members off the page. They know who they are, and they are smug in the knowledge that they've wrecked the process. There's nothing much wrong with the RfA process per see, but it's not perfect, that's why the tools have been unwittingly been given to some who even had malice aforethought. The last thing we want is to make it easier to get any of the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The goal is to make it easier for those who are trustworthy (or as you put it: "qualified") to get certain tools. Not to make it any easier for the untrustworthy to. I have no illusions that those asking for these tools will need to meet commenters' criteria for deletion and so on. So we'll still see CSD hypotheticals, "how would you close this discussion", and the like. This just will help focus the discussion. Another way to look at it. Imagine applying for a job as an editor for a newspaper. There's a difference between applying for that job, than applying for some job which simultaneously has the responsibilities similar to police officer, newspaper managing editor, and city custodial worker. All different job skills, which not everyone might have. So we cut out the police requirement. The HR department still has criteria that the candidate must meet, they just don't have to deal with a job they won't have the tool access to do. The city won't be issuing that managing editor a gun or access to the city's power grid, - to extend the analogy. So it's just a question of trusting the candidate with the tools and responsibilities being requested. - jc37 13:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong - I applaud any initiative to encourage more candidates of the right calibre to come forward, that's why I started RFA2011. Some argue that voters are scared to trust people, and naturally what we don't want is another Pastor Theo sneaking in under the wainscotting. However, that's not the main issue - the problem is the nastiness that goes on at RfA and keeps candidates away, and that kind of behaviour is likely to prevail on any kind of open selection process. The bottom line is: if a candidate can be trusted with one of the tools, they can be trusted with them all - whether they use them all or not is up to them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's more whether they want them all.

Please see my response above concerning Wikignomes.

It has a lot more to do with the candidate's perspective than the commenters. Some editors simply do not want to carry such responsibilities. They're happy to help with content, but don't want to deal with the behaviour-related stuff.

And as we are a volunteer project, I would think that we should provide a way for such contributors to help out in a manner they are comfortable with. - jc37 15:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether it is seen as a pre-admin requirement or not, I'd expect any editor that's going to be given pseudo-admin rights to close AfDs to go through a community discussion, because people who start closing AfDs badly don't reduce our backlogs, they increase them, due to the number that end up getting thrown across to WP:DRV. I'd also expect to see an excellent knowledge of image policy from anyone who is going to close FfDs. Whilst we do occasionally have a backlog at some XfD, especially TfD and CfD, I'm unsure that this is the way of "fixing" that problem. Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, the same expectations you have for admins closing discussions. And in my estimation, you are obviously not the only one who feels this way. Which is another reason that the process to receive is the same as RfA. - jc37 22:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, which is my point ... would this process end up being effectively the same as the current (and as is generally accepted, broken) RfA? Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes and No.

It's funny, I've been having this same discussion with editors in separate threads, all coming at this from a different angle. Too tough, too weak, too much, not enough, too hard, to easy lol

And that alone makes me think that I may have found a decent balance here.

To address your question, in my opinion, I think that the process will be the same, but I think the tone will change. Maybe not an incredible amount, but even a little would be a good thing.

And further, more people will apply. (No guarantees on success, assuredly). I don't think that you'd disagree there are non-admins who do just fine closing discussions. If we can ask them to pick up a few tools to be able to implement such closes, that's a net benefit for the project, I would think?

I know I've seen you around AN/I. You've spent enough time there to know that blocking can be contentious, controversial, and drama-laden. There are editors who just don't want to deal with that. So let's give them the opportunity to help out in the way they are comfortable? - jc37 23:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you, but I think the delete button can be drama-laden, too. Yes, there are plenty of non-admins who do just fine closing discussions; but of course, the discussions that generate the most controversy are the ones that result in the deletion of an article, file etc., and of course at the moment non-admins can't close them, both because of WP:NAC and the fact that they haven't got the tools to do so. Now of course if we have candidates who show a good knowledge of XfD and the policies, then I don't think there'd be much problem with letting them have the new userright; however I foresee - if more people do apply - a high rejection rate similar to RfA, which might put otherwise good editors off. It's a tricky one; I'm on the fence with it, but - possibly - it might be worth a try. Black Kite (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

"but I think the delete button can be drama-laden, too." - Nod, and images and and...

But at least we're reducing that influx to certain kinds of drama. (Fewer tools, fewer types.) That presumably (hopefully) means that for some, less of certain kinds of stress. - jc37 23:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Question: Will a moderator be eligible to apply (de facto) for cratship, arbitration committe and CU/OS without going through adminship? EngineerFromVega 07:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There's never been any prohibition against a non-admin from running / applying for any of these positions. Whether any such application from a potential moderator under this proposal have a serious chance of success is down to the community, no? KTC (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As KTC notes, there's not been such a prohibition.

That said, I doubt that someone who doesn't wish to deal with tools and responsibilities related to behavioural assessment (block/protect/handing out tools) would request such things.

But even if they did, (again as KTC notes) it would be up to the community to decide. - jc37 13:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

...as we are a volunteer project, I would think that we should provide a way for such contributors to help out in a manner they are comfortable with... - we already do, every single contributor, including IPs, has far more influence over content and policing the participants than they would ever even get on their local fishing club forum. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Whether intended or not, this will become a prerequisite for adminship. Not officially, just as adminship is not officially a prerequisite for becoming an crat. It just never happens because the community wants to see admin work from crat candidates. I can hear it now "become a mod and do that for three months, then re-apply for RFA" That will be what every single admin candidate, no matter how qualified, will be told if they have not jumped through the hoops for this position yet. I know tht wasn't the intention but I have no doubt at all that it would be the result. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• That sounds a lot like a description of the community making a decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• There is already a training grounds for those who want to become admins, and many have used it: which is making non-admin closes at the various deletion processes. (a non admin delete close still requires an admin to do the actual deletion). Normally, it provides very strong evidence for supporting a Rfa; and in one or two instances I remember, the carelessness in such closes provided very good grounds for rejecting a candidate. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• If this is meant to be a set of tools for those who are short on content work and might struggle at RfA as a consequence, then I have to say that the last tool I would trust to someone without content experience is the delete tool. SpinningSpark 02:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Associated help page

I think that there should be an associated help page that details and explains what someone with this new user right is not allowed to do, with clearly defined consequences for violations. Anyone requesting the right should be required to indicate that they have read and understand the help page. In my opinion, this requirement and the help page should exist prior to asking the community to approve this proposal; it may very well answer some objections. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably not due to WP:CREEP.

Eventually I suppose there could be a project page for moderators similar to Misplaced Pages:Administrators. But honestly, as all the rules and restrictions for admins apply to the proposed mods, there's probably no need for such duplication.

