Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:36, 3 July 2012

Polling is taking place below. For ongoing discussion of this proposal, see /Discussion. Before commenting, please read the full proposal thoroughly. Also note the Wikimedia Foundation's statement and clarification.

Support

• I made a few comments below about some small modifications I think could work nicely with this proposal, but overall I think it's a good idea. Regards, MacMed_stalk 20:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
• I support the edit, move, and delete groups. I would also support protect and block, as I find them useful for non-admins who deal with vandalism.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 04:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Why not? It'll be extremely useful to editors. →TSU  04:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• Per my response to Monty and jc37 below diff. Ryan Vesey Review me! 06:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• I support this as a net positive, although it crosses my mind that deleting pages can reasonably be considered a bigger deal than protecting them, which diminishes my enthusiasm just a little bit. But, on balance, I'm satisfied that this isn't a deal-breaker, because the combination of tools makes sense to me, and I think that this is a good way to increase productivity of the project as a whole. I also commend the proposer for so thoughtfully spelling out the procedures for granting the rights. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• The ease of removal this brings is very reassuring. Marcus Qwertyus 07:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  *I strongly support this. Would be extremely useful. CyanGardevoir 07:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support. Right now, to give a trusted editor these right means also giving them power over other editors, it is difficult to take away the rights if they abuse them. With this proposal, they don't have power over other users and it is easier to remove them. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  As a dispute resolution volunteer at WP:DRN, the fact that I have no special authority over users makes it easier to help them to resolve their disputes. Administrators get treated differently than non-administrators by newbies. On the other hand, when I see a violation of WP:OUTING, I want to hide the personal information on sight, not wait until an admin reacts to my request.

  Some editors have Asperger's syndrome and do well in roles that are highly systematized and predictable, but the social interaction aspects of AS makes them a poor fit with the user blocking aspects of being an administrator. This proposal allows them to be more effective at what they do best.

  Some Quakers believe 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. This proposal allows them to help in admin areas that do not violate their religious principles. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support per Guy Macon. Specs112 t c 13:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Not sure I support this anymore. Specs112 t c 19:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support although I don't know if the WMF will agree.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Thanks Jc37 for a very well-written proposal. It is obvious that you have studied these issues for a long time. A moderator-admin (mod) without the ability to block or protect separates moderation from the hammer. Anything that puts the focus more on neutral content moderation earlier on, rather than user behavior is a good thing. See related discussion: Misplaced Pages talk:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2012-06-18/Investigative report‎. Mods will be able to close content-related discussions such as RM; DRV; AfD/CfD/FfD/TfD/MfD/etc.. Mods will be a separate group away from trigger-happy admins who oftentimes block without warning when implementing WP:Edit warring. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support If you look at the rapidly decreasing number of successful RFAs and the otherwise-qualified editors who don't want to go through the RFA process as it stands now (myself, for one), something has to be done given the size of the backlogs. This is an opportunity to break out of our currently dysfunctional situation. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support this division better clarifies when the mop is cleaning up substance A, and when the mop is cleaning up substance B. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Splitting these specific userrights makes sense and doesn't change the fact that it is admins who are involved in blocking and those sorts of tools, while this set of tools is more associated with fixing backlog issues and getting community discussions closed. Silverseren 07:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support a limited-period trial. We've got to do something. Our admin corps mostly comprises people who passed a popularity contest a few years ago; few of them could pass an RFA at the current standards. And there will presumably be a cull of the idiots in our admin corps once we have a functioning community desysopping process, which is only a matter of time. So there have to be trials of viable options. I do not support implementing this without a limited-period trial and community review process.—S Marshall T/C 11:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support trial period, although I'm not certain I agree with the rest of User:S Marshall's comment. I think a trial period of one year would be a good amount of time - if the community decides to reject full implementation after that time, mods/archons/grand poobahs/whatever can use their experience as a good pointer in RfA or just abandon the tools. - Jorgath (talk) 20:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  Clarification': I do not support the alternate proposal that does not allow these people to view and modify their deletion actions. - Jorgath (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support, though I'd prefer a different name (eg. "janitor"). --Carnildo (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support, counterprposoal: 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, without the WMF-imposed requirement of an RfA process. I think an RfA process is a good idea for now, but we should have the flexibility to relax this in the future. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  I support this idea. CyanGardevoir 08:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  #Conditional support (Moved to oppose) Only the delete function without the ability to undelete or view deleted content, per Davidwrl's proposal CyanGardevoir 08:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support, but Neutral on viewing of deleted content. Just to be clear, I'm not against the addition of rights relating to the viewing of deleted content, but there seems to be some opposition to them, and they make matters more complicated with regard to legal/WMF, etc. I don't think they form an absolute core part of this otherwise really well-thought-out and wonderful proposal. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  While of course, the community is welcome to offer suggestions and counter-proposals and so on through the consensus process, I personally oppose the granting of the delete tool to any editor who cannot see deleted content. One should be able to see what's been going on in the past to make better and more informed decisions when using delete/undelete appropriately. This can be particularly important in cases of CSD (like G4). And the WMF has has now stated their opinion. So just as we can give these tools to admins, so too we can give them to mods. So again, while the community is welcome to suggest such proposals, if this motion was carried, you would leave me opposing my own proposal : ) - jc37 13:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  I have changed my comment so hopefully it does not hinder this proposal :) I still think it is not so important that people who can delete must also be able to view deleted contributions, however. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - This makes a lot of sense, and would solve a lot of the problems that people keep screaming about at RfA. Keilana| 22:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - with the understanding that such "non-blocking admins" (for I believe that is what they are and how they should be treated) are deemed to be just as trustworthy as other admins, and subjected to similar scrutiny, while recognizing their interest lies on the content-administration side rather than from policing editor behavior. It would be a natural package for trustworthy, respected, but drama-averse editors. TheGrappler (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  There are other admin user-rights besides block that are not in this package, but otherwise, yes : ) - jc37 16:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support: This makes eminent sense, and I'm curious as to the "OMG you're going to give people powerz!!" hysteria exhibited by some of the Oppose voters below. Do we not already give such powers to admins? Is the process of approving "moderators" going to be any different? Are not the legal liabilities exactly the same, one way or another? Ravenswing 20:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  More of us have criticised the proposal on the basis that it would result in trustworthy users being denied tools (those not included in the new package). Of particular concern is the likelihood that the advent of modship would encourage the community to reject worthy admin candidates. ("Oppose. You can just become a moderator instead. That way, we can easily demote you.") —David Levy 23:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support - This group of users could turn out to be very helpful for problems that admins could be too busy to fix. For example, if a user feels like he/she doesn't want his/her subpage anymore, and is not just satisfied with having it as a redirect to their user page. Instead of asking a busy admin to do the job, the user could ask one of these people, who probably have much less to do and would be willing to delete the subpage. Brambleberry of RiverClan 22:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  How often does that actually happen? - Pointillist (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  I know that it's happened to me multiple times, and I can't be the only one; there wouldn't be instructions on Misplaced Pages of how to get it as deleted as possible without actually deleting it if I were the only one. Brambleberry of RiverClan 23:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  1. Have you experienced difficulty finding an admin to perform such tasks?
  2. I see no reason to assume that members of the proposed user group would be any less busy. (The proposal is based on the premise that they would help with the same backlogs.) And they would be pulled from the same pool of trustworthy users, so why not simply make them admins? (This is discussed in greater detail below.) —David Levy 23:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support There's been a lot of unbundling proposals over the years that have been pretty bad; I could see this one actually working out. --Rschen7754 23:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support I can't see any problems it's likely to cause, and it should certainly help things run more smooth around here. Evanh2008 02:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - well argued proposal. As far as I can see, one of the primary objections detailed below is that if an editor can be trusted with these tools and the approval process is the same as for Admins, they should just be made an admin. This ignores the fact that some editors don't want these tools (as detailed in the original proposal and by some editors here); regardless of whether the analogy was well chosen, the point still stands. We should not be about forcing an extra set of tools on editors that they don't want and won't use just because of some notion that this is administratively easier or that they deserve to have access to them (assuming successful candidacy). AusTerrapin (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  That issue hasn't been ignored. It's been suggested to simply permit administrators to decline/relinquish access to tools that they don't want. If the standard of trust is to be the same, why is it necessary for the community to draw a distinction? Why can't we simply grant trustworthy editors adminship and permit them to accept the tools with which they're comfortable? And why should users who choose to decline access to certain tools be subject to a special recall provision? —David Levy 05:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I think there are editors/users who can be trusted with some aspects of the admin tools, who just don't want to be admins. This would move things along considerably on various boards like WP:RM and others where we don't have to go track down an admin to get something moved and the like. Good idea, full support. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: per Guy Macon Themeparkgc  Talk  07:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Good for pacifists . Misplaced Pages is becoming bulky and needs more tiers of administration sids 08:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support limited trial. While I understand that some people have a reluctance to block, they are under no obligation to do so, and I know a number of admins that never or rarely block. When suggesting to people they become admins the main reason for not doing so is the RfA process, and this proposal does not alleviate their concern in that area. However, I have long been a supporter of the principle of unbundling the admin rights and giving them out to people as appropriate. My main concern with this proposal is that it may be setting up a scheme which would be little used or requested other than by inappropriate candidates who end up wasting the community's time. As this package includes the rights to delete material, and the rights to restore problematic material either into user or main space, then the user would likely be facing the same heavy RfA as that of a full admin, so would need to have the same breadth and depth of experience, the same robust constitution, and the same sound judgement. Of concern is that someone who hasn't got the common sense and balanced character to accept all the admin tools and stay away from using those tools or areas they feel uncomfortable with is unlikely to be someone who could be trusted with deleting and undeleting material. However, I think it would be worth giving this a limited trial to see if it is used, and what sort of people put themselves forward. If it helps in getting more useful users doing administrative work, then I'll be all in favour. SilkTork 10:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. I was somewhat hesitant when I started reading your proposal since it sounded overly bureaucratic. One thing I don't want is to create more of a hierarchy (where becoming an admin is a two-step process). On the other hand, as long as Requests for Modship would be treated exactly the same way as RfA (per Jc37 and Philippe) I could definitely support this. It seems perfectly reasonable to give trusted editors who could be admins if they wanted to the opportunity to only take on certain responsibilities at their discretion, and not be burdened with the entire administrator package. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 10:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: a very clearly-written and sensible proposal that would make Misplaced Pages a better place - more "moderator"-type admins with the power to help, and no desire to get involved in blocking and suchlike. I can imagine I might one day wish to help in that way, being a "mod": but never to be an admin. I feel that Jc37 has precisely understood a need (people willing to help, a backlog needing attention) that is different from the current concept of adminship. It's still a responsibility and fair enough that consensus is required. I do somewhat agree that some of the deletion tools might be excluded, and the ability to read deleted content; and that admins could be allowed publicly to renounce use of some tools to achieve a similar effect. But the change would be good. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support I'm skeptical that this is going to do much to resolve our RfA problems, as most of the nastiness and high standards in the RfA process would still be there. In particular the emphasis on content in this proposal is likely to make our (already ridiculously high) content requirements in RfA even worse. On the other hand I can't think of any good arguments against this proposal, and S Marshall is right that we need to do something. Hut 8.5 14:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think this is a good idea, but I'd welcome a trial first to iron out any issues. Cloudbound (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Support This seems both a well-thought idea and an intelligent solution. I fully support the concept. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support I have always wanted to be able to edit protected templates and do category moves, especially when I was more active. Debresser (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support A lot of thought has gone into this proposal. I'm sure there are many users such as I who would like to handle some of the more admin-ly tasks of this sort but not all of them. And anything that helps reduce a backlog, particularly in the XFD department, is a welcome improvement IMO. Ten Pound Hammer • 20:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support a trial. I do like this well-argued proposal, but can't deny that there have been many valid points from those who oppose it. I'd like for everybody to be able to see how it actually plays out first, over a limited span of time; that way, more informed decisions can be made by everybody. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The idea of creating a sort of "subset" of administrators with fewer tools to deal with the backlogs is a great idea. However, I will consent with the other opinions that a trial period should be rolled out in order to work out the problems. Regardless, Misplaced Pages should be free to include more so-called "moderators" who are allowed to clear out the backlogs and free up time for the more busy administrators. I completely support this idea.OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support. Completely agree with Nouniquenames's response above. Jesse V. (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly support. Debundle admin tools so that the RfA process for these sysops-lite can avoid the drama associated with figuring out how well a sysop candidate will wield the block and protect tools, when he doesn't even want those tools. Maybe this will go a long way toward fixing our sysop drought. It could be a good stepping-stone to full sysop powers, and a way for us to evaluate how well they handle limited sysop powers before giving them a promotion to full sysop. Leucosticte (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. RFA is broken, this might well be the fix. Status quo is certainly not the fix. Let's try this, if only for the obviousness of accommodating true "wikipacifists". A population exists, however small, that doesn't want to get involved in behavior issues. They're still willing to help with gnomework-- let them. And on top of that, maybe this will help fix RFA. --HectorMoffet (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I'm fairly relaxed about this. A process that might help get more trusted editors involved in admin-like work and able to clear backlogs is welcome. I'm not sure this particular idea will work but I'm happy for the community to give it a go (a trial period makes sense but my support isn't dependent on it). And if it doesn't work, the sky won't fall and we'll try something else... Whouk (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I'm one of those who is happy to work on content and let the broad-shouldered deal with combat. David_FLXD (Talk) 17:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. After reading the proposal, this sounds very much like something I have wanted. I want to be able to edit protected templates, without having the full responsibility as an administrator. 117Avenue (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Doesn't look harmful--good way to fight backlogs. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Looks like a good way to combat backlogs. I'm a little concerned that it adds to the beaucratic burden, but that doesn't look avoidable. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support This seems a thoughtful proposal. It would enable more effective contributions from many editors who are leery of the political aspects of being an admin. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 10:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support I begin to wonder if we have lost touch with our open source roots sometimes. Giving something a try with the idea that it can be easily changed back if it turns out not to work is in line with the open source philosophy (and the whole idea of the way a wiki works). Many people who agree that we need to do "something" about RfA can't seem to agree what to do about it. That's exactly the case where we should give latitude to a proposal that we might have doubts about the success of. I support this proposal with the understanding that all such major policy changes should be considered provisional. If any opposers are still around to read this, I urge them to reconsider as well, and put in support for this so that we can break the logjam of stagnation and actually try something well-thought-out. Don't think of it as a permanent marriage, I and many other supporters will be right along side you ready to revert this if it does not work. Gigs (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, at least for a trial period of several months to see how many people take it up. I'm a new admin (here's my RfA) who had six years' experience and 30,000 edits under my belt before being talked into RfA (jointly by Jc37). I had been doing occasional non-admin closures for years, and had long wanted the ability to see deleted pages. I would have gone for moderator-adminship much sooner than I got round to RfA. Although I had no appetite for blocking and protecting, once I became an admin I came across obvious sockpuppets and WP:CORPNAME, and used those tools after all; so I think that within a year of becoming a moderator I would have applied for full adminship. So while I am glad I have the whole package now, I think that moderator-adminship would be a useful and effective route to recruiting admins. Give it a try. If after six months it looks as if there were not many editors who were "shy" of wanting the whole toolbox like me, then the few new mods will have a choice of RfA or reverting to "just" being contributors (and hooray for contributors!). – Fayenatic London 16:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  But you would have to have gone through RfA anyway to get this proposed new admin-lite package, so what's the difference? Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 2 July 2012

