Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Straw poll/2013

See the proposal and discussion of this proposal. Before commenting, please read the proposal thoroughly.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

This proposal is closed as unsuccessful. Chutznik (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC

• A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of administrator user-rights, as an option for administrators to request instead of requesting removal of the entire sysop user-right package. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 14:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. First time I have supported an unbundling proposal. Adminship should be no big deal, and this might help reinstate that situation. I respect also people may desire not to have certain powers. Rich Farmbrough, 20:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC).
   
2. Looks like a good attempt. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Support - I'm in favor of unbundling blocking buttons. Make the No Big Deal aspect of Adminship No Big deal and continue close scrutiny over the granting of the Big Deal parts. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Support - I don't see why not. Flexibility is a good thing. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
5. I like the idea of this eventually being something non-admins can request, but this is a nice way to experiment and get a handle for how it would work.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
6. Support—being that initially only existing admins could request this package, it would allow the community time to make any necessary refinements to the moderator package. Something along these lines has been requested by large numbers of editors for quite a while, so any positive steps taken to get there are A Good Thing™. Imzadi 1979 → 18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
7. Support There is no reason not to. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
8. Support. This would allow a variety of skilled contributors the tools they need to play an even greater role in Wikipedia maintenance. dci | TALK 00:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
9. I see no real likelihood of damage. --Nouniquenames 06:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
10. Although I don't see any prospect of this passing, I also think it's important to support it. My view is that virtually anything would be better than the status quo, where Wikipedia is governed by a random set of people who passed a popularity contest several years ago when the standards were easier and now can't be unseated. I mean, to be fair to our admin corps, it does generally consist of well-meaning people, because that's what RFA produces: well-meaning people. Not people who're fit to manage a complicated project that requires tact, delicacy, discretion and judgment. Not people with any actual relevant experience or knowledge. But well-meaning people. Still, well-meaning isn't the same as fit to manage the project, and we can't continue like this, because the project's decline is no longer gradual.

    In short, we've got to do something, and this is something, so let's do this.—S Marshall T/C 00:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

11. Support, especially if a similar group were created for "backstage" work (blocking and the like). WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 04:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
12. Yep. Editors who don't want to or don't have the skills to judge and modify the behaviour of others should be able to contribute in the other sysop areas. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
13. Support.

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

    Another group that this might apply to is to is (some but not all) Wikipedia editors with Asperger's syndrome. In general, they would be a good fit with the proposed user right. As Sociological and cultural aspects of autism says, "An increasing technological society has opened up niches for people with Asperger syndrome, who may choose fields that are highly systematized and predictable. People with AS could do well in workplace roles that are system-centered, and connect with the nitty-gritty detail of the product or the system." On the other hand, the difficulties in social interaction that are sometimes associated with AS makes these individuals a poor fit with the user blocking aspects of being an administrator. I would note that the above only describes some Wikipedia editors with Asperger's syndrome rather than being a blanket statement.

    People treat you differently when you have the power to block them. This is an easily observed phenomena, despite the existence of WP:INVOLVED. Whether we like it or not, people can't help but be influenced by experiences with other websites where administrators regularly ban those who dare to disagree with them. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

    Must say, this does make me more inclined to support the proposal. I opposed it on the basis of the religious/conscience examples given which I didn't think were strong enough - if you choose not to use something then you choose not to use something. But I hadn't really considered the idea that there might be a category of people unable to make that choice and effectively excluded from the "maintenance" tools of adminship because of potential issues with "behavioural" tools. That said, with the prevalence of WP:PROMO spam, COI and the like, no amount of good faith is going to get us past the fact that even some maintenance tasks (like deletion) will have behavioural (heightened social interaction) aspects to them. I'm perhaps not quite there yet - I supposed I would need to be convinced that there was a group of such people "waiting in the wings" (as it were) prevented from visiting RFA because of uncertainty about their use of particular tools. I would also have concerns about the first person to run for such a package with a public message - "I have Asperger's, but you should trust me with squishy half a mop even though I might not trust myself with the stick". It would take incredible bravery and require revelation of the sort of information we don't ordinarily ask for. Stalwart111 22:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