But anyway, that's something that probably can be decided later. - jc37 13:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it would be instruction creep, it would be a set of important guidelines that are separate from those of admins. It would be useful for the purposes of editors making a decision on this, for them to know exactly what it would and wouldn't allow. I am under the impression that a moderator could not close a requested move for a non-article page, but that could be disputed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

So something similar to WP:ADMIN as I noted above? Nod, probably eventually. (Though hopefully written more clearly than the proposal is turning out to be : )

And yes this user group gives the ability to move files, user pages, and so on. So I'm not sure why they shouldn't close an RM on non-articles. "content" isn't just article-space. - jc37 20:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wikimedia foundation and deleted material

I'm pretty sure that this proposal, although with lots of support, will not be implemented unless deletion-related permissions are not included.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What evidence do you have for this? The vetting process will be the same as that of an administrator and the trust required will be basically the same. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This is per the previous proposal at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37/2, although I think I should go poke a WMF representative again on this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, it appeared to me that their issue was with viewing deleted material, not deleting the material. This would allow an editor to view deleted material, but it also gets rid of the concern that it would just be "handed out". I'll poke Philippe (WMF), he commented last time and is on the Wikimedia Legal and Community Advocacy Team. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is another reason why to gain these tools requires going through the RfX process. As I clearly pointed out in the proposal. - jc37 18:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have posted a statement above, and on the associated project page. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I moved it below, replaced with a link above. The huge box at the top of the page seemed to unbalance things somewhat, even if the words didn't express support per se. Equazcion 00:01, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Great, no objection from me :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarified

• Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)/Proposal_by_Jc37#So_why_would_anyone_want_to_request_this? (diff)

I expanded the section linked above per common questions here on the talk page.

Originally, I left out the "why" because the proposal was getting long, and I was presuming most others have seen the various proposals over the years. That was clearly a mistake on my part.

I also added some copy editing (like bolding and italics), to hopefully make things a bit more clear.

I hope that this clarification helps.

Though I welcome suggestions on how to make it clearer. - jc37 19:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

There was a recent off-wiki discussion (they actually used an obsolete method called "face to face speech" -- how crazy is that?) among some Quakers. The majority opinion was that accepting a position as a Misplaced Pages administrator would violate the Quaker Testimony of Equality by giving one person power over another. Like being a police officer, this is something that (some) Quakers have no problem with someone else doing, but choose not to do themselves for religious reasons.

Another group that this might apply to is Misplaced Pages editors with Asperger's syndrome. In general, they would be a good fit with the proposed user right. As Sociological and cultural aspects of autism says, "An increasing technological society has opened up niches for people with Asperger syndrome, who may choose fields that are highly systematized and predictable. People with AS could do well in workplace roles that are system-centered, and connect with the nitty-gritty detail of the product or the system." On the other hand, the difficulties in social interaction that is typical of AS makes them a poor fit with the user blocking aspects of being an administrator. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I hesitate to add specific non-wiki rationale examples to the proposal. Though I will say that both of those are very interesting. - jc37 15:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Another reason why one might full administrator rights to be undesirable relates to the saying "when someone complains about administrator abuse, it usually turns out that it is the administrator who is being abused". The tools that deal with user misconduct cannot be used in a situation where the administrator is involved, yet we have all seen cases where a particularly disruptive editor makes a big deal about the fact that the person who told him to knock it off happens to be an administrator. Having the tool, even if you never use it, causes some people to treat you differently.

When I am working on a case at WP:DRN, I often use the following introduction:

"I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. We need more volunteers; see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Guide for details."

I find that the above wording helps to set the tone for the discussion that follows. I don't believe that I would be as effective if I had the full set of administrator rights -- I would have special authority. Without those rights, I have to ask an administrator to intervene if a situation requires a block -- something I would have to do anyway because of WP:INVOLVED

On the other hand, not being an administrator has a downside that restricts me from certain actions that are clearly good for the encyclopedia. When I see someone who is violating WP:OUTING, I want to hide the personal information on sight, not wait until an admin reacts to my request. I have seen typos and dead links on fully protected pages that I would like to be able to fix on the spot rather than putting in an edit request. Sometimes I see a backlog where I could help by doing non-controversial content-related administrator tasks. Assuming that I can pass the RfA to be an administrator, why would anyone want to deny me the choice of becoming a moderator instead? I think these are all valid reasons why I would be willing to become a moderator but not an administrator, even though the requirements are exactly the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation position

Hi everyone. Today, Maggie and I spoke with Kelly Kay, the Deputy General Counsel (whom Geoff tasked with making this decision, since he's out of the office and didn't want to make you wait for his return). We laid out the considerations and the statement originally made by Mike and confirmed by Geoff. As we see it, the primary concern that led to Mike's position was that access to admin rights and permissions, including that those who had access to deleted article-related permissions needed to be administrators, because administrators go through a rigorous community selection process.

In this case, as it has been proposed to us, the process for becoming a "moderator" is exactly the same as that for becoming an administrator. As a result, Kelly is able to approve this plan on the condition that the selection processes for moderators remain exactly the same as that for administrators- using the same criteria, operating on the same page. If the selection criteria or processes should drift from that used for the selection of administrators, we would need to reconsider the position. All of this, of course, is provisional upon the plan reaching consensus here in the typical fashion. This will not be imposed by the Foundation - we're simply saying that we will not block it, should it get to that point. Sincerely, Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What criteria here must be "exactly the same"? Does it mean that any user that would !vote support or oppose for "moderator" would be expected to !vote the same way were it a full RfA? What about the hypothetical "Not now for RfA, run for moderator first" situation discussed elsewhere on this page? Or does it just mean that the 'crats must evaluate the percentages and such in the exact same way when closing either type of request? Anomie⚔ 20:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I warmly concur with the statement above by Philippe. While the unbundling of some tools may in certain cases be worth considering, it does not necessarily address the overall competency of any of the editors who will use them. Almost all of the recent good faith proposals to unbundle the tools, or to create 'moderators' or 'admin lite' have been made in order to address the dearth of candidates for adminship; they all fail to take into account however, that the selection/election process will still be open to the very same issues that have prevented editors of the right calibre and experience from wanting to be subject to the sysop selection/election process. At worst, an unbundling may even encourage more 'hat collectors' to apply for additional user rights - another problem that is endemic to the current RfA process and other user rights that are seen as a privilege or a reward. We could risk ending up with too many chiefs and not enough indians, or as Brandon Harris (Jorm) once stated, what Misplaced Pages does not want, is 'a whole priesthood of gatekeepers' --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand something. When you write that "We (the WMF)'re simply saying that we will not block it." it means that if you would like you could block it. That is very interesting because this proves that WFM has the a huge control on everything that happens on wikipedia. Pluto2012 (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

See office actions. If something would cause legal issues for the WMF, they can and will block it. (They theoretically could do it even if it didn't, but won't because it's just bad practice and would drive away their users). In this case, deleted revisions often contain defamatory stuff and inappropriate personal information (including WP:OUTING material). As such, only people who have gone through a rigorous process to demonstrate community trust have access to viewing deleted revisions. - Jorgath (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

davidwr's counterproposal

Above. davidwr wrote (in part) "How about removing most deletion-related tools except "delete"? This would let approved people close most but not all deletion discussions, handle most speedy deletes, handle most AfDs, and most other backlogged issues?" (davidwr also had some ideas about RfA's, but I want to discuss his idea assuming the conditions the WMF have given us.)