• Support. Anything that opens the door for more users to have more power is a good thing! Red Slash 16:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Long over due. Current proposal not perfect, but making the perfect of the enemy of the good = nothing gets done, which is unfortunately the usual Misplaced Pages way. VolunteerMarek 20:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - In review of opposes, many are objecting to the RfA process either directly or indirectly, as I read their concerns. While I think the current RfA is a horror and would not inflict it on an enemy, I see this as a way for those who want to advance the project to do so, without the added level of conflict involved in full adminship.User talk:Unfriend12 20:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  I'm very interested in that line of argument, but I fail to see how RfAs for moderators would be any different from RfAs for regular administrators. And in fact, as the moderator role is very much content-centred, I can see them being even rougher than regular RfAs, where many supporters pooh-pooh the idea that administrators should be even able to string two sentences together Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  I fear I may have been unclear. The RfA *MUST* be no different. I speak of the stress of actually being the one to block, for example.User talk:Unfriend12 21:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  I still don't understand why anyone would go through a process that I can see as being rougher on content-oriented editors, who stand to gain fewer rights, than it is presently on those asking for the whole shooting match. And after all, not everyone who owns a gun is obliged to use it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Blocking is a much more difficult decision than deletion and it brings a ton more stress. I don't buy for a second that an RfM would be just as bad or nearly as political. The rules governing deletion are much more precise and far less ambiguous than those for blocking, so a candidate's knowledge and judgment should be pretty clear. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• Some of the rights proposed have been among the most contentious in RFAs, and their misuse has been prominent in discussions on AN/I and elsewhere: the deletion of articles. Being responsible for removing a contributors article is the single most sensitive act a wikipedian can do--and potentially among the most harmful things any one individual can do to the project. The continuing life of the project depends on recruiting new editors, and most people whose first article is rejected never come back again. AfD closure an already be done under limited circumstances by non-admins, although their excessive use of this ability has been a continuing problem. Any editor at all can decline a speedy or a prod. Deletion is something that needs very careful though, common sense, and fairly wide knowledge. I'm sure many non admins have them, but anyone who does and has never really gotten into trouble will pass RFA. I'm equally sure a few admin do not have this, & they can do considerable harm because it is so hard to get rid of them. These processes never have more than single day backlogs and are rarely time-sensitive. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  You are welcome to your opinion, and I do not intend to try to convince you otherwise, but I'd like to clarify a few things.

  The backlogs are longer than a day. Just today I closed a policy-related discussion today from february, and a CfD from over a month ago.

  This process is to be the same as the RfA/RfB process, so all your concerns about the importance of the tools in question would be weighed just as any RfA. By checking contribs, asking questions, and attempting to discern if you would trust the individual with these tools and responsibilities.