14. Support (switched from Oppose), basically per Devil's Advocate above. I suspect there wouldn't be much interest in this, but it's not likely to cause much harm and may lead to more significant reforms in future. Robofish (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
15. Support - A realistic approach to increasing the number of people who have access to (some of) the administrative tools. Less responsibility hopefully means a lower threshold for passing with the community. James086^Talk 15:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
16. Strong support (was considering Oppose). I now see that limited tools could be used for an admin on "probation" as well as optional, less-dangerous admin accounts, while allowing for moderator "tools" or even an "apprentice adminship" with partial powers until promoted to full admin. Numerous uses and advantages. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
17. Support: Having quasi-admins able to deal with most backlogs but unable to clobber other users with blocks, and other definitely-big-deal authority, would be a great boon to WP. It's why this sort of proposal comes up 10x per year every year. People tend to fixate on one or another tiny flaw in each proposal (like the first one raised here, about page protection) rather than on finding a solution of this sort more generally, whatever the nitpicks, to problems of the declining number and activity levels of active admins and the rise in proportion of new seekers of adminship being either a) too inexperienced to be trusted with the full-on tools, or b) too POV-warrior in temperament to be trusted with any of them, including the once countenanced here. I'm entirely in favor of a proposal that gives some authority the former and helps them gain experience enough to be good full admins, but still denies the latter type of editor access to power they can abuse. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 07:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
18. Support. This is exactly the sort of toolset that editors who do a lot of maintenance work - but have no interest in all the drama of adminship, or the RfA process for that matter - would love to have available; I would be first in line as soon as it was expanded to non-admin applicants. The WP:WikiGnome community could really use this set of permissions, not to mention all of the productive but anti-social Asperger's editors we have. Quite frankly, it's disheartening to see so many in opposition to this proposal. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 10:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Do you propose to allow them deleting pages and specific revisions, but to disallow to protect pages? It likes a physician who is licensed to make ectomies, but disallowed to prescribe any drug. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

   If they feel the want to protect pages, they can always request the full admin package be returned to them at WP:BN. That aside, this isn't about disallowing, it's about giving former admins another option. - jc37 17:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

   If a person retains the privilege to delete pages and restore versions, s/he may inflict a considerable damage. More serious one than potential threat of illegal (un)blocks and page (un)protections. All such accounts must be monitored (and, in fact, are) to ensure that the owner did not get crazy and that account is not compromised. The "moderators" proposal is aimed to increase the number of potentially dangerous accounts, but will impose foolish restrictions on some of them which do not serve any reasonable purpose. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

   Huh? I'm confused. These are editors that the community has already entrusted with adminship, including the abilities you note. So I honestly do not understand your comments in this light. I welcome clarification. - jc37 17:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

   • Make a sandbox S;
   • Choose a page X with several interesting revisions;
   • Delete X;
   • Move S to X;
   • Select "interesting revisions" from deleted revisions and restore them;
   • Move what is now X back to S;
   • Restore all remaining revisions of X.

   The output is a severe disruption of X’s history, where several its revisions got detached and appeared under an unrelated title. AFAIK, without accessing the database it cannot be fixed at all. Now, suppose that some "former admin" gradually ceased to use its account (which retained the "moderator" flag), then this account was taken over by a relative, who used it without attracting much attention. But subsequently, this relative lose (or sell) it to an advanced troll. What pandemonium of destruction may rise in the place which was once occupied by English Wikipedia? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

   All that (and more) can be done if the admin had kept the admin user group.

   That aside, you're opposing this, because an admin's account "could" become compromised? Then by that logic, you should oppose every RfA. You, of course, are welcome to that opinion, though I will admit it baffles me. - jc37 17:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

   Do not pose that you didn't read (or understand) what I wrote.

   The "moderators" proposal is aimed to increase the number of potentially dangerous accounts, but will impose foolish restrictions on some of them…

   Actually, I do not object to flexibility and some devolution of privileges. But I am not happy with this populist rush where the people (including very developers of such proposals) does not think about potential flaws. They just do not think, period. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

   *cough* BEANS. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

   Well, I would hope that if the problem with an admin involved use of the same tools that a moderator would posses that people would opt for the normal desysop. However, if the problem was a contentious block but there was no issue with other actions then I see no issue with allowing use of the deletion tool. Personally, I would like to see more specialized sysop positions such as "patroller admins" to handle tedious and uncontroversial anti-vandalism work, but that would be a discussion for another day.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Nobody is forcing administrators to use tools against their wishes, so it is completely unnecessary to provide a means for standing administrators to unburden themselves of access to tools they don't want to use. Therefore, the only way this proposal makes sense to me is as a backdoor toward making it available to non-administrators. If that is the goal then that is what the proposal should say, and not say that it is an option for administrators only. If that is not the case then I don't think administrators need this sort of mechanism to say "stop me before I push the button". ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