It looks like this would remove the following powers from moderators:
undelete - Undelete a page
deleterevision - Undelete specific revisions of pages
deletedhistory - View deleted history entries, without their associated text
deletedtext - View deleted text and changes between deleted revisions
browsearchive - Search deleted pages

The most obvious difference would be that this would make deleting pages or revisions one-way - you could delete but you couldn't undo your deletes (perhaps a big scary "This cannot be undone. Are you sure?" message would help). Other than that, what could you not do that really needs to be done under this set of rules? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Strong support this counter proposal CyanGardevoir 08:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've noted this above already, but I believe this to not be a good idea. We want people to make informed decisions concerning deletion, not blundering about in the dark. - jc37 13:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose spliting delete from undelete and view deleted text etc. They couldn't undo their own mistakes. They couldn't review their own actions. They couldn't review others actions. No. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for the reasons labeled by SmokeyJoe. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Related: Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)#Unbundling delete and undelete. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Followup: as I suspected, SmokeyJoe is right. You couldn't undo your own mistakes. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per SmokeyJoe. KTC (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

As of today, the vote on the above counterproposal is 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral (25% support). The vote on the main proposal is 33 support, 20 oppose, 2 neutral. (62% support). --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a discussion, not a majority vote. I don't mean to suggest that you mustn't calculate and post the above figures (which are relevant), but please refrain from collapsing comments. We should encourage participants to read them (thereby improving their understanding of others' opinions and concerns), not hide them from view. —David Levy 13:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist notice

This is the kind of thing that deserves a watchlist notice. I only came across it by accident and not many users pay attention to RfC, etc. A watchlist notice would be an essential part of a proposal of this sort IMO.

A Jc37 to his credit has already opened a thread on setting one up here. --RA (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a concern

I have noticed that if someone adds their name to the support list, they are left alone, but if someone adds their name to the oppose list, they get a lengthy thread discussing their vote. I voted to support, but I am concerned that the above behavior might have a chilling effect on potential oppose votes. Shouldn't we be having these discussions in the discussion section? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I won't speak for others, but as for me, I have attempted to limit my comments in the support/oppose sections to merely clarify the proposal and its various parts; ask the commenter to clarify; respond to whatever questions, accusations, or follow-up response. I have done this in both the support and oppose sections.

What I have tried to NOT do is argue against their opinion. (though I have in the discussions section, as you note, that is the more appropriate place for that). I feel every commenter is entitled to their opinion.

I believe that the above is common practice in any straw poll situation (including RfCs and RfAs).

And I "hope" that others stay within this limitation as well. - jc37 01:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this too, the oppose !voters are getting severely harangued. That, together with a "proposal" that is soaked in arguments (rather than straightforwardly presenting the proposal) and a condescending demand of don't you dare !vote without reading this thoroughly first, were already inclining me to oppose before I had even read it (and nothing I read then changed my mind). SpinningSpark 02:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I know eh? It's turning into RfA support/oppose section. OhanaUnited 02:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Most community-wide straw polls do to at least some extent. I can provide diffs if you like. - jc37 02:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Same process, same standard, so what benefit?

The Foundation statement said:

In this case, as it has been proposed to us, the process for becoming a "moderator" is exactly the same as that for becoming an administrator. As a result, Kelly is able to approve this plan on the condition that the selection processes for moderators remain exactly the same as that for administrators- using the same criteria, operating on the same page. If the selection criteria or processes should drift from that used for the selection of administrators, we would need to reconsider the position.Emphasis in original.

Under these circumstances, what benefit is there to spinning off those rights? If it makes the process significantly easier, the WMF's provisional approval doesn't cover it; if it doesn't make the process significantly easier, why wouldn't someone want the "free" tools that would come with a normal RfA? --Philosopher  08:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This has been answered several times on this talk page, in particular under #So, why would anyone want this? and #Clarified. - jc37 11:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

What hasn't been answered is the question of why we shouldn't simply permit administrators to decline/relinquish access to undesired tools. If the process and criteria are to be "the same", how is it beneficial or desirable to establish a new designation (outside the context of MediaWiki) with an added recall provision attached? What, apart from encouraging the community to oppose trustworthy users' adminship requests (on the basis that they can seek modship instead), will this accomplish? —David Levy 12:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I answered that specific question in detail. Please do not claim that I did not. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You stated that you "can not and will not accept the title of 'Administrator' as long as any Misplaced Pages page says that Administrators can block users". I responded by explaining that "in the hypothetical scenario to which I referred, those pages would be updated to indicate that administrators may accept or decline the tool".

You also noted that "administrators get treated differently than non-administrators by newbies". I agree (and have experienced this personally), but the proposed change isn't a solution. As I said, splitting off a separate class of user incapable of bullying fellow editors would reinforce the misconception that administrators possess such an entitlement.

Your argument, if I'm not mistaken, is that persons cannot avoid the perceptions currently associated with administrators unless they're called something different. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that this is true. Why not simply permit trustworthy users to decline/relinquish access to undesired tools and call themselves something other than "administrators"? Why should the community be tasked with drawing the distinction (keeping in mind that they're to apply "the same criteria"), with such individuals taking on an added recall provision? —David Levy 12:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The above statement consists of you disagreeing with the answer I gave earlier. It may very well be that my answer was completely stupid, but that is not the same thing as me not answering at all. Your previous assertion that "What hasn't been answered is the question of why we shouldn't simply permit administrators to decline/relinquish access to undesired tools" (emphasis in original) was factually incorrect. If you think my reasons don't make sense, say that. Don't say I did not answer the question when I clearly did. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, I agree with most of what you wrote, and I certainly didn't intend to imply that any of it was "stupid". I'm sorry if this was unclear.

You noted that you "can not and will not accept the title of 'Administrator' as long as any Misplaced Pages page says that Administrators can block users", and I explained that I was referring to a hypothetical scenario in which the pages in question wouldn't say that.

You also raised points about the terminology used, and I attempted to clarify then (and again above) that my question isn't related to that.

So I regard the exchange not as an in instance in which you answered "the question of why we shouldn't simply permit administrators to decline/relinquish access to undesired tools", but as one in which you cited specific factors and I clarified that they aren't tied to the question that I'm asking.