  And finally, this process has removal built into it. - jc37 03:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  Policy discussion often take a longer time to close, and this is not always a bad thing considering their importance and the usual presence of good arguments in different directions. XfDs other than AfD are widely neglected--very few people regularly work there, and dealing with this is one of the problems, because their decisions are unrepresentative.They have much bigger problems than delays in closings. If this is to be exactly like RfA, so will be the standards and the nature of the discussions--in other words, this will accomplish nothing that anyone might desire DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  Your welcome to your opinion of XfD processes. As for "nothing anyone might desire", I might suggest that you check out several comments on this talk page, including from Quinn1 and MacMed, and several people in the support section. I think that there is a clear "desire" for this, and more, that this would actually be useful (per Tryptofish, for example). And that's just this discussion, people have been requesting a "non-blocking" package for a rather long time. - jc37 18:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see the payoff in making someone go through something that is basically is RFA and then making them a partial admin. I also find the idea that the "delete" button is not as important as the block button to be deeply flawed. I wouldn't expect anyone who can't be trusted to decide when to block out there deleting and restoring articles. Along with that are the same objections I have every few months when someone thinks of reproposing partial admins: it is extremely common to come upon situations that require multiple admin tools. These half-admins will constantly have to find full admins to finish the job for them. That does not strike me as an effiicient way to clear backlogs. In short I see little to no benefit and a lot of hassle involved with this idea. I also doubt many users would bother to go through the process when they could go through the same thing and become a full admin. I can't say I know how to "fix" RFA, but this ain't it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  The payoff, I would hope, is that those who want to perform these tasks, without the extremely stressful conflicts involved in blocking, for example, would apply for this role. Another might well be that admins who are currently not active due to his stress would come back.User talk:Unfriend12 21:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Because it's what I have already said many times on other discussions that basically concern unbundling the tools rather than addressing what's actually wrong with RfA, I fully concur with DGG and Beeblebrox. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  (Expanding in the light of recent discussions, and to concur with the WMF statement and other user comments) ...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. 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 ostensibly seen by some 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) 02:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• The position of the WMF is that only administrators can view deleted content. By this reason both 'undelete' and 'deleterevision' may not be included. In addition, how are you going to decide what to undelete if you can not view deleted? Other rights like 'move-subpages' and 'suppressredirect' are rarely used and are among the most useless in the admin package. I do not think anybody is going to acquire much 'administrative experience' by using them. Ruslik_Zero 18:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  Which is why this may need to be considered a type of admin (as I clearly noted in the proposal). I am leaving that to them to clarify. - jc37 19:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think we'd have an objection to viewdelete if it was through an RfX-like process, but don't take my word for it - I'll check in with legal and see what they think (incidentally, if you want us to clarify you may want to ask us directly ;-). We have two Community Liaisons and a lot of new things happening every day on WP; we don't catch it all). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks Okeyes, I did send a request in to legal—Philippe (WMF). Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

  Yeah, I just got told internally; headdesk! Okay, I'm going to sit over here in the corner and try to remove my foot from my gullet, where it is (un)happily wedged ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• If the process is the same as for adminship, that really defeats the purpose of an admin-lite type of position. My alternate proposal would be to remove the ability to view deleted materials and make this a lesser-than-RfA process, though the resulting position shouldn't be able to close any contentious debates. The 'yearning' for an admin-lite position was always based on RfA being overkill for a lot of the current admin-only duties, so adding the lite position without also providing the lighter process defeats the whole purpose, in my opinion.Switched from neutral -- I'd like the door to remain open for a bona fide admin-lite type of position in the future, and if this proposal gets passed I see that being more difficult.Equazcion 20:49, 24 Jun 2012 (UTC)

  Well in the last several discussions I've been in, it's been made clear that all deletion-related tools, block, and protect will not be given out without RfX community approval. And even editprotected, when I proposed that as a separate right. So with that in mind, what tools were you looking to see in your idea of admin-lite? - jc37 01:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  Just because things have been rejected in the past doesn't mean that couldn't change in the future. That said, I don't know what my ideal version of admin-lite would be. I do know that this proposal is much too far off from constituting the kind of benefit for which admin-lite has been argued traditionally, that it's not worth implementing this way just to risk not being able to do it the right way in the future. I think admin-lite has been rejected so much in the past that we're just trying to get something through, but this something is really way too similar to adminship to benefit us the way admin-lite has been proposed to, and I'd rather not "occupy its slot", so to speak, on the chance that something viable and truly beneficial could come up later. Equazcion 01:45, 26 Jun 2012 (UTC)

  "...this proposal is much too far off from constituting the kind of benefit for which admin-lite has been argued traditionally..." - guessing (from your comments through out the various discussions) that you mean because it requires going through RfX, and you're looking for something an admin-granted? You're welcome to hope for that, but my experience with these sorts of proposals leads me to think that that will just never be the case. Too many people have major concerns about delete/block/protect. (Just look at this discussion where some still seem to think that this proposal suggests something other than requiring the RfX process.) But who knows, WP:CCC after all, so hang on to your hopes. I just don't share that hope, and am trying to propose something the community will approve. I enjoy tilting at windmills as much as (really, more than) the next person, but for this, I think respecting the feeling of the community is the way to go. - jc37 02:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  Don't strawman. Not-RfA doesn't necessarily mean admin-granted. There are many in-betweens, and certainly many combinations of rights and process haven't been proposed yet and could have a chance. I did spell out above that I understand you're trying to propose something the community will approve -- and furthermore, in focusing on that alone, you've sacrificed all its potential benefits (to the point that it looks like the community will again not be approving of this). Equazcion 02:17, 26 Jun 2012 (UTC)

  I wasn't trying to "strawman". I was sincerely trying to understand what you meant. I'm not sure what benefits you think that this proposal is "sacrificing". But I'll pass on trying to guess again. Thanks for attempting to clarify. - jc37 02:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose anything that would allow non-admins to view deleted material under any circumstances. Legal nightmare waiting to happen. Also more general concern with further handing out lots of tiers and toolsets. Misplaced Pages is not an MMORPG--we don't need any more 'levels' than are strictly necessary. If backlogs are a problem, get some more admins or find a way to make the ones we have more active. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  I find your suggestion that we should "find a way to make more active" rather curious... How are we supposed to do this? While it is true that some admins leave in a huff, most just seem to "go dark" for whatever reason. We ought to be respectful of that, and remember that life does continue outside the wiki. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  Incidentally, this proposal actually is a way to try to help some admins to become more active. I've heard it said by several concerning admin "burnout" due to having to deal with what (from their point of view) is block-related nonsense. (paraphrasing) "I would be happier with adminship if I didn't have to also act as the local hall monitor."

  So this package will give them that option if they wish. And so, may actually help them become more active. Why am I sure of this? Consider how many admins just gave up adminship entirely due to not wanting to deal with such things anymore. They aren't necessarily any less trustworthy than they were when carrying the adminship tools. So giving them the option to pick up this package is a way to give them the opportunity to again help with certain admin-level, content-related tools and responsibilities.

  So I see this as a win-win. It gives various editors a way to help contribute, while still maintaining the high level of trustworthiness that we would want to ascribe to admins. - jc37 14:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• XfD participation should be restricted to obvious deletions only. This proposal should be about handing out the tools for technical reasons, to people who we believe intend to do the right thing, and who have shown themselves capable of working within highly objective guidelines. Jc's answer to my concern in the discussion section suggests that to an extent this is the intention, but the fact that contentious AfDs are within this new group's remit shows beyond doubt that it's not the result.

  My biggest concern at RfA is over whether someone is suitable to close contentious discussions, so in most cases it makes no difference whether or not they are requesting the block/protect functions. If we don't trust someone to block people, then we are either questioning their interpretation of policies and guidelines, or questioning their temperament. If we don't trust someone to protect/unprotect, then we are either questioning their interpretation of policies and guidelines, or suggesting that they would act in a way which is more protectionist/liberal than the community believes they should. Most relevantly, if we don't trust them to close contentious RfCs or policy discussions, why on earth shouldn't this be extended to contentious AfDs?

  All it would take for me to reconsider my opposition would to restrict AfD closes to non-admin closures – a practise which is already in place and well understood – the difference being that this usergroup would be able to action obvious deletes. Wordage wise this would be a small amendment, but one which is absolutely fundamental to what this new bundle is supposed to be about. —WFC— 09:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  I believe that this would be a very fair alteration to make. This would greatly increase community support and would still be helpful in cleaning up backlogs. If mods can close clear RfXs, then the backlog for actual admins would be lowered and they could spend their time on more contentious closes, where to community wants to have the full mop. Regards, MacMed_stalk 12:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  It's kinda difficult to respond because I'm still waiting for a response from the WMF people (they said they would this weekend).

  But even without their response, I'm really starting to get a sense that the concept of "non-admin" is seen by some editors as "untrustworthy", when that was never the idea in this proposal. The need to pass RfX is supposed to help ascertain that those with this user-right package are trustworthy. To be clear, I would not support a proposal that gave deletion tools to an untrustworthy editor, period.

  As an aside, I suggested in the proposal that we may need to call this group moderator-admin due to WMF concerns. But now I'm beginning to wonder (due to this "non-admin" misunderstanding) whether we need to call it that due to community concerns as well. - jc37 13:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  I object to use of the word "misunderstanding", and would ask you to strike it. I understand exactly what this proposal entails, and while I disagree on this one (fundamental) point, I understand what it is that you are attempting to achieve with the proposal. I have simply used the term "non-admin closures" in relation to obvious AfD deletions, so that the suggestion could not be dismissed as being in any way complicated. —WFC— 14:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  I meant it in a general sense and not directed specifically towards you. (Note the use of "community concerns" in the same sentence.) My apologies if that wasn't clear. (I've added "As an aside" as a clarifying phrase.) And you are of course welcome to disagree on any point at your discretion. - jc37 14:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Blocking and content are intimately connected wherever the issue is difficult. This project has one purpose, which is content. Sometimes, content disputes become behavioural disputes. Where Blocking is needed, and content is not involved, you have the easiest of situations to decide to block. Where an administrative decision is challenged by bad behaviour, the administrator needs the authority and ability to block. If there is a problem with blocking in the project, it is with excessive hesitancy to block. Trying to solve content management problems with impotent admins will make thigns worse. Anyone trusted with deletion privileges should have the block ability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  If you believe that the block-hammer is wielded too lightly rather than too harshly, then that is so. But those who believe the opposite, or who don't really care either way, could consider that ANI and AIV already serve as a go-between for users who are going about their business of trying to improve our content, and who want admins to potentially make some blocks in a given situation. There is no reason why members of this new user group could not use the same channels; indeed their requests would likely require less disagreement and discussion amongst users at the respective boards, since members of the new group will be more experienced than your average user. Just a thought. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  I believe that blocking is too hesitant for small problems, and then used too severely too late. This is the impression of a "block-hammer" - no delicacy, all or nothing. There are not enough 1 hour blocks for offensiveness (disrupting other editors), and then there are too many indefinite blocks that weren't preceded by blocks of escalating duration. This proposal seems to amplify the notion that blocks are a super-serious matter, and looks like it will head towards fewer admins dealing out harsher blocks, and for this reason I think it should be opposed. Also, if the application process is to be identical to RfA, why not just do RfA? I don't remember any RfA failures due to a perceived inability to block appropriately. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• This proposal seems to rely on the idea that deletion related tools are less severe or contentious than block related tools, and do not require the same degree of trustworthy level-headedness. I do not think this is right. To underscore DDG's remarks about the gravity of deletion: deletions may have caused more newcomers to vanish forever than blocking ever did.