   Please reconsider. There are individuals who, for philosophical or religious reasons, refuse to accept any tools that give them power over others, but who would have no problem with tools that only involve content. For those individuals, having the power but choosing not to use it is not a viable option. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

   That is an interesting perspective. I don't see a bright-line distinction between the power to block someone's contributions and the power to delete them, but I can appreciate that some people might see it as a meaningful difference. However, being a contentious objector to some activities in real life myself, I recognize and accept that I am circumscribed from some activities to which I do not object because they are bound up with things to which I do object. The price of conscience is great, but not greater than the benefit.

   In any event, my objection to using this proposal as a backdoor, as several supporters advocate, still stands. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

3. Regretful oppose. Like some of the supporters, I agree flexibility is good. I also think some form of Trusted User / Admin-Lite userright that could truly become No Big Deal would be a good thing; and I appreciate the thoughtfulness in sorting out what the constituent privileges could be. But I also value simplicity and Solving Real Problems. Someone who has passed the RFA gauntlet and is trusted to use the full suite of admin tools is quite free to decide to not use certain parts of the toolkit and we don't need the complexity of a separate usergroup to achieve this. And if the goal is for the moderator userright to be Less of a Big Deal than admin, then the process to receive it needs to be less onerous than that to get all the current admin tools. Martinp (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
4. Unsure as to what problem this is supposed to be solving, to be honest. --Rschen7754 22:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
5. Oppose - This proposal is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of adminship on Wikipedia. I disagree with the following statements included in this proposal:

   "Forcing an admin to carry tools related to assessing editor behaviour, when they may merely want to help out on the content side of things, just seems wrong. Some editors just don't want to carry such tools or to have any of the potential responsibilities that go with it." Admins are not "forced" to do anything. If I become an admin and I don't block anyone for 5 years, no one is going to come to me and say "hey, you're not fulfilling your obligations as an admin." If an admin doesn't want to block people, then he should simply not block people. If an admin doesn't want to protect pages, then he should simply not protect pages. For instance, I have never assigned a user right to an editor. I don't have a particular aversion to handing out user rights, I just have little interest in working in that area of Wikipedia. So I don't. It's as simple as that. There is no requirement or expectation that I hand out user rights, and there is no need to take those tools away just because I'm not using them.

   "...arbitrarily keeping trusted individuals from certain other tools because they refuse to carry "the whole admin package" seems foolish..." No one is "keeping trusted individuals" from doing anything. If a trusted individual wants to close XfD's but doesn't want to block users, then we say, "Here you go, trusted individual. These are the admin tools we're giving to you. They include both deletion tools and blocking tools. If you'd prefer not to use the blocking tools, then simply don't use them. You can even put a userbox on your user page that says 'I'm an admin but I don't block people.'"

   "We have a tradition on Wikipedia that people contribute at whatever level they are comfortable with." That tradition is still alive, and this proposal does not enhance or extend that tradition. Just because a user has a tool does not mean that there is an obligation or even an expectation that they use that tool. Therefore, they are free to contribute at whatever level they are comfortable with, without complaint from anyone.

   There is absolutely no need to create yet another user group for such a frivolous reason. If there are actually users out there who have passed an RfA but refuse to be an admin because the block and protect tools are bundled into it, then quite frankly... I would honestly question whether they are sufficiently competent for adminship. If this really is a serious problem that I am trivializing, then a much easier solution to the "problem" would be to develop a very simple javascript that hides whatever buttons you don't want to see. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 22:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

   And so in your comments, you are forcing the admin to carry the whole package regardless if he or she would prefer to not.

   And then you question his or her competence because they wish to make such a choice? Since when do we decide someone else's ethics for them? You might want to read this, for example. Of course, you're free to sideline quakers and anyone else you disagree with. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I just personally think that it is incredibly asininely stupid to sideline anyone trustworthy for adminship, especially for the ridiculous reason of "that's what the package happens to consist of, so take it all or none". And we're surprised that some say "none"?