I'm not suggesting that the discussion didn't occur or that your input wasn't valuable. I apologize for being unclear. —David Levy 19:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

David, you've opposed. At this point, why use Guy, or anyone else, to reargue your reasons to oppose? You obviously have another way that you would rather see done. Why not propose this in your own proposal so that everyone can see it and understand it and comment on it. - jc37 13:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Jc37, you've (obviously) already stated your own support, ad nauseum, having proceeded to reply to nearly every opposer. I'm not just saying this to point out the irony of this comment, but also to suggest altering your own behavior. It's usually not helpful to badger the opposition -- regardless of how politely you might word responses, replying to everyone who opposes usually comes out looking this way. Just FYI. David's responses are nothing compared to what you've been doing. Equazcion 14:04, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference, I wrote and proposed the proposal, and am clarifying it. (As I noted in the section directly above.)

David is of course welcome to counter propose, but my question above is to ask why he doesn't then propose his idea in a proposal so that we can all clearly understand him/it. - jc37 14:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

My goal, at this juncture, is to discuss the matter, conveying my views to others while gaining a fuller understanding of theirs. Surely, you aren't suggesting that such discourse is inappropriate or asking me to "support"/"oppose" and go on my merry way. And I assume that you recognize the inadvisability of forking the discussion and initiating a separate proposal for every slightly different implementation that someone has in mind. —David Levy 14:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol, after spending several days (so far) discussing with you, I'm sure you realise that I do not oppose discussion (especially outside the support/oppose sections).

But yes, build the proposal. atm, I can honestly say, I do not understand how your suggestion would work within the limitations I've come to understand upon how they are allowing user groups to be created and user-rights to be grouped. Without that explained clarity, it leaves us all talking in circles as far as I can tell. But please feel free to explain/clarify. - jc37 14:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Just because he doesn't have the details of a possible counter-offering worked out that's better than yours doesn't make his opposition any less logical. "Then let's hear yours, or shut up" is a classically fallacious argument (not implying you've worded things that rudely, but for the sake of conciseness, it's essentially what you're saying). Equazcion 14:47, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Nothing even close to that absolute. I'm looking for more productive discussion. There are reasons we write proposals, and one is to try to clearly convey our ideas to others. (I won't claim to have been even moderately successful at that myself - though several commenters have been kind in their comments - there has been, to my eye, much misunderstanding, which I fault myself for in presentation of the proposal.)

So to discuss something like this, it sometimes takes an overview to help discussion. - jc37 14:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't necessarily have an overview to give you, even though he sees problems with your proposal, which he's pointed out. You're answering that by challenging him to clarify what his improved proposal would be, when he never said he had one (a complete proposal that warrants an overview, that is) -- and that doesn't matter. Equazcion 15:07, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I'm attempting to provide the clarity that you request, but I don't aspire to initiate a formal counter-proposal at this juncture. I seek to exchange views, in the hope that everyone involved will gain a better understanding of others' concerns and expectations.

In particular, I want to understand why users prefer the current proposal over various alternatives. I might even be persuaded to agree. —David Levy 15:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I just created a blank discussion page at Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(technical)/Proposal_by_Jc37/Side_discussion. I won't speak for you David, but I know that I can (at times) be "a touch" verbose. This will give us room to talk all this through if you are interested. Post your initial questions/thoughts/ideas, and we can go from there. - jc37 15:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not 100% clear on what's to be discussed there. As I noted, I don't seek to initiate a formal counter-proposal at this time. I'm merely expressing my concerns regarding the current proposal and attempting to gain a better understanding of its supporters' views.

I realize that both of us tend to be "a touch verbose" from time to time. I haven't written anything that I feel should be moved to a separate page, but if you would prefer to respond on one (with the remainder of the replies occurring there), I understand. —David Levy 18:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"a touch", maybe : )

I just meant that you've posed some questions, I was merely asking you to pose them again there to sort of "re-start" the discussion. - jc37 18:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'll do so shortly. (: —David Levy 19:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reiterated one of my concerns. (I have others, but they tie into this one, so it probably would be best to tackle it first.) —David Levy 20:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Count or bullets?

User:Guy Macon had collapsed replies to votes on this page in order to make counting easier. I reverted this because I felt the discussion was just as important, and switched the bullets to #'s in order to automate counting. User:David Levy reverted this on the basis that this isn't a straight vote, but a discussion.

I myself am in favor of the #'s, because although this is a discussion, the count still matters, and it's very difficult to count, when one does want to know it, with the long discussions taking place. Feel free to express your take on this. Equazcion 13:27, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Why is it important to keep track of the vote counts in real time? How is this information relevant when expressing one's opinions/concerns and responding to those expressed by others? Such formatting creates the appearance of a majority vote, thereby encouraging "drive-by voting". —David Levy 13:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not meant to help people express their opinions, and it's not exactly important per se, just convenient for those who want to know what level of support or opposition this proposal currently has. In most discussions this is usually apparent from a perusal, but in this case the threads are so long that it's very difficult. I don't see it encouraging drive-by votes -- many proposals are formatted this way, especially when it comes to major policy changes, among which I think this can be considered. Equazcion 13:43, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I recognize the utility among those who are curious, but as you noted, this isn't important.

In my observation, such formatting does tend to encourage "drive-by voting". People see a vote count, assume that nothing else matters, and cast "me too"-type ballots without elaboration or discussion. —David Levy 13:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it may not be important, but then, it never really is. Even when there is a majority vote taking place, counts can always be taken after the fact instead, if there were a drive-by effect to avoid, yet it's still used pretty often anyway (generally in longer discussions with this particular problem). I'm not seeing any difference here from the situations where counts are usually implemented. It may not be a majority vote, but a gauge of support does matter a great deal. I'd like to be able to tell where the proposal is at, in that regard, without having to perform a tedious manual count each time. If I'm the only one then I'll concede though. Equazcion 13:58, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

For now, I think I'll agree with David, if for no other reason than it seems too soon to start worrying about "counting votes". - jc37 14:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

There is an unwarranted assumption here, which is that my purpose for collapsing the discussions was to make vote counting easier. That was not my purpose. My purpose was to discourage haranguing people when they vote, and to avoid having to look at the exact same arguments that are in the discussion section duplicated several times as discussions after individual votes. I would like to go back and collapse the discussions after votes again, and am seeking a consensus that I be allowed to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The typical practice in these (when looking over these in the past) would appear to be that at some point, the discussion section will be split to a sub page. I don't think we're quite there yet, but if the page gets too much bigger, we'll have to for accessibility reasons.

As for collapsing discussions, while this may be a straw poll, it is in no way a "vote". And such discussion is very much common practice. - jc37 16:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I split the page as you all felt it was getting long, and it is common practice with community-wide straw polls like this.

I moved the page first for transparency to ensure that the sub page will auto matically be on everyone's watchlists. - jc37 17:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to note: . Equazcion 16:48, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

@Jc37, can we let the community comment without such frequent commentary from you on the status of the discussion? Your comments seem very focused on achieving your desired outcome and while I don't believe there's malicious intent, it has a dampening effect on the conversation. I humbly ask that you please let us talk about it without such frequent input from you. Thank you. Vertium (talk to me) 14:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Trial period

Several people have suggested a year-long trial period. Just wanted to say that I do not oppose this idea. - jc37 15:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Why trust the one community and not the other?