  There is a grain of truth in the notion that blocking is always personal and hence inherently contentious; but if deletion is not always so, it is not the case that it is never so. The degree of responsibility needed to be entrusted with a tool depends on the potential for misuse of the tool, regardless of whether that potential is only sometimes severe or is always so. I do not believe this subset of tools should be handed out any more or less liberally than the full suite of administrator tools.

  To the extent that a backlog of administrative tasks is a problem, the solution is to elect more administrators. Yes, RfA is "broken". That is what needs to be fixed: we need a process that effectively recruits level-headed people rather than chasing them away, not a new RfA-like process for people considered not quite trustworthy enough to use all of the tools. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  "This proposal seems to rely on the idea that deletion related tools are less severe or contentious than block related tools, and do not require the same degree of trustworthy level-headedness." - No, and I'm sorry if you have been given that impression.

  The assertion is NOT that delete is any less requiring of trust than block or protect.

  The assertion is that because in the RfX request for these tools, the candidate would only be requesting delete, not block or protect, so the "tone" or "climate" of the debate should be less harsh. But it shouldn't be inferred at all that the discussion of trustworthiness for gaining delete and the other tools in this package should be any less than it normally is for RfA candidates.

  I would not support a proposal (much less propose one) where we grant anyone with the ability to delete who wasn't fully trustworthy with those tools and responsibilities. - jc37 13:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Having read the full proposal, I must acknowledge that it's very thoughtfully written and probably more sensible than any similar proposal I've encountered. It addresses some of my usual objections and avoids others completely, but I still see no net gain.
  I support the unbundling of tools for which less trust is required (e.g. rollback). In my view, any user who can be trusted to delete and undelete pages can be trusted with all of the administrator tools. (Ningauble has eloquently explained why.) So while it makes sense to require a process comparable to RfA (and I realize that Jc37 recognizes the need), it doesn't make sense not to simply make qualified users administrators. As Equazcion has noted, the same elements that make the proposal less objectionable than others also defeat the purpose of establishing a new user group (by making it too similar to the administrator group).
  The weakest part of the proposal, in my opinion, is the "Imagine it's like forcing a conscientious objector or a pacifist to carry a gun." analogy. I'm sorry, but it simply isn't. A gun is a dangerous instrument that easily can be fired accidentally or fall into the wrong hands. Unless someone's account is compromised (and if this is likely, he/she obviously shouldn't be trusted with any of the rights in question), there's no harm in a trustworthy editor possessing unused tools. As I've commented in the past, I hate the idea of reinforcing the notion that an administrator must possess a demonstrable need for all of them (as opposed to the community's trust not to misuse them).
  I share Beeblebrox's concern that the proposed setup would reduce efficiency by forcing moderators (who otherwise might be administrators) to flag down admins for related tasks. Why deprive trustworthy users of tools that they might need?
  Unlike some, I believe that modship would be widely requested. Trustworthy editors would have little choice, as its introduction would greatly increase the already-onerous expectations at RfA. ("Oppose. You can just become a moderator instead. That way, we can easily demote you.")
  So while I applaud Jc37's efforts, I remain unconvinced that such a change is necessary or desirable. —David Levy 19:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comments. I agree that someone need not demonstrate a "need" for all of them. While I've found I have helped out in many ways I had not expected when requesting adminship (a truism amongst most admins I think), I still do very little with images. Let me try to clarify the gun analogy. (And perhaps using a "gun" for the analogy made things less-than-clear on my part.) See User:Guy Macon's comments under #Clarified, below. This isn't about accidents. It's whether someone wants to carry such tools and responsibilities. I appreciate that you want to say "Here, take this too, I trust you with it." But at the same time, can we not appreciate the wish of those who say: "thank you for your trust, but I don't want that, please." If we trust them, then we trust them. Let's at least get them the tools they will accept. - jc37 20:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  This strikes me as a solution in search of a problem. I seriously doubt that many users decline to seek adminship because they need only some of the tools and are uncomfortable accepting the rest (as opposed to those who worry that the community will deny their request on this basis — a problem that we should seek to alleviate, not reinforce). There might be some (such as the Quakers mentioned), but I certainly haven't seen such a sentiment expressed often.
  Regardless, if that's the issue, why not simply permit administrators to decline/relinquish (and later accept, should they reconsider) the tools not included in the proposed user group? Even if a separate classification is required on the technical side, why do we need one (along with slightly different rules) on the community side? Given the fact that the selection processes would be "exactly the same as that for administrators — using the same criteria, operating on the same page", what's the point? It seems like needless redundancy (with the unintended consequences that I've cited). —David Levy 22:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  Well, perhaps it's because by being in these discussions, and such individuals comment, but I have heard more than a few (including some who self-identified as Wikignomes) say they want nothing to do with blocking et al, but would be happy to help with content-related tasks.

  "Regardless, if that's the issue, why not simply permit administrators to decline/relinquish (and later accept, should they reconsider) the tools not included in the proposed user group?" - I actually have tried proposing that in several various ways - in general, the community seemed afraid that I was attempting to take block away from admins. (It seems that people sometimes hear only what they want to hear. That can include me, of course : )

  That aside, it's been made clear to me (due to various reasons, including technical ones) that +sysop (what admin actually is) should not be split, and instead we should propose to create different user groups for what we want.

  So the hope is, this proposal will satisfy as many wants (and alleviate as many concerns) as possible, while staying within our standards and expectations of trust that such tools and responsibilities carry. - jc37 22:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  Well, perhaps it's because by being in these discussions, and such individuals comment, but I have heard more than a few (including some who self-identified as Wikignomes) say they want nothing to do with blocking et al, but would be happy to help with content-related tasks.
  And that's fine. Administrators aren't obligated to block/unblock, and I strongly dislike the idea of reinforcing such a misconception, thereby encouraging opposition to trustworthy users' adminship requests on the basis that modship is available as an alternative (and includes a recall provision that adminship lacks).
  If prospective administrators literally want nothing to do with blocking (including the mere capability), simply permit them to decline this tool. If bureaucrats and the community at large are to apply exactly the same criteria when evaluating candidates via exactly the same process on exactly the same page, the distinction doesn't concern them.
  If the level of community trust required is to be identical, why shouldn't a moderator (or whatever term we use) have the option to become an administrator (as we use the term currently) immediately upon request? Why would only the inverse be possible (unless the moderator was an administrator in the past and voluntarily switched)? Contrary intentions notwithstanding, this (along with the aforementioned recall provision) certainly seems to imply that adminship is considered a "higher rank" requiring greater trust, which is exactly how the community would treat it.
  I actually have tried proposing that in several various ways - in general, the community seemed afraid that I was attempting to take block away from admins.
  The community apparently misunderstood. But as noted above, something similar (depriving trustworthy candidates of adminship because modship exists) is a likely consequence of the proposed change.
  That aside, it's been made clear to me (due to various reasons, including technical ones) that +sysop (what admin actually is) should not be split, and instead we should propose to create different user groups for what we want.
  I'm not suggesting that +sysop be split. I'm saying that it's fine to go ahead and create the new user group, but I see no valid reason for it to be treated as distinct within the Rf* process. —David Levy 23:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  "...simply permit them to decline this tool." - I think I may be misunderstanding what you mean by the could you explain?

  "Why would only the inverse be possible...?" - The same reasons that (to use a past example - currently, I think that bots accounts are now considered to be an extension of the bot-owner as (roughly) tools are granted to an individual, not an account) when a bot is trusted by the community to only use the delete tool, it shouldn't be given any of the other admin permissions without going through another RfA. It has nothing to do with hierarchy and all to do with trust. Another comparison from the past: Once upon a time, RfB candidates had the option of also requesting checkuser when requesting bureaucratship. Obviously back then if you did not request CU when you initially went through RfB, it required another RfB to gain checkuser. (Since then, obviously CU is now a separate process - but a bureaucrat wishing to be a CU still has to go through two processes, though now in this case the second is called something else, it's still a community trust assessing process.)