   Are people not allowed to choose for themselves? And do you not see how this could be a way to provide an opportunity for some former admins to be active in helping out with at least some admin duties? (rant off) I guess sometimes I am just amazed at what I read. - jc37 00:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

   Your rant has not convinced me of anything. Yes, I am advocating that we "force" admins to "carry the whole package". Note that this is very different from forcing them to use the whole package. If someone is part of a religion that disallows them from blocking people on a website, then they can simply ensure that they don't use the block tool. Having access to a tool does not imply an obligation or an expectation that it be used. We could even give them a simple javascript or css file that hides the block button for them, if it would make them feel better, or if it would prevent an accidental use of the block tool. If their religion is so restrictive and unreasonable as to prohibit them from even having access to tools that can block website users, well... then, I guess they just can't be admins. Sorry, but we can't cater to every last peculiarity of fringe religions. Somehow I doubt this will make a big dent in our admin numbers. As for the Asperger's Syndrome example, this proposal would not help with that situation. This proposal requires that users first pass an RfA (which means they must be qualified/trusted to use all tools), before they can be given the moderator status. If someone has a condition that makes it very difficult to interact socially, it's highly unlikely that they will pass an RfA successfully, and therefore they will be ineligible for the moderator user group. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _

6. Agree with Scottywong, also, RfA should get improved, not another user-right made to make a RfA-lite no big deal. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 23:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

   This isn't "RFA-lite" - jc37 00:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

7. Oppose. I don't see the real-life problem that this is solving - where are all these admins saying "I want to be prevented from blocking people"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
8. Oppose Tje reason the admin tools are bundled is because dealing with problems that require admin intervention often involves using multiple tools and/or choosing the right one. Sometimes blocking is needed, sometimes protection is a better option. sometimes an article needs to be deleted and the person who created it blocked. this will actually create more work as these "half admins" will have to ask the real admins for help in the numerous situations they will not be adequately prepared for. If an admin is not capable of determining who should and should not be blocked they should not be an admin at all, but they can just not use the tools they are not competent with, nobody is making them issue bad blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
9. Oppose Firstly, everyone needs to adhere to behavioral guidelines, admins and non-admins alike. Secondly, this recalls the famous quote "Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." I see little net gain and just another usergroup to further confound and confuse. Adminship is not supposed to be a big deal, RfA shenanigans notwithstanding, and creating admin-lite will just further entrench the idea that admins are "special" (well they are in that they volunteer their own free time to help us all out, but that makes them good people, not super editors). -- Avi (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
10. I normally support these, but in my opinion we're beyond the stage where this would be useful. The only answer now is to rip up the current system (i.e. adminship itself) and start again, and to hell with those opposed to it. I'm sorry if that is overly blunt, and accept that the way I phrase it goes against the very fabric of Wikipedia, but I genuinely believe that we are at that stage. And I wouldn't mind betting that Jimbo has hinted at unilateral action because he at least partially agrees. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 12:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
11. Oppose Don't see the point of this proposal. Like Boing! said Zebedee implies, former admins tend to have had enough of Wikipedia and wandered off to do something else. This isn't solving a problem. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
12. Oppose Can't see the point. If you don't want to use some of the tools, don't use 'em. Yunshui 雲‍水 19:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
13. Oppose. This just adds bureaucracy (no pun intended) without solving any real problem. Are people really so against being able to block people? -- YPNYPN ✡ 22:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
14. If potential admins don't want to use all of the tools, then they can apply for the full toolkit and simply never use the ones they don't want. I don't see what the benefits of this proposal are. David1217 ^{What I've done} 23:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
15. Oppose I am sympathetic to proposals to unbundle the admin toolkit. Administrators get a lot of tools for use in a large variety of situations, and I can readily appreciate that someone might be qualified for only some of those situations. Unbundling the toolkit may also make it easier for people to get the tools they need. If this proposal was to create 'moderator' as a stand-alone user right then I would likely support it. But this proposal is for something completely different, and instead attempts to address a non-problem. If you don't want to use a tool you have access to, don't use it. Hut 8.5 23:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
16. Oppose particularly because of the delete/undelete provision, which is as sensitive as anything at WP. I also agree with Scottywong's reasoning that this is unnecessary for admins who want to not do something, because they already have the right to stop doing something. Whether there could be a more limited package of rights to be granted on a more flexible basis than RfA is a separate question. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
17. Oppose as an option for existing admins. I think this is a solution seeking a problem. As an admin whose activity has always fallen mainly within the content field, I have no problem with having block/protect buttons I rarely use, and don't feel that the community is pressurising me to use them. In the case of a vandal hacking an inactive admin/mod account, I think this proposal could be actively dangerous, as malicious blocks are likely to be noticed quickly, while deletions are much less thoroughly patrolled. And as DGG points out, the ability to view deleted content is one of the most sensitive of the rights bundle. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
18. Oppose As has been pointed out, view-deleted is the most sensitive and potentially damaging admin tool: a blocked user can be unblocked but once libellous or otherwise legally sensitive deleted material is shared, there's no way to put it back. Even setting that aside, I would imagine it would be a pretty small list of users trustworthy enough to be a "moderator" but not trustworthy enough for adminship. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