I have been thinking about the following argument:

"While I don't know if it is an official requirement, adminship is a necessary stepping stone for bureaucratship. Would this become a necessary stepping stone for adminship? Would editors be expected to run for "moderatorship" or "trusted editorship" before they ran for adminship?"

"I think that for all but the most SNOW approved admin candidates, there will be a strong pressure to go through moderatorship first. Its unlikely that such is the intent of those who support it, but I think its almost inevitable."

"I agree with **** that this would eventually be seen as a pre-admin requirement. Not necessarily a terrible thing, but it would make the RfA process even harder than it currently is."

"Whether intended or not, this will become a prerequisite for adminship. Not officially, just as adminship is not officially a prerequisite for becoming an crat. It just never happens because the community wants to see admin work from crat candidates. I can hear it now 'become a mod and do that for three months, then re-apply for RFA' That will be what every single admin candidate, no matter how qualified, will be told if they have not jumped through the hoops for this position yet. I know that wasn't the intention but I have no doubt at all that it would be the result."

What this seems to be saying is "I don't trust the RfA community to do the right thing so I am asking the RfC community to decide that the RfA community not be given a choice that I don't trust them to make".

This raises the question of why we are trusting the RfC community to make decisions while not trusting the RfA community to make decisions. Are the folks who are participating in this RfC smarter, wiser, or more informed? Are the folks who participate on RfAs stupider, more foolish or more ignorant? Or is this a moral issue -- we are good and true and they are conniving weasels? (Note to the humor impaired; the language I just used was a joke -- use of over-the-top language when the actual sentiment appears to be that we RfC participants are are just a little bit more trustworthy than RfA participants.) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(Sound of crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

3rd level of adminship without any delete or undelete tools

I support the jc37 proposal strongly, if it includes a trial period (say one year), and if there is a simple method of removing mods at any time.

But I am concerned that the WMF requirement that mods with undeletion rights must pass through the regular RFA scrutiny means that in the end in a year or two we still will not have enough admin/mods. So we need a third level of adminship without any delete or undelete tools.

I think, contrary to some people, that more people (not enough) will successfully pass the RFA gauntlet for jc37 modship (did I invent that word?) precisely because giving somebody the block tools is a higher level of power. Higher power should be more difficult to acquire. Which is one reason why so few people make it through the process to become full admins.

I might apply for a 3rd level of adminship without any delete or undelete tools. I have over 24,000 edits on Misplaced Pages and this is the only type of admin or moderator that has piqued my interest in becoming. And I know my stuff too. I have 17,000 edits on the Commons, and 36,000 edits on Wikia. I am a bureaucrat on Wikia.

This 3rd level of adminship will deal with more content issues. That is what is sorely needed on Misplaced Pages. See: User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

"Higher power" is in the eye of the beholder (as we are seeing). I personally think from a social perspective, block is seen that way, but from a content contributor's perspective, delete is seen that way.

Anyway, without the deletion tools, I think there's only 4 or 5 other tools in this package which aren't already given to autoconfirmed, and I wouldn't want them given to someone who couldn't view deleted material. When I said that this package was interdependent I wasn't kidding. I reduced 54 user-rights to 16 and added editprotected (which isn't in the admininstrator user group due to admin having protect).

So this is about as "condensed" a package as I would want to see one. The idea was to make the tools as useful as possible with as small a package as possible.

So anyway, without the ability to delete and to see deleted, I would oppose the package as unbalanced. - jc37 11:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how deletion or undeletion tools are essential in general to these functions listed at the beginning of your proposal:

Proposal: A new user-right package (aka user group) designed primarily to help with content-related admin tasks for which there is often a backlog. - For example, to allow for implementing the close of content-related discussions like: RM; DRV; AfD / CfD / FfD / TfD / MfD / etc.; various talk page and noticeboard RfCs; and so on. In addition, assessing CSD, and PROD, and edit-protected requests, and other such content-related tasks which would be related to the tools granted in this user-rights package.

Unbalanced? If some specific cases require the deletion or undeletion tools, then these 3rd-level admin/mods can recuse themselves.

I also don't believe non-admin closes should be allowed, and this group should be used instead. So there will be plenty of work they can do. Non-admin closers don't have deletion or undeletion tools. They also have very little accountability, and in my opinion non-admin closes alienate a percentage of users.

You are saying the same thing others are saying about your proposal, that admins must have more, more, more tools, and therefore they oppose your proposal because you are taking away tools from admins. Admins who will still have to go through an approval process regardless of the number of tools they are given. They are illogical in this, and you are being illogical in this. Admin volunteers should not be turned down because they don't want to do everything. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The tools themselves are only subdivided the way they are mostly due to dev preference. A good example of this is the tool protect. It technically could be (at least) 4 different tools. But they combined it into one. Technically most of the deletion tools could be combined into a single user-right.

So the goal is to find out what these tools actually do, and what would be necessary to perform the most tasks possible with the fewest tools. For example, movefile is both moving and handling files. And the ability to move a page without leaving a redirect requires the ability to delete. There are technical things involved here too. I didn't pick these cause "Hey I thought this would be fun"  : )

The core of this user-right package are the abilities I noted at the top, xfD, RM, CSD, editprotected, etc. You can't close an XfD without the deletion tools to implement. That's been the standard for a long time. Someone may need to edit protected pages in order to adjust hatnotes and links to a now moved or deleted page, they may need to adjust a category name due to a rename or a merge, and so on. The goal here is to not add to admin's work, but to give the moderator (if that's what we call this user group) that ability to assess consensus, to handle content-related issues, without needing to run to an admin, because the moderator, in these situations, will be as trusted as an admin to perform them. Why? Because the mod went through the same trust-assessing process that admins do.

What I didn't add were (of course) block and protect, but thre's a lot more in the admin package than that. +sysop (which is what the admin package is) pretty much a dumping ground for most new tools made. And what's left (mostly) deal with the ability of an individual to edit, and assessing an individual's edits, rather than handling content. Besides that, I left out editing mediawiki (which, as I know from previous discussions, is "not a chance"), and types of importing. (I only added the user-right dealing with commons due to being able to implement that type of close at FFD, and other image/file-related discussions.) So with that in mind, this is a rather clear division of work. One thing we don't want is a confusion about what a mod is able to do now (or in the future).

So, you're welcome to disagree, but this was all inherently logical.

As for RfA, as long as it's a place where individuals express their personal opinion of what "trust" is (and thus also, what their fears are), it will always be subjective.

So my goal is to help affect a change in tone, not a change in our standards of assessment. the latter will likely not happen, and I honestly prefer that we have high standards for those using such tools. Though i can accept that you (and others) may disagree. - jc37 14:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you really addressed my points head on. I see your point that having the deletion tool is handy. But I don't think it is essential. I get stuff deleted frequently on the Commons. I just put a "speedy" tag on empty categories. It is easy to do the same thing on redirect pages on Misplaced Pages.