  "I'm saying that it's fine to go ahead and create the new user group, but I see no valid reason for it to be treated as distinct within the Rf* process." - I think I may not be understanding this either. Because to me, that sounds like you support this proposal. - jc37 04:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  "...simply permit them to decline this tool." - I think I may be misunderstanding what you mean by the could you explain?
  If an incoming administrator (or an existing one) prefers not to possess the ability to block/unblock users or protect/unprotect pages, give him/her a variant of the administrator user rights package similar or identical to the one that you propose. I don't object to that. I only object to the idea of treating it differently at RfA (or a renamed version thereof).
  "Why would only the inverse be possible...?" - The same reasons that (to use a past example - currently, I think that bots accounts are now considered to be an extension of the bot-owner as (roughly) tools are granted to an individual, not an account) when a bot is trusted by the community to only use the delete tool, it shouldn't be given any of the other admin permissions without going through another RfA. It has nothing to do with hierarchy and all to do with trust.
  I thought that we established that the level of trust required for modship would be the same as that required for adminship. (I certainly believe that it should be, which is part of why I see no point in treating it as a separate entity outside the technical end). Perhaps I've misunderstood.
  "I'm saying that it's fine to go ahead and create the new user group, but I see no valid reason for it to be treated as distinct within the Rf* process." - I think I may not be understanding this either. Because to me, that sounds like you support this proposal.
  No, I don't. I'm fine with the technical setup of one or more variants of the administrator group lacking certain permissions that admins explicitly opt to decline. I oppose the idea of holding separate discussions at RfA (or a renamed version thereof), with modship as an outcome distinct from (and/or regarded as lesser than) adminship.
  No matter how many new groups of this nature are created and how they're designated on the technical side, from the community's perspective, they should simply be known as "administrators". —David Levy 05:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  I'm going to try to explain with another (likely poor) analogy. (Note, while I'm not jewish, it occurred to me that a fictionalised version of kosher-like rules might be a decent analogy.)

  Imagine a fictional community where there is a position in the community called "butcher". This individual has several rights and responsibilities with the community. The butcher is who mercifully kills livestock prior to buthering. And who also butchers the meat according to the applicable ordinances. And, as a community role, also doubles as a game warden, enforcing community policy on hunting and fishing seasons.

  Now imagine that Sol is the community's current butcher. To gain the post, he went through the community vetting process of which the primary consideration was whether the community trusted Sol to follow all their rules and ordinances when performing the responsibilities he was requesting.

  Well, the community has grown. And it's decided that they should have another butcher to help Sol out with the tasks.

  Sol feels Eli would be a suitable candidate, and so asks him if he would be interested. But Eli says that while he would be happy to help out with the butchering of the meat, and even with being a game warden, he just doesn't want the responsibilities to kill the animals. He doesn't want confusion about it later, he doesn't want that weight on his shoulders even if he's welcome to decide to not help out in that way. His request is agreed to, and Sol nominates him before the community, and it's made clear to all the community what tasks Eli would be requesting, and what ones he would not.

  After a long community discussion there is eventual consensus that the community trusts Eli to perform the tasks he requested.

  Time goes by.

  Over time, Eli finds that his concerns about slaying the livestock are not as much a problem for him as they were when he was younger. And he sees that Sol could really use some help in this way.

  So he and Sol go to the community elders and ask they they recognise that Eli can help out in this way too. After all, he went through the standard process to become a butcher, just as Sol did, so it should be uncontroversial to trust Eli with the additional responsibility.

  Several start to nod their heads to this, but several others note: Wait a minute, when we agreed in the community discussion to trust Eli with the tasks, it was only for the ones he requested. We individual members of the community might not have agreed if he had requested this responsibility as well. We only trusted him with these specific responsibilities. But we don't agree to granting this one without the standard community vetting process. Does he know all the proper community ordinances (rules) concerning this? This should be vetted before the community using the standard process. We members of the community feel that just giving him this responsibility without community discussion on it would be an "unorthodox" way to get this extra responsibility, it would be reckless and irresponsible and is contrary to our policies of community vetting for each of these responsibilities.

  In other words, every tool and related responsibility must be vetted for community trust through the standard process. If someone is approved for an abbreviated list of such tools and related responsibilities, and later wishes any additional tools and responsibilities, the standard process of community vetting for trust must be followed. No secondary standards or exceptions are permitted, regardless of what other previous processes the individual may have gone through. The process must be the same.

  So Eli goes through the process again. And though it's still the same standard process, he found the "tone" of it much easier. The questions and concerns only addressing the specific responsibility that he was requesting this time through. So while it was equally as tough and scrutinising, it was focused specifically on only what he was requesting. Which he found to be less stressful.

  This story has several possible endings.

  In one possible ending, the community consensus was that they felt that they could trust him with the additional responsibility. And he started helping Sol out in this new (to Eli) way.

  Another possible ending could be that his request for the community to grant him this extra responsibility was unsuccessful. It was determined that while that the community may trust him with the tools he previously requested, consensus was not achieved for him to gain this one. So he just continued to help out in butchering the meat and as game warden. Which he was perfectly happy to do.

  In the future, perhaps someone else could be found to help out, or perhaps Eli might decide later to request again.

  I hope this better explains. And note, besides this having prior precedent (as I noted above), I believe this was the restriction noted by the WMF. Same standard process as adminship, no second standard. - jc37 15:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  I sincerely appreciate that you took the time to write that, but it doesn't address my concerns.
  It's been stated (unless I've misunderstood) that modship would require the same level of trust as adminship, with bureaucrats and the community at large applying the same criteria when evaluating candidates via the same process on the same page. Is that correct or incorrect? The above analogy seems to imply the latter, as you refer to different criteria and a potential lack of trust to take on the additional responsibilities (analogous to tools).
  I believe this was the restriction noted by the WMF. Same standard process as adminship, no second standard.
  Right, with "the same criteria". You appear to contradict this above. —David Levy 18:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  Oh well, I thought it might help better clarify.

  As for the rest I specifically asked for clarification, and I believe that clarification was exactly as I noted above: "And note , I believe this was the restriction noted by the WMF. Same standard process as adminship, no second standard."

  Regardless, as I noted much further up this thread, you are of course welcome to your opinion, and of course can oppose this proposal at your discretion. I merely have been attempting to clarify. - jc37 20:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  I understand that you're attempting to provide clarification, and I genuinely appreciate your efforts. Likewise, I'm sincerely attempting to ensure that my understanding of the proposal is accurate. To that end, can you please provide a direct response to my question?
  It's been stated (unless I've misunderstood) that modship would require the same level of trust as adminship, with bureaucrats and the community at large applying the same criteria when evaluating candidates. Is that correct or incorrect?
  If it is correct, I don't understand how this jibes with your above analogy (which appears to suggest that modship confirmation would rely on different criteria and require less trust than adminship). —David Levy 22:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  I thought I had, just above.

  I'm nearing the point of wondering if we're talking past each other in some way. - jc37 01:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  That's my concern as well, which is why I seek to alleviate any possible confusion.
  You referred to "the same standard process as adminship" (emphasis added), so this much is clear. But what about the criteria and level of trust? Previous messages (including that of Philippe Beaudette, who explicitly mentioned "the same criteria") led me to believe that they would be the same too, but your analogy seems to suggest otherwise. —David Levy 01:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  I feel I've responded to you about this several times, but I'll try again.

  Let me express an answer from my opinion, rather than from the perspective of clarifying the proposal, and maybe that will help make it clearer.

  I do not want someone to be granted the ability to delete, block, or any of the other potentially greatly disruptive tools without full vetting by the community. I am very uncomfortable with the various proposals over the years which have suggested unbundling such tools to be given out at admin discretion. Our common practice on this has been community discussion closed by a bureaucrat.

  I cannot speak for other RfA commenters, but I believe our standards for entrusting an individual to be granted such tools should be as scrutinising as ever.

  As for my comments about how RfA would have less of a nasty tone, one can be tough in assessing someone's contribs and such without being a jerk about it. It has been conveyed many times that part of this is due to fear. I know you've already read my opinion, and have seen how you disagree with one point of it.