    The proposal is not for users trustworthy enough to be a "moderator" but not trustworthy enough for adminship, it's for users who are already admins to be able to switch to a smaller set of admin tools. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

    In that case, I'd say it makes even less sense, if anything. Are there really admins sitting around saying "I wish I could access less features!"? If they don't want to use them, they don't have to. It's not like every admin must use each tool by the full moon or they turn into a pumpkin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

    Yep, I agree. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

19. Oppose - I would be in strong favor of a "mini-admin" truncated set of tools to be made available to editors who are not yet admins, but I see no real point in asking present admins if they would like to have a truncated set of tools. Who would do that? If they do not want to use a tool, they do not have to use it. I also cannot favor a proposition that seems to have conflicting policies. Blocking, unblocking, and article deletion should not be considered for this in my opinion. I would be in favor of such things as page protection however. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
20. Oppose If you don't want to use bits of the tools then don't use them, and put a big message on your userpage and or user talk page saying that you will only listen to requests for deletion, or edit request, or page moves. As others have said these rights are bundled because they are often used together. Using Beeblebrox's example a moderator would have to delete a page which has been repeatedly recreated by socks, list the page at WP:RFPP to request a salting, and list all the socks at WP:SPI to have them blocked; or they would have to go to WP:BN to ask for sysop back do the jobs then request moderator back when they've finished. What about users who don't want to delete pages but do want to block and/or protect, should be create a new user group for this as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs) 00:23, 12 January 2013‎
21. Oppose A solution in search of a problem. --John (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
22. Oppose - I find myself in agreement with those who suggest this might be a solution looking for a problem to solve. I do understand the "moral objection" argument but for me, that's like a Catholic who refuses to eat red meat on Fridays. So on Friday, they only "make use" of their fish, they don't throw out their beef and lamb each Thursday night because of a moral objection to eating it on Friday. If you object, then object. No one is going to try and de-sysop an admin for refusing to use certain tools, even publicly. Stalwart111 14:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
23. Oppose - I disagree with both factors. First of all, as Sue Rangell said, why would an admin ever be given a truncated set of tools? If they've done something bad enough to be de-sysoped, the community/ArbCom probably wouldn't want them to have any admin-related rights. About a "moderator" role, adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL. If we had a moderator role, adminship would be even more idolized, and if a user qualifies for moderator they probably qualify for adminship. It would also make things more complicated. Vacation9 00:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
24. Oppose admin tools are a question of trust. If he's trusted, give him the tools, don't give him some reduced form of it. And if he's not trusted, he shouldn't have the admin toolset nor part of it. There is no problem that I'm aware of with the admin toolset. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

    Oppose - seems remarkably pointless to me. Anyone who passes RFA is inherently trusted with the admin tools, and should have no need to dispose of some of them; any admin who chooses not to use some of those tools is free to do so, but we don't need to create a new userright for that reason. If this was a 'junior admin' position open to non-admins, I'd probably support it, but as a position only open to former admins I can't see the use of it. Robofish (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

    I see it, as The Devil's Advocate does above, as a nice way to experiment and get a handle for how it would work. If there are no unforeseen problems with creating the user group, then we can consider having a separate selection process, RfM. Since you support the junior admin position, would you consider changing to support this proposal as a test run for that? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

    I still rather doubt there'd be much interest in it (as opposed to a junior admin position that you can get straight from being an ordinary user), but what the heck, OK. In the spirit of experimentation, I'll switch to support. Robofish (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