It is not my goal to "do the most tasks possible". Also, there is no reason that closing an XFD can't be separated from actual deletion.

My main point is that the WMF only requires the standard RFA process for admins who will be given undeletion tools. The standard RFA process is a failure for recruiting enough admins. It is unnecessarily hard to get through it (unlike years ago).

So remove the undeletion tools (and deletion tools since they have must stay together in order revert one's own deletion mistakes). Problem solved. Changing the tone is not enough. We need more admins, and many more mods. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of what you suggest would seem to require changing common practice/policy/guidelines. I was attempting to not need that at all in this proposal.

As for the rest, without the deletion tools (and the many and varied related tasks and responsibilities thereof), this would be a hollow, pretty much pointless usergroup. The remaining tools are too disruptive to be handed out by admins, but not useful enough as a package that anyone would want to go through the RfX process to attain. - jc37 17:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is common practice to bundle them all together for full adminship. That is an obvious failure. We aren't getting enough admins through the RFA process. Some people think the unbundling you propose is pointless since people will still have to go through RFA. I disagree.

I already pointed out why this 3rd level of adminship is not a hollow and pointless usergroup. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is common practice to bundle them all together for full adminship. That is an obvious failure. We aren't getting enough admins through the RFA process.

That wasn't always the case. The solution is to counter the inflated expectations that have developed over the years, not to validate and reinforce them by creating stripped-down packages for candidates not meeting them. —David Levy 19:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Admin volunteers should not be turned down because they don't want to do everything.

This is my main criticism of RfA. Candidates are rejected because they don't need every tool.

As I've commented in the past, the relevant question should be "Can this individual be trusted to not misuse the tools?". If someone is trustworthy and doesn't need a particular tool, he/she simply won't use it.

The standard RFA process is a failure for recruiting enough admins. It is unnecessarily hard to get through it (unlike years ago).

Agreed. And the introduction of stripped-down admin package variants would validate and reinforce the current approach, thereby making adminship even harder to obtain. —David Levy 19:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This 3rd level of adminship would not be as hard to obtain. There will be less need for full admins if some of the load is taken off them. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This 3rd level of adminship would not be as hard to obtain.

I'm referring to adminship in its current form. The introduction of "lower" forms would encourage the community to reject candidates who haven't demonstrated a need for every tool (despite a reasonable belief that they can be trusted to not misuse any of them). As a result, we would have even fewer "full admins".

There will be less need for full admins if some of the load is taken off them.

Trustworthy users should simply be "full admins". Making some of them "partial admins" (thereby preventing them from properly addressing certain situations without flagging down "full admins" for assistance) would be a net loss. —David Levy 19:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: "The introduction of "lower" forms would encourage the community to reject candidates who haven't demonstrated a need for every tool (despite a reasonable belief that they can be trusted to not misuse any of them)", this appears to be an invalid argument. Misplaced Pages talk:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37/Discussion#Why trust the one community and not the other? has a detailed explanation, but in essence you are saying that the community cannot be trusted to make the decisions that you think they should make. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that I disagree with a particular approach (requiring trustworthy users to demonstrate a need for every tool included in the package that they request). In my view, the creation of "lower" adminship levels relies upon the premise that this is advisable (and doesn't make sense unless the community agrees that it is), so I oppose it here and now.

In other words, this proposal's success would evidently reflect consensus that trustworthy editors should be required to demonstrate a need for every tool included in the package that they request. In such a scenario, it would hardly be unreasonable for the community to respect this apparent consensus at RfA. That's why I'm arguing that it's the wrong message to send. —David Levy 21:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah!.

That is not the intent of this request whatsoever. But I think I see where the confusion laid now! : )

I agree with you in that admins should be trusted to not abuse the tools they are granted, and thus trusted to not use tools inappropriately (or at all) at their discretion. And thus by extension, I apply the same feeling to moderatorship, per the tools that mods are granted. Same thing, same process, same expectation. As I've tried to make clear, this isn't to be handled like the "permissions" that admins grant. A full rfA process means full community vetting.

Where the confusion laid was I was referring to certain commenters not ALL commenters, when noting that the process might be less stressful due to not having all of the admin package. That some individuals feel that block is worse than delete. Not that I felt that way. So that's why some people were getting the idea that I thought that. (I obviously don't.) - jc37 21:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I realize that this isn't your intent, but I believe that it would be a consequence of the proposal's success (and one not unintended by many of its supporters).

In my view, the level of trust needed to grant modship should be the same as that needed to grant adminship, so I see no reason for the community to draw such a distinction (as opposed to simply permitting trustworthy users to decline/relinquish access to tools that they don't need/want). —David Levy 23:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That's back to basics and it's the theory that most people (and I ) appear to uphold: if someone can be trusted with one of the tools, they can be trusted with them all. Which again renders any discussion about 'admin lite', moderators (WP is NOT a web forum, if we start using that word people will think it is), trial adminship, and other unbundling, superfluous. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment. Per normal, groupthink has set in. Jc37, you really don't get it. The reason many people support your proposal is specifically because they feel it is a start in separating admins from their oftentimes arbitrary use of block and delete.

David Levy. You are assuming that the stupidity of the current process for full admin vetting will continue and get worse. You also just don't get it. Many people want lower levels of adminship specifically because logically they will require less of the abusive vetting for full admins. Logically, once many of these 2nd and 3rd level admins show good work, and not too many have their adminship removed, then people will see that there is also less need for such abusive vetting of full admins too.

And once people see that making it easier to remove admins at the 2nd and 3rd level is working in the percentage of cases where it is needed, then people will also see the utility of making it easier to remove full admins too. That will also lessen the need for such abusive vetting to begin with. It is amazing to me that the logic goggles get turned off so easily among admins. Such fanboy groupthink at all ages. See User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors for more info on removing admins. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You apparently believe that all editors (or at least admins) who disagree with you "don't get it" and deserve to be ridiculed via name-calling, so I see little point in continuing this exchange. —David Levy 05:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Timeshifter. My apologies for not making it clear that my last comments above were directed to David levy. We have been having a rather lengthy discussion, but we were both (as it turns out) somewhat talking past each other. We both knew we were misunderstanding each other, but not exactly certain what it was. And I have to admit, I think he understood at least sommewhat before I did. Hence, my "Aha" moment above.

As for why various individuals aren't supporting the proposal, there are several reasons, ask me again after this is over, and perhaps I'll share my thoughts with you : ) - jc37 04:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Too much rebuttal by proposer

It would be helpful if the proposer would refrain from commenting on so many of the "oppose" comments and votes in the Poll unless a specific request for clarification is asked of him/her. We are well aware of the proposers POV and don't really need so many responses to those who disagree. It's the equivalent of letting a candidate into the voting booth. It's unwelcome at the least. Vertium (talk to me) 14:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy and this is not a "vote". And you're welcome to choose to not discuss.