  It suddenly occurs to me that that could be the difficulty in our mutual understanding. If so, then I'll happily leave you to your opinion. I have no want to debate your opinion with you in the oppose section. You are of course entitled to your opinion. - jc37 02:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  —David Levy 20:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per DGG and others -- a process that is in almost every way identical to the RfA should result in an admin. This will not help with backlogs. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  As I have explained several times, I personally reject the idea of me having the power to block users, but I would apply for the ability to edit protected pages. Logically, it cannot be true that having one more person who can work on backlogs will not help with backlogs. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  I respect your stance, however uncommon it may be. But I believe that the ability to edit protected pages requires as high a level of trust as any other administrator right does, so I see no reason to establish a separate non-technical designation for it (not that this matches what's been proposed). If such a setup were deemed feasible (despite limitations that might be regarded as problematic), why not simply go through RfA, become an administrator (if the community deems you sufficiently trustworthy) and accept a technical variant of the package without the blocking tool? —David Levy 07:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  I completely agree that the ability to edit protected pages requires as high a level of trust as any other administrator right does and I would fully expect (and the WMF requires) that I would have to pass the same Rfc as an admin with blocking powers. The technical variant of the package without the blocking tool would be fine with me, but I can not and will not accept the title of "Administrator" as long as any Misplaced Pages page says that Administrators can block users. That's the whole point of rejecting the ability to block; I have seen again and again administrators get treated differently than non-administrators by newbies. Yes, WP:INVOLVED clearly says that the admin has no admin powers in a discussion he is involved with, but pretty much every other website on earth has individuals with various titles that regularly drop the banhammer on anyone who disagrees with them. You can't fight a public perception like that. Put those three together -- no power over users, ability to edit protected pages, etc. and no title that implies a power over a user -- and you end up with this proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  The technical variant of the package without the blocking tool would be fine with me, but I can not and will not accept the title of "Administrator" as long as any Misplaced Pages page says that Administrators can block users.
  In the hypothetical scenario to which I referred, those pages would be updated to indicate that administrators may accept or decline the tool.
  That's the whole point of rejecting the ability to block; I have seen again and again administrators get treated differently than non-administrators by newbies. Yes, WP:INVOLVED clearly says that the admin has no admin powers in a discussion he is involved with, but pretty much every other website on earth has individuals with various titles that regularly drop the banhammer on anyone who disagrees with them. You can't fight a public perception like that.
  That's a valid point. On many occasions, I've had to explain to users that my opinions counted no more than theirs did (so their deference was uncalled-for). This problem justifies renaming "administrator" to something lacking that connotation (as has been suggested on multiple occasions), not splitting off a separate class of user incapable of bullying fellow editors, thereby reinforcing the misunderstanding that administrators possess such an entitlement.
  Come to think of it, in many forums, the users dropping banhammers are called "moderators", so the confusion might only be exacerbated anyway.
  Whatever term we use, I only object to the idea of splitting off separate tiers. Whether we have "administrators", "moderators", "janitors" or "foobars", no non-technical distinction should be drawn based on whether the individual possesses all of the current admin tools, and no special rules or penalties should be enacted if he/she chooses not to. —David Levy 18:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm all for unbundling the tools as well and giving as wide an access to tools as possible. However, being able to delete and undelete pages, including being able to delete specific revisions and being able to see deleted text and revisions (with all of its privacy implications) are tools that require enormous community trust. Indeed, to my mind, those are the tools that are granted at to admins, not the tool to block or unblock someone. If someone has the community trust to be granted the ability to delete other people revisions, or see deleted revisions, then they can have met the requisites for adminship and should be granted that right. --RA (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell, nothing in your comments above oppose the proposal as written. Indeed, if I read your comments correctly, I think I would mostly agree with them. Is there perhaps something I could help clarify? - jc37 00:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  Rannpháirtí anaithnid stated that he/she opposes the proposal on the basis that access to the tools in question requires the full level of trust that we place in administrators and he/she believes that individuals meeting this criterion should simply be made administrators. I agree. —David Levy 01:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Like, David Levy said, I explained my opposition, but I'll express it another way if you want.
  There's two substantive scenarios I see: (a) someone who isn't trusted enough to protect pages but wants to be able to delete them (!?); and (b) someone who wants to be able to delete other users' contributions but wouldn't be trusted not to block them (!?). Either way, I can't see it happening. If you can't be trusted with the other tools, you can't be trusted with delete. And if you're trusted with delete, then take the lot.
  While I accept the spirit of the proposal, I don't think its fully thought through. As I see it, it imagines the delete tool as a lesser tool, relatively uncontroversial, not so open to abuse, doesn't bring anyone into controversy, and limited mainly to AfDs. It's not. Delete is a tool that allows someone in its possession to delete anything: articles they disagree with, or think are shoddy, revisions they don't like, comments that show them in a bad light. It allows them to hide or mask their own contributions to evade detection in an edit war. Someone posts an argument on a talk page that refutes a POV you are pushing? Poof! Gone. Never said. That's a damn powerful tool.
  Finally, the hypothetical "pacifist" example is bogus IMO. If you don't want to use an admin tool, you don't have to. But comparing the block tool to a weapon, is bad, bad, bad. --RA (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you for clarifying.

  Your presumption of my opinion of the deletion tool is incorrect. I've re-affirmed it many times now (which makes me wonder if it's something that's unclear in the proposal).

  As for "bogus", I'm sorry, but my experience doesn't bear out that opinion. There are even those on this page who have affirmed their want to not have the ability to block. You might also check out Guy Macon's comments in #Clarified. below.

  As for the rest, you are welcome to your opinion, of course, thank you for clarifying. - jc37 01:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm in favour of different levels of tools authorisation. The main problem of this proposal is one of organisation and process This user-right group would be granted through the same process as adminship (RfA) and bureaucratship (RfB)', so it would expand the number and repeat the considerable problems of the RfA. In effect it is going to multiple RfA type discussion with the resulting lose of good editors, create more friction(drama), create more divisions and bad karma all around. Regards, SunCreator 07:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I simply can't see users who would pass this not being able to pass the full monty & I'd prefer those users to have the full set of tools rather than half a set. They would be more useful to the project that way. Its comparatively rare to fail an RFA for a blocking related reason as oppose to not being unable to assess consensus or CSD criteria - which are probably the most common reason to fail an RFA. In short, I can't see the point of this. If backlogs at AFD are considered a problem I'll be willing to go get my bit back and start closing again. Comments on that on my talk please. Spartaz 12:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  For at least one "point of this", you might check out Guy Macon's comments in #Clarified, below. - jc37 16:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  No, that is not at all reassuring. Spartaz 19:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per DGG. If the process is going to be the same as RfA (actually at the same venue according to Phillipe) and the candidate passes, we may as well actually make them admins. SpinningSpark 23:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per DGG. If this is similar to RfA, then make it RfA - assessing whether an article is worthy of deletion is often a more difficult task then assessing whether a user needs to be blocked - and you enable the more difficult task now through an RfA-like process, where many editors can't pass the RfA at the moment, mainly because of the importance on XfD-discussions. No, I don't think it is going to work, or that it is a good idea. --Dirk Beetstra 08:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I might support a technical package that just includes e.g. Filemover and the ability to edit Protected templates, granted via a similar process to the granting of Rollback, but I think that un/deletion is something that requires that the community trust in the user's discretion. I know that Moderators would go through an RfX on this proposal, and so theoretically be subject to the same scrutiny as Sysop candidates, but I fear that in practice the userright may be quite obscure to most people and so the RfM (or whatever) would attract fewer editors and hence Moderators not really be subject to Sysop-level scrutiny. It Is Me Here 08:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  These would be done out of the RfA page similar to how the page shares the RfB process. - jc37 09:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hesitant oppose. I am in favour of unbundling the admin toolset — for instance, the vandal fighter user right —; however, this particular user right contains abilities that I would not give out freely to non-admins. I'm referring to deleterevision, deletedtext, browsearchive. These are very controversial abilities and should be restricted to "full" admins. Furthermore, I see little point in having to go through a process similar to WP:RFA to be granted only a part of the admin toolset. Salvio 10:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Basically as per DGG. Deletion is the tool that I would least like to get given out more than other admin tools and should be as hard to get as the ability to block. There is nobody who I would support giving the right to delete to, that I would not support giving the full admin toolkit to. I am not opposed to breaking out other tools from the admin right but just not deletion. Davewild (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for many of the reasons expressed above, despite having been in favour of unbundling the user rights for many years now. The fundamental problem is with the RfA-like process, which will be just like RfA without the benefits of lifetime tenure and few excluded tools like protect, which makes no sense at all as protecting is often a sensible alternative to blocking. I simply don't buy the WMF's position on the necessity of enduring an RfA-like process before being allowed to view deleted material. It's quite simply lazy to dogmatically insist that the only way to assess trustworthiness is to be harangued, prodded and poked at RfA for a week. Malleus Fatuorum 12:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  Agreed regarding the WMF part. It makes no sense to me that the RFA process would keep the WMF covered from a legal standpoint. I see nothing particularly legally 'protective' about it, and I see the reluctance regarding deleted material as nothing more than panic-induced. If/when the WMF encounters a legal issue with an admin and deleted material, the "but they went through RfA" defense will not bode well in court. Equazcion 12:36, 30 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• Can you please turn asterixes here into a numbered list ("#") for convenience? I'd like to see the numbers, without having to count. I think what needs to be looked at first is the RFA process instead. For example, we lack a similar discussion about the standard RFA questions (designed to be answered eloquently without saying anything of substance). Presumably, if the RFA formula was more user friendly, there would be more administrators around to help us with content. Poeticbent talk 16:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  I think that especially as this is a debate of great importance, the lack of numbering will help ensure that participants (and the eventual closer) base their comments on the weight of the arguments. That said, all that is wrong with RfA has been extensively discussed throughout most of last year at WP:RFA2011 with an entire sub-section dedicated to the issue of the RfA questions, including researched data. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – When I saw the proposal on my watchlist, I came here fully expecting to support it. The ability to give trusted editors some extra tools without requiring a full RfA makes sense to me. For my own sake, I could really use the right to edit protected pages for working with TFL blurbs, but don't have a strong desire to run through the gauntlet that is RfA and don't need the other new tools that come with adminship. However, if an RfA-like process is to be required, it defeats the purpose, as Equazcion said above. Anyone who would submit themselves to an RfA-like process for a few tools may as well go through RfA itself. I wish the ability to see deleted pages could be dropped from the tool set on offer so that we wouldn't have a second RfA process on our hands. One is enough. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• If these rights are supposed to be granted through the RfA process, and comprise (as far as I can tell) most admin rights except blocking and protecting, then there is very little point in making them separate from RfA at all. If there are too few admins, we need to fix the RfA process.  Sandstein  18:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  To clarify: There are 17 user-rights in this proposed group. Per Special:ListGroupRights, there are 52 (plus two more to add and remove certain user-rights) in administrator. - jc37 18:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - The supposition this is based on -- that there are many would-be admins who do not apply because they don't want to be involved with blocking -- seems to me extremely doubtfull; and, in any case, no admin is required to block anyone. This being the case, having a seperate level of "sub-admins" is of dubious utility. The WMF-imposed requirement that candidates go through the exact same RfA process is simply the icing on the cake: without a different level of trustworthiness to fulfill, "moderators" might as well be admins anyway. The effort that's being put into this proposal would be better off apllied to determining how to fix RfA, which, I believe, is the primary reason why possible admins do not try to become admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  I used to do a lot (!) of fixing in error categories and templates, and if this were available three years ago, I would have done a lot more. Even now I often need to edit templates, and can't do it because they are protected. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose.