25. Oppose the argument that certain users are intimidated by RfA and that the process is daunting holds no water, for the moment at least. Given that reforms, while needlessly slow, are still under discussion. RfA requires the candidate to be capable, trustworthy and good-faith assuming. Creating a "sub-admin" group only seems to me a circumvention of the RfA process, in that it would essentially create a looser review process, since "stronger" powers aren't bundled. Incnis Mrsi summarises the problem this would create quite well. It wouldn't take away from the admin work-load, but create more work since moderators would only be allowed to do so much and whatever's left to do has to be cleaned up by the admins. I used to support de-bundling, indeed, I was a vocal supporter of it, but it just doesn't work in practice. Even in principle there are still a lot of kinks needing to be worked out. James ^{(T • C)} • 9:57pm • 10:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
26. Oppose The notion that the proposed set of tools requires less responsibility is, I think, mistaken. Power is still power, and still tends to corrupt, even when it is less power. Mangoe (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
27. Oppose per Monty's second point (although he's neutral): "I look forward to the first candidate at RFA to make a voluntary pledge to immediately resign as an admin in favor of this package if promoted." - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
28. Oppose I don't see any need for this. Any admin can just not use any tool they have - or even not use all of them for a whole year. No one requires any particular action of them at any time. We are all volunteers. Rmhermen (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
29. Oppose - I support unbundling the tools as a general concept, however I don't think this will work - in general, the way to go so far seems to have been to split off individual tools or small groups of tools, not split adminship down the middle. Admins are under no obligation to use all the tools available to them, and in practice, many of the tools included in this package would still require an assessment of user behaviour in some cases, so I don't think a divide along those lines will work. Also, I'm not sure "moderator" is the right word here. CT Cooper · talk 13:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
30. Oppose I can sort of vaguely see why someone might want some but not all admin tools. For me, the question boils down to "are there actually a reasonable number of people who want to be half-admins or moderators or whatever?" Creating a new half-admin class with some unbundled user rights imposes a cognitive cost on all contributors. If we say "well, he/she is a moderator", what does that mean? Every user now has to get it into their heads what that means: what extra rights they have, what social authority they have in places like ANI or DRV etc. etc. And for what? A vanishingly small number of people who want to have the ability to delete pages but not block people because they subscribe to a Wikipedia version of pacifism regarding user rights? Imposing the extra cognitive tax of keeping track of more user rights on everyone is a much higher cost than I'm willing to pay to satisfy a strange and (to my mind) unreasonable request. It's not an AK-47, it's some extra buttons on a website. Show me that the number of people who want this user right can be counted into the double digits and I might reconsider. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
31. Oppose - I'm all for unbundling the Admin toolkit to "lesser" editors per NOBIGDEAL, but in making this a lesser toolset for Admins who are no longer active, this totally misses the point and is a solution looking for a problem. If the religious aspects of some people, like Quakers, prevent them from having access to the block button, good bloody luck becoming a moderator - you still have to go through the meat grinder of RfA to get this limited subset. I am sorry. -T.I.M^(Contact) 21:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
32. Fail to see the substantial problem which this solves. The alleged moral issues would affect a vanishingly small portion of users. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
33. Oppose This doesn't seem like it's been thought through, what number of users do you expect to use this downgrading? Also the claim that Believe it or not, such a user-right group has actually been requested repeatedly for a very long time. is misleading—admin-lite has been requested many times, it's listed at WP:Perennial proposals, but I've not seen it ever suggested under these very specific circumstances. In fact the whole Why would anyone want this section is subjective speculation, how would this nudge a former admin to become more active? "Hey guess what, you could request your bit back with a few less buttons! What are you waiting for?!" Jebus989^✰ 23:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

    Or at least, so you speculate : )

    Actually, there have been discussions regarding these things. Just because you didn't bother to look, doesn't mean it doesn't exist : )

    This isn't even the first proposing of this package, just a different suggested usage for it... - jc37 00:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

    Yeah, the difference is if I was putting together an RfC I thought should pass, I'd spend some time gathering evidence to back up my claims (nothing personal but that's where the "not thought through" rationale came from). Do you have answers for either of my questions, i.e.: how many users do you expect to use this? (Have you asked any?) And how would this nudge a former admin to become more active? Jebus989^✰ 08:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

    a.) Yes. As I noted, this isn't this first time I have suggested this package, and this package is a result of asking about other packages. I started asking others about these things several years ago in response to several users wanting the "blocker" tools split from adminship. Through many discussions following that, it's become clear that the user group "admin" (sysop) should not be split for various reasons. But instead it would be preferred if other packages instead are created. And many lessons have been learned from the past, such as block and protect are considered to be inter-related and the community feels they should not be separate for various reasons. And yes, wikignomes and others have long requested an admin-like package which does not include blocking.