Anyway, as I wrote the proposal, I'm clarifying anything which seems unclear. It's up to you whether you wish to respond. (and I have done so in the support section as well.)

I have NOT been attacking anyone for their comments, nor have I been badgering them to support the proposal. Everyone is welcome to their opinion.(Including you.) - jc37 14:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your confirmation of my right to an opinion and to comment on RfCs. I really appreciate that. I'll resist the strong urge to clarify what is seemingly unclear to you other than to make the point that I did not accuse you of anything. I simply suggested (politely, I might add) that your comments on the opposition comments could have a chilling effect. You defend your removal of selected quotes from the WMF Statement by arguing that "every Wikipedian can read", yet you feel the need to proactively comment on people's comments - because something "seems unclear". If we can all read, and there's so much lack of clarity in the proposal as currently written, perhaps it's best withdrawn and resubmitted when its clarity can be gleaned from reading it. Thank you. Vertium (talk to me) 15:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. It's not worth it. Vertium (talk to me) 15:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

a.) You did accuse me of (among other things) "rebuttal". I was responding to that.

b.) I don't believe anything in my response was unpolite either.

c.) Oh I have no doubt that the proposal should be clearer. Since this was a lengthy proposal anyway, I was briefer in some things that in hindsight, I obviously I probably should not have been so brief about. I've since clarified a few things in the proposal (and noted them on the discussion page).

d.) I've considered re-submitting, both for those reasons, and because I probably should have personally asked for the WMF clarification from the start. Instead, several people have been unsure about the WMF when commenting. I haven't withdrawn simply because substantial discussion has already occurred, and now that we're here, we might as well continue on. I think (I hope) I've clarified the proposal at least somewhat better, so that should (hopefully) be less of an issue. As you may or may not have noted, I haven't needed to clarify much in either the support or oppose sections recently since adding those clarifications to the proposal.

My goal in this is clarity and understanding. So that everyone can openly and informedly express their opinions/perspectives/comments.

I hope this clarifies for you. - jc37 17:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of redundancy, I needed no clarification. I consider this particular discussion closed. No further comments from me will be forthcoming in this thread. You and I don't see eye to eye on this, which is fine - and I genuinely do respect your right to your position. I'll maintain my opposition, but take a break from my involvement in this discussion, as conversations like this become circular far too quickly, rehashing the same points over and over without advancement of consensus. I believe I've clearly made my points in poll comments. I will leave it there without further participation on my part. Vertium (talk to me) 18:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Lack of good faith

The Before commenting, please read the proposal below thoroughly. and However, due to what is being proposed, the commenters really should clearly understand the proposal. text is offensive and shows a severe lack of good faith of the Wikipedian community, implying in advance that editors routinely don't read proposals in their entirety and are often too stupid and or lazy to make meaningful contributions to a discussion. Nobody Ent 12:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont think that is the case. I think it's more like "I know you've heard this a billion times, but just hear me out..."--v/r - TP 21:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nod, it's happened a lot in other discussions. people look at the summary, presume what the proposal is the same as a bunch of others they've seen, then drive-by "vote".

It's human nature.

So I thought maybe if I begged, people might take a moment out of their busy day and read through the whole thing.

What didn't help was that it turns out that it actually wasn't long enough. I needed to clarify quite a few things that I had left out for the sake of brevity. Which was clearly a mistake on my part. - jc37 04:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually with Jc37 here. I don't particularly like the proposal, but the comments essentially said "pay attention, please" and "make sure you're replying to this proposal and not another similar one." Those comments seemed appropriate here, given how many variations of semi-admin or pseudo-admin have been proposed in the past.--Philosopher  05:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Automatic right to "upgrade"?

A thought I've had, which may sway my !vote, is whether "moderators" would have the automatic right "upgrade" to admins (should they so wish at any time). My rationale for asking this is that if the Foundation are insisting that "moderators" must (a) go through the same process and (b) meet the same criteria as admins then they will have already passed RfA. If afterwards someone wishes to changed their bit from "moderator" or "administrator" (or vice versa) then that is their choice.

Like others, also, I wouldn't like this to become a barrier to folk becoming admins (e.g. where people might be expected to become a "mod" first before requesting again to become an "admin"). If a "mod" could simply opt to become an "admin" then there would be no possibility of that. Linking the two would would also safeguard against what the Foundation caution about when they warn that, "If the selection criteria or processes should drift from that used for the selection of administrators, we would need to reconsider the position."

The crucial thing, however, would be that allowing someone to opt for the proposed "mod" (instead of "admin") bit may act to invite more people into the admin corp — but under the title of "moderator" that may attract less hassle and suspicion from other editors. I'm dubious about the "pacifist" argument, but a reduced "moderator" suite might also be more appealing than the full "admin" suite for some.

Finally, it might also do something to break down the "big deal" that surrounds adminship if someone with the "mod" bit could simply opt to be an "admin" (and vice versa). --RA (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I inquired about this in the thread that arose from my opposition (section link). Jc37 indicated that moderators would need to go through another RfA to seek adminship, on the basis that the original discussion didn't establish sufficient trust. I, too, have struggled to understand how this jibes with the Wikimedia Foundation's position. (See this discussion for details.) —David Levy 23:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My reading of the Foundation's position is that it RfAs and "RfMs" would need to be "exactly the same" (their emphasis) and "using the same criteria, operating on the same page" (their emphasis again), "If the selection criteria or processes should drift from that used for the selection of administrators, would need to reconsider the position." That sounds pretty unambiguous, so I don't see the point in asking someone who fulfills the criteria to be a "moderator" sitting through an RfA again. Just give it to them if they choose. --RA (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I see no point in addressing the distinction at RfA. Just allow users whose requests are successful to decide which package they prefer (with the option to switch later). —David Levy 23:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be of that opinion too. And if that were part of the proposal, I would probably support it. Would you be of the same mind? However, a new problem would then present itself: the proposal as it stands makes reference to removal of the "mod" bit from a user by community consensus, which is not current practice with the "admin" bit.

I don't see the proposal as it is currently formulated attaining consensus (opinion is pretty evenly divided); but I wonder if it is worthwhile looking at oppose !votes and seeing how they could be addressed? --RA (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to the technical creation of admin group variants lacking certain tools, provided that no distinction is drawn at RfA. (As you noted, this includes the special recall provision.)

However, it seems unlikely that many administrators would decline the current package, so I don't know whether the community would consider such an endeavor worthwhile. —David Levy 01:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

David Levy. Many people are interested in admin-lite classes. Especially if they don't have to go through the current abusive RFA process. They would gladly turn down the full admin package in order to avoid the current RFA process. And WMF only insists on the current RFA process for admins with undeletion tools. Also, many people want easier recall of admins and admin-lites. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to the current proposal and the alternative discussed above. —David Levy 07:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I was replying to you. I said "David Levy". You discussed "admin group variants lacking certain tools". In the same comment you said "seems unlikely that many administrators would decline the current package." One logical implication from your comment is that there aren't many people who would be interested in admin group variants where administrators could decline the current package. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I was replying to you.

