Wikipedia talk:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37/Side discussion

Discussion

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37/Discussion § Same process, same standard, so what benefit?

Jc37 has requested that I re-pose some questions here.
Philippe Beaudette (User:Philippe (WMF)) noted that Kelly Kay (wmf:User:Kkay) "is able to approve this plan on the condition that the selection processes for moderators remain exactly the same as that for administrators- using the same criteria, operating on the same page" [emphasis in original], adding that "if the selection criteria or processes should drift from that used for the selection of administrators, [they] would need to reconsider the position."
I've seen nothing contradicting the "same page" part or suggesting that the discussion would follow a different format, so those elements aren't in question.
But this analogy appears to convey that modship would be based on different selection criteria and require less trust than adminship. Unless I'm misunderstanding something (which is entirely possible), this seems to contradict the statement quoted above.
I have other concerns