  " Forcing people to accept certain tools which they do not want simply because we think they can be trusted with them is simply wrong in my opinion. "

  — Jc37

  Jc37 uses the analogy of forcing a pacifist to carry a gun. I am unconvinced that potential RfA candidates are refusing to step forward because they only want part of the package. Is there any evidence for this? Guy Macon implies that he would want to edit protected pages, but not have the other tools. However even with the proposed moderator group, Guy Macon only wants one tool from several. That's no better than going for full adminship. The gun analogy doesn't seem to hold, especially when misuse of a gun carries far more serious consequences than misuse of administrator tools. Axl ¤ 23:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  Re: "Guy Macon implies that he would want to edit protected pages, but not have the other tools." If you believe that I have implied this, I apologize for being unclear. I would want to have all the tools that do not give me power over other users, with the possible exception of reading pages that have been deleted by other users -- I don't care one way or the other on that one. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  Guy, thank you for correcting my misunderstanding. Have you refused RfA purely because you don't want the block button? Axl ¤ 10:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  "Is there any evidence for this?"

  Since you ask, while there have indeed been several comments in similar discussions in the past, I suppose the easiest answer would be to check out several commenters in the support section. There's also a comment from an OTRS person here; and Quinn1's comments further down the page; and Guy macon left some comments here as well. I'll leave it to you to assess the various comments. - jc37 23:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose proposer is against the counterproposal and wants a full RfA, so I opppose. CyanGardevoir 23:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As the proposal notes, the new position has "great potential for disruption" if misused. I don't believe that simply removing block and protect will reduce the high standards that the community looks for at RfX (and indeed it shouldn't). Instead, I feel that the proposal is likely to backfire, and push the bar for full adminship far higher. While a process to remove the user right will go some way to alleviating this concern, and is a step forward, it would be more useful to focus our attention on trying to implement such a policy for administrators. --W. D. Graham 07:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – if an editor is trusted to close contentious debates, then they should be trusted to block and protect as well. If they don't want to make use of some admin powers, it's their business. Why should a RfA-like process with similar choosing criteria result in reduced admin powers? Finally, what would happen if a "moderator" wished to get involved into blocking and protecting in the future? Another RfA? – Kosm1fent 07:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Deletion is one of the most contentious tools and one of the most damaging is misused. I'd like to see an editor go through RfA before getting it. Take out delete, and I may support for a trial period. --Michig (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• If a user is going for this through a full RfA and the same criteria, why not go directly to administrator? Delete is just as damaging as block (if misused). ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal because it seems like a bad idea to me. DS (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose There appears a consistent trend towards those who've gotten Admin rights to continually preclude those rights from others. It perpetuates a caste system here on WP and it drives away editors who could add enormous value. There are already enough different levels of rights and the perpetuation of the notion that Admins are superior to other editors is unhealthy for the Project. I am in full support for the need for Admins and Bureaucrats, because the privileges should be bestowed only to those who've proven themselves and who have the support from the editors to gain the additional tool kit. If someone has proved themselves worthy of the majority of the admin toolkit, there's no reason to not give them the entire thing. To treat them otherwise merely creates another differentiator between the Admins and the rest of the Wikipedians. If Admins are so overworked as some complain, I'd think they'd want as many Admins as possible. Certainly there are thousands of other editors who are not only willing, but capable and have proved themselves. Many hands makes light work - but there's no need for an additional "lesser" level. Vertium (talk to me) 13:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - many reasons, all discussed to death above. I appreciate there are users out there who would like some tools in the admin package and not others, but I honestly think that the number of users out there who a) refuse to apply for the admin package because it includes certain tools they don't want AND b) are willing to undergo what has been described as a "full RfA" for access to the "lite" package, must be very small. If someone doesn't want to use certain tools in the admin package, they can ignore them. It's a lot of hassle to create a new user group for the small number of people who can't or won't simply not use the tools they don't want to use and want the Wikimedia software to do this for them instead. That's all this would be, if the criteria for adminship and 'modship' would be the same. Mato (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Due to the fact that you would have to go through the same process that an admin would. Other permissions do not go through the same process that adminship does, so neither should the moderator permission. "Moderator" should have it's own request page and maybe requirements. Dan653 (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, again because of the WMF's requirement for an RFX-like process. Furthermore, based on my 7+ years of being an admin here, I strongly disagree with the analogy of the admin tools. IMO, deletion is by far a more dangerous "weapon" than either block or protect. I myself have received far more complaints regarding my deletion discussion closures, prod closures, and speedy deletions than either my blocks or protections combined. As DGG previously stated above, "being responsible for removing a contributors article is the single most sensitive act a wikipedian can do". Thus, I remain unconvinced that this new user group will effectively make a major effect on the backlogs. In my observations, many of the discussions that end up being backlogged (especially on AFD) are the debates that are the most contentious, where consensus is borderline, and which usually require an admin to make a tough decision that will usually generate complaints. Because polling is not a substitute for discussion, determining consensus in many of these deletion discussions tends to be far more subjective than going through a page history or user's contributions and counting the number of reverts, vandalism, copyvios, personal attacks, etc. to determine whether to block or protect. If a significant number of admins are already avoiding to close these contentious discussions because they want to prevent possible burnout, many of those in this new user group will likewise, especially if they want to go through a second RFA-like process to get the full set of admin tools. And don't get me started on how some speedy deletion criteria like WP:CSD#A7 has been historically controversial, and how it may affect the actions of this new user group too. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Require an RfA process to attain admin-lite tools? Nominate your candidates for administrator. Tiderolls 02:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for a number of reasons. There are many times situations arise in utilizing the admin tools for content-related purposes that it may be necessary either to block an abusive user or protect a page. Like Smokey Joe, I agree that there is an intimate linkage between content and blocking, and this is something of which a Moderator classification would not be mindful. I am also genuinely concerned that approving this new classification might further limit both the number and success rate of future RfAs. Too many users will default to claiming a user isn't ready for admin tools and recommend they try going for this new classification instead; standards that may now (by many users' standards) seem overly-strict would become even more so, and adding what may soon be deemed by the community as an unofficial prerequisite would make the RfA process even more stringent down the road. Further, echoing the sentiments of Zzyzx11, I have been an administrator for almost 6 years, and in that time, the largest number of concerns and questions seem to arise when it comes to deletion of articles/content - not with blocking. Michael (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• We need to stop being so picky at RfA, not create workarounds to what seems to be the real issue (lack of admins). That aside, I've never seen the reason to break up the rights. Rjd0060 (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, reluctantly. I agree with the above comment; it seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs)
• Oppose The damage of a bad block is easily undone; the damage of inappropriate content deletion is significant. If a candidate has to pass an Rfa they should have the judgement to the appropriate tool for the job. Nobody Ent 12:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  The damage of a bad block can never be undone, except in a rather meaningless technical sense. Malleus Fatuorum 13:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see the point of running through the same process as RfA for less tools, unless we subscribe to the idea that "less tools means less trust and therefore more support" - which I don't. I would be neutral, but I feel this admin-lite proposal would significantly stand in the way of a different unbundling proposal, which I could support. This is a solution in need of a problem. Worm(talk) 14:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Numbered Oppose per concerns about viewing deleted material and undelete powers. I would support (and have so far read no arguments against) a permission allowing us to edit protected pages. The next person to remove my number should get blocked. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for myriad reasons ranging from procedural to semantic. It will inevitably become a required half-step for prospective admins. It would needlessly complicate RFA. If the backlog of discussion closures is the problem, improve the process. They would be called moderators, but not moderating anything; if you don't want the responsibility of the "gun" (to use the terminology of the proposal) then content yourself with the title of janitor. If you don't trust yourself to have a tool and not use it, I don't trust you to have any tools. I could go on and on, but I think that will suffice. Kafziel 18:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; the idea is sound in principle, but the Foundation's requirement that the same process be used for this group as would be for "full" admins removes much of the impetus of creating it: making a lighter process for editors we trust with content decisions (and content decision only).