    b.) for some, adminship can be stressful. And dealing with blocking and or protecting, is considered by some "drama-filled", and "not worth it" on "a volunteer project". (yes I am paraphrasing comments by many former admins. Lurk around WP:BN for awhile and you'll see similar.) So consider if they didn't have to deal with all of that. They could help out in ways they prefer, without what they consider the "stress" of the behaviour related tools. And this isn't just my assertion, this has been said.

    (In your place I'd ask for links to discussions at this point. Please spare me sifting back through years of diffs to try to find things at the various VPs and WT:RfA, amongst other places, and please accept that I am sincerely being honest and forthright : ) - jc37 18:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

34. Oppose. I just don't see the point of unbundling. I've used the block button exactly twice in the last 2½ years. I am one of those who finds it "drama-filled," but if having the button somehow induced me to use it even though I don't want to, I should not be an administrator. Also, as I've argued at previous unbundling discussions, protecting and deletion are closely related and shouldn't be separated from each other. Anyone working in deletion should be ready to carry out BLP policy, which might involve the use of any tool. Chick Bowen 04:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I am in favor of unbundling tools, very strongly, but not only is "moderator" an erroneous title since this has little to do with moderation, but I feel that unbundling block is more important.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
2. If it's just for people who have passed an RfA, then I would oppose this as unnecessary; all they have to do is just not use the tools. However, if it becomes possible to specifically file an RfM and there are a significant number of users who are perfectly competent at content issues but are either unwilling or unable to deal with user issues, I would support. Also, protection ought to be included in the package to salt deleted articles (or at the very least, editprotected). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

   I agree with this sentiment. But as has been discussed on the talk page, the "RfA without the blocking" option is not currently being proposed. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

3. I share King of Hearts' opinion. I like the choice of userrights included in this bundle, but it seems to make little sense to require the user to have adminship previously. I am such an editor (I'm an administrator, but never blocked a user, don't participate AN/I, etc.) and I feel no pressure whatsoever to use the tools I don't want to use. The Moderator status would be way more useful for editors who have never been admins than to wikignome admins who only wish to perform content-related tasks. --Waldir ^talk 17:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

   I have never had an interest in going through an RfA before, expressly because all of the drama associated with blocking and sockpuppets holds absolutely no interest to me, but seems to dominate RfA discussions. If a Mod toolkit were enacted with adminship as a prerequisite, I would probably go through the hassle of an RfA with the express purpose of immediately desysoping to a Moderator. I don't know that others would do the same, but I would guess that there is significant potential for other maintenance/wikignome editors to follow suit, especially if RfA for Moderation showed signs of being a lot less dysfunctional and personal than regular RfAs. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 11:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

4. I also share the view that this isn't really useful as proposed, I doubt it would be used much, though I also don't see the harm in it. If this passes, I look forward to the first candidate at RFA to make a voluntary pledge to immediately resign as an admin in favor of this package if promoted. Monty₈₄₅ 20:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

   I forgot to mention, I think the name needs to be reconsidered as well. Moderator denotes a special authority to control discussions, which I think is likely to be misleading and cause drama. Monty₈₄₅ 04:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

5. Counterproposal: Allow anyone in any user group to request that one or more user-rights be removed (and later, restored), with the only limitation that some specific user-rights may have prerequisite or co-requisite user-rights when common sense or technical limitations require it. If this counter-proposal is adopted, a former admin who is eligible to regain adminiship without RFA could do so, then immediately ask that rights he did not want be removed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
6. Could support: Why not? Could oppose: Why? Ended up here because I can argue both sides but see no possibility of consensus. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 00:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
7. I don't support it. I'm much more interested to see the version of this that jc37 has now written about where one is not required to be an admin first, but could go through a RfM. Nurg (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
8. I don't find this very useful if it's only for admins. Would admins desysopped by ArbCom (or any other circumstances) be able to become Moderators of they wish? Why non-admins cannot apply for this? We need more admins, not admins moving onto a lesser class of toolkit; that is counterproductive. We need more users able to press the buttons, not admins able to press less buttons. — ṘΛΧΣ²¹ 05:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.