Are you under the impression that I've suggested otherwise?

I said "David Levy".

And I replied.

You discussed "admin group variants lacking certain tools".

And I explicitly referred to "RfA" in the same sentence. I wasn't addressing tools to which access is granted elsewhere, which don't carry the "admin" designation.

In the same comment you said "seems unlikely that many administrators would decline the current package."

Indeed. It seems unlikely that many users, having passed RfA and attained adminship, would choose to decline access to tools available to them.

This has nothing to do with a hypothetical scenario in which users qualify for heretofore nonexistent tool packages outside RfA. —David Levy 08:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And you still missed my main point. I was replying to you. But glad you clarified your point about RFA. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And you still missed my main point. I was replying to you.

I honestly don't know what point you're making or how I'm contradicting it. Sorry. —David Levy 09:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it should be automatic, but it could be useful to have mod status as a prerequisite for RfA. This would mean every admin candidate would have already demonstrated their content collaboration skills. Discussion at RfA would then concentrate on demonstrable understanding of policy and the candidate's suitability for using the block/protect tools and dealing with behavioural issues. - Pointillist (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Handle deletion"

It's obvious that (51-44 19:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)) there is no consensus to implement this proposal completely.

However, reading the opposes, I judge that most of the opposes have to do with the "Handle deletion" toolkit.

• Some editors (like me) don't want to give out the handle-deletion toolkit more easily;
• Others object to an RfA for this toolkit without receiving the other tools, etc.

There may be an overwhelming majority supporting the creation of a moderator-class, with the other powers (not "handle deletion"). Editors opposed to such a moderator-class should write additional opposes, addressing that option.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If the big deal is with deletion, then the obvious solution is to have a separate process for handing out all of the associated rights, quite separate from any other. And on an associated topic, am I the only one who's completely pissed off with every new user right being granted to existing administrators automatically, but never being able to be taken away? Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Many people agree with you there. It's a math problem. Many people can't seem to understand that part of the reason it is so difficult to remove admins is because it is so difficult to become an admin nowadays. People know that if they remove admins it will be difficult to replace them. So we keep going on with this insanity. It is kind of like the US Senate. A supermajority vote (60%) gets things passed. And so the status quo continues even though a majority of people may oppose this and that. A majority of people oppose the current chaos due to the lack of real moderation on Misplaced Pages. But little is done about it because it takes a supermajority consensus on Misplaced Pages to change anything. Totally nuts. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am more pissed off by this David Levy, whomever he is, editing my comments, including moving this section and others without even leaving even a note.

I trust that he will be blocked the next time he edits another's talk-page comments. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of the discussion sections were moved to this subpage. This wasn't my decision, and I don't object to moving all of them back (if that's what consensus dictates). But there's no logic in arbitrarily starting new ones on the poll page (thereby creating confusion and misleading users to believe that all of the discussion is occurring there) or restoring outdated versions without replies that occurred here. You're being disruptive. —David Levy 14:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: Jc37 has recombined the pages (so the above references to "this subpage" and "the poll page" are outdated). —David Levy 16:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative process consideration

Seems from the discussion that there is a split based on many wanting a different selection process than what the WMF is suggesting. Perhaps the best process would be to allow admins to decide on moderators. Basically, perhaps a system where after an editor is nominated an uninvolved admin reviews the editor's contributions and states whether he or she supports that editor having moderator tools or not. If another uninvolved admin seconds that support and there are no objections to the candidate from another uninvolved admin within a reasonable timeframe, say a week, the mod status is granted. Non-admins would be able to comment, but it would be more akin to sheriffs deputizing citizens with Robert's rules-style checks to prevent any one admin from picking a bad apple.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't merely a suggestion on the WMF's part; it's a condition on which its approval (without which such a change cannot be implemented, irrespective of consensus) is contingent. "If the selection criteria or processes should drift from that used for the selection of administrators, would need to reconsider the position." —David Levy 23:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Reconsider" does not mean "will not support" as they could reconsider and find the alternative approach to be suitable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm clarifying that the stipulation isn't a mere "suggestion". It's an explicit condition of the current approval (assuming that consensus is reached). The WMF could agree to an alternative approach, but this has yet to occur.

And based upon other comments ("We're not saying that criteria can't change - just that if it changes for admins, it must have a mirrored change for moderators. Not two different sets of standards." "What we're trying to say is this: we can't have moderators be 'admin-lite', or a training ground for admins. Promotion must be taken just as seriously, because they have access to some seriously important stuff."), it seems highly unlikely that the WMF would agree to anything along the lines of the system outlined above. —David Levy 01:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And which alternative approach might that be? The WMF's clear intention is to deflect the responsibility for any legal repercussions surrounding deleted material onto the Misplaced Pages community and away from itself, therefore an RfA-like process is clearly mandatory. I think they're pissing in the wind, but that's their choice. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate. That is a great idea. But it would only work for some kind of moderator/admin without undeletion tools. David Levy obfuscates (deliberately?) the fact that WMF only requires the current RFA process for any admin class with undeletion tools. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the accusation. The Devil's Advocate explicitly referred to the "moderator" package and the possibility that it could be granted under terms other than those specified by the WMF. —David Levy 07:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It was a question, not an accusation. "Moderator" can be many things. I offered clarity on what the WMF said. Specifically, requiring the current RFA process for undeletion tools. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You accused me of obfuscating (deliberately or not) a fact immaterial to the above discussion, in which no reference to alternative tool sets was made. —David Levy 08:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I struck out the offending part of my comment above. It is not immaterial though that "moderator" can mean many things. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I struck out the offending part of my comment above.

Thank you.

It is not immaterial though that "moderator" can mean many things.

If the Devil's Advocate meant something other than the specific package currently proposed under that name, this was unclear to me. —David Levy 09:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

While I was referring to the current proposal for modship, if undeletion and with it the ability to view deleted material is the only concern then that task could still be left up to admins. I believe DRV is the only noticeboard mentioned, which does not have a serious backlog as far as I know so it would not be a serious loss to leave that power out of the hands of mods.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Withdrawn

Well, what I said in the proposal about train wrecks seems to once again come to fruition. Though this time, though it involved the process, it was more the confusion concerning the WMF and undelete/seeing deleted material.

I fault myself in not running this by them before starting the straw poll.

Problem two was because I was aware the proposal was lengthy, I left out some clarifications, and some of what I had included wasn't clear.

In any case, withdrawing this. I'll work on it some, and let some time go by before suggesting another user group/user-right package.

My sincere thank you to all who joined in this discussion : ) - jc37 16:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Best of luck! It was a worthy proposal, answering long-felt needs. Debresser (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Good luck. I'm not opposed to it in any principled way. Just some real practical issues ought to be dealt with. I'm all for another kick at the can when it's had some work. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)