  I'm not convinced by the pacifist argument; I've yet to meet an administrator who feels compelled to block editors (and, indeed, there are active administrators who've never blocked an editor) – or meet someone who didn't run for adminship because it would give them access to blocking. Whenever I've seen a capable editor who didn't want to run for adminship, it was always caused by the RFA process itself (whether it be distaste for the politicking perceived around the process, or because of the apparent viciousness thereof). — Coren  18:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  I think that's a good summary of why this proposal would solve nothing at all. Like you, I can only imagine the number of editors who would currently refuse an invitation to RfA because they don't want access to a tool they would never use anyway to be infinitesimally small. This is obviously not the place to discuss it, but there's one fundamental problem with RfA that very few if any seem to have recognised, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with all the incivility, politicking, and general distaste for the standard of discourse there; it's much more fundamental. Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  Well then, where is the place to discuss it? Or are you just leaving it hanging here? Specs112 t c 19:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  I'm obliged to leave it hanging here, as I'm topic banned from discussing RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  It certainly is interesting seeing posts that imply that I do not exist. Never met met someone who didn't run for adminship because it would give them access to blocking? I am someone who refuses to run for adminship because it would give me access to blocking but who would run for moderator. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  There's no implication that you don't exist, simply that you're a one-off, or very nearly so. Which is a good thing isn't it? Malleus Fatuorum 19:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  "The best thing about a Tigger is, that I'm the only one!" (From Winnie the Pooh) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  That quote doesn't have anything to do with anything. Specs112 t c 19:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  I have certainly not stated that no such editor can exist, but that I've yet to meet one. Without commenting on your suitability (which would require that I actually knew you, for one), you are most certainly very much an outlier rather than the norm. — Coren  21:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose My view is similar to several here - I support some rights being unbundled from the admin pack (most notably the ability to semi-protect and to edit fully protected pages), but the level of bureaucracy is going to be similar to RfA, only for the person to have to go through an actual RfA if they want to go up to admin. I think it's the experience of a fair few active people using admin tools (and especially if you survey those that have experienced burnout!) that use of admin tools under whatever name can result in extremely contentious disagreements with very determined people, and I think you'd end up with a significant number of these "sub-admins" never being able to pass an RfA. I don't see it as attracting those who see the process itself as a trial of fire (see Coren's comment above). Orderinchaos 20:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The delete button is equally (if not more) dangerous/powerful than the block button. You can go around deleting pages from CAT:CSD all day and no one would notice. It's nearly impossible to block someone without a lengthy ANI discussion and at least 5 editors coming to your talk page to start a recall petition. I see no reason why someone who otherwise isn't suitable for adminship would be a good candidate for the delete button. -Scottywong| gossip _ 21:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't like the idea of admins or any other class of user having any more influence on content than any other contributor. Regardless of intent or wording, or whether or not this proposal gives anyone more control over content than anyone else, it seems like it would encourage changes in that direction. Tom Harrison 21:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I share similar concerns of Scottywong. I don't see the need for this type of user group, and I find it's distinction (in terms of user trust level) still too vague for implementation. Lord Roem (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - If we have to run mods through the same RfA process, then this is pointless. Plus, we also have the undelete problem. So, I oppose. --Nathan2055 00:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as WP:NOTBURO. Creating a class of users that goes through all the same rigors as an admin and gains only a fraction of the rights is completely unnecessary. If someone wants to be an admin and not use all their rights, that's their prerogative. Creating a separate class of user for this has a way of adding instruction creep and confusion (so wait, you're a moderator, not an admin, what does that mean?) for no additional benefit to the encyclopedia. I'm not opposed to creating a truly different class of user if there's a proven need for it. But a principle of simplicity is that similar things should be treated similarly, and different things should be treated differently. You're trying to treat similar things differently, which is where the unnecessary bureaucracy comes from. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Bold text: What Orderinchaos (and others) said. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  Hey, MZM! I was wondering when you'd show up to oppose : )

  It isn't a discussion on user-rights without you here : )

  (For the peanut gallery - Nope, not clarifying anything, and not responding to a thing here. so I'm breaking my own rule. : p

  MZM and I have had lots of discussions about a lot of things over several years now, and while I won't speak for him, I'm fairly sure he knows I personally respect his opinion (and btw, many others on this page as well, of course), and anyway just had to say hi - I know, I know, I could have dropped a note on his talk page, but oh well : ) - jc37 04:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  Hi there. Good to see you too. :-) And thanks for all your hard work on this. I know how draining shepherding these proposals can be.

  As I see it, the real underlying problem here is a lack of flexibility in MediaWiki's current user permissions architecture. I think the approach to take here is to resolve that technical hurdle first. That is, local bureaucrats should have the ability to create arbitrary user groups consisting of arbitrary user rights, much in the same way that stewards can now create global user groups with arbitrary user rights (e.g., Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/founder). I suppose this would also include the ability to define who can assign or remove these new groups (some groups can be viral, others can be assigned only by administrators, etc.).

  Once this technical hurdle is cleared and it's no longer such a pain-in-the-ass to add or remove groups, I think the opposition and bureaucracy for such additions would greatly diminish. And eventually you'd see the abolishment of groups that shouldn't exist (such as having a separate group for file moving, while allowing anyone to move nearly any other page...) and the consolidation of specialized groups into more generic and broader groups ("rollbacker" would transition into a "vandal fighter" group or whatever). --MZMcBride (talk) 04:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  Despite what I've been accused of here there and elsewhere, I really don't like the idea of the deletion tools just packaged up and handed out like candy. So I have to say, that idea scares me, not a small bit : ) - jc37 04:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Regardless of the proposer's intent, people will treat this as "less than admin, so less scrutiny required." This worries me, as discussed above. If there are enough people with concerns about having access to the blocking tool - and I can't imagine that there are, a few anecdotal examples aside - I suppose the creation of a lesser rights that admins can "downgrade" to might be okay, though. At any rate, the deprecation of filemover should be a separate proposal, not part of this one. --Philosopher  05:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - confusing for new editors. If you pass a RfA for this, why not adminship? Has any admin stated that they would like to be 'downgraded' to this junior moderator/janitor status? Ephebi (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not in favour of this given the WMF's caveat that it effectively be equal to RfA. Just go straight to RfA then. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 10:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Stong Oppose Utterly pointless thanks to WMF. How about we as a community ignore their little caveat? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  _¢ 14:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

• I think I'm generally in favour of unbundling of the tools, and also believes having certain rights available to non-admins (as defined currently) would benefit the project. The problem however with the current proposal having it as an RfX type rights (without fully unbundling sysop and it becoming multiple rights group) is that intended or not, it will become a de facto mandatory step before a full RfA. Due to the rights in this proposal and the comments here, I don't see the standard the community will require for it to be much if any lower than current RFA. RFA would then be asking for so much experience with moderator on top of the current expected standard. The standard expected for sysop is already too high (IMO), we certainly don't need to make it even more difficult. KTC (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  Those last two sentences are precisely the point KTC. My standards for this as it stands would be no lower than for RfA, because successful candidates would be able to make contentious XfD calls (I suppose there is DRV, although in my experience when we go there we simply double check that no-one has been murdered). This shouldn't be the case, because in practise it will lead to higher RfA requirements.

  Knowingly ensuring that the community will hold candidates to the same standards as we already do at RfA, for less potential benefit, defeats the object of having a third bundle. It could indeed prove to be a net negative. It's for that reason that I am vocally opposing for as long as there is any question of these users closing contentious XfDs. —WFC— 12:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  I understand the concern. But I don't think that the request process for this will have that "tone".

  Just looking at this page, see how editors are describing the ability to block/protect as having "the hammer", or "having power over other editors". While I'm not commenting on the accuracy of those terms, it's more than a hint that a request for adminship which does not include block/protect is likely to have less of a (what someone in this page called) "nasty" tone.

  There is an RfA right now for someone that (until the first oppose) was considered by the commenters as trustworthy. The first oppose? Concerning protect.

  So now an RfX for this package would only have the issues dealing with the tools and responsibilities in this package, and would not have those that involve block/protect. So those commenters who have such image/sense of behaviour-related tools and responsibilities like block/protect as "the hammer", will not have that as a reason to oppose, or even to question (grill) the candidate over.

  So yes, I feel fairly secure in the idea that while these editors should receive a thorough looking over by commenters per the standard RfX process, the looking over will be focused on the specific tools and responsibilities given. - jc37 14:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• I wholeheartedly support the idea behind this proposal. However, I feel that 'moderatorship' will eventually turn into a de facto requirement for adminship and will simply become an extra step in the hierarchy of tools.EngineerFromVega 13:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that a good thing? Regards, SunCreator 06:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No. KTC (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. I lean to support this but my reservation is that it sets a direction in a big way which is likely irrversible and that few will understand and is not part of the proposal. It will lead to a structured hierarchy. Admin is not a big deal will be thrown out, of course you could argue it is already a big deal and that it's accepting what is already the case, but is the community ready to go there? I dunno, hence some reservations. Regards, SunCreator 06:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Moved to oppose because of RfA like process. Regards, SunCreator 07:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• I understand the intent behind this, but I also think it will cause more issues in practice than necessary. Overall, I am undecided. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• I like the way this proposal is structured and the spirit of its goal. I also think valid concerns have been raised, and see the potential for counter-intended results, like Mod becoming de facto required for Admin. IMO the Mod package should be available for candidates who attain less support at RfA than is required for Admin, yet sufficient for the lessor package. Perhaps for example: 65-74=Mod, 75-84=bureaucrat discretion, 85-100=Admin StringdaBrokeda (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  While "less support" sounds nice at first, I believe it is contrary to the WMF clarification. But it's of course worth discussing on the discussion page if you would like. - jc37 18:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)- jc37 18:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Growing backlogs in admin-related tasks worry me, so if this proposal aims to solve at least some of that then I'm in favor. But basically as per Beeblebrox I'm skeptical that many would flock to a process with the same standards as RfA for only "half-admin" status. Nor do I like the idea of providing another 'trophy' for users to chase after. I'm willing to give it a try it if things get even worse with the admin'ing situation, but as in other proposals of this type, I remain on the fence. -- œ 03:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral - The RfA process does not suit these rights; there would be an overflow of people requesting this from the beginning and who would comment on this? --J (t) 15:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral (moved from support) - I think this would help the wiki, but I'm not sure if it would help with the admin situation. It would be a step in the right direction to unbundle things, but the WMF statement leaves me with doubts about how this would work; it wouldn't solve the problems with RFA that it's trying to solve. Specs112 t c 19:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral. I appreciate the work someone has gone through to put this all together. And it does seem to create a path by which may recruit more admins, instead of going from "unknown" to "admin" in one fell swoop. I can't see that I would use these extra tools. Occasionally, I need a block, but can either request it or someone else has already done so. And that's not included anyway. Most of the other tools seem mostly arcane to me. Student7 (talk) 13:54, 3 July 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)

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 disussion

• 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)

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 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 understand 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)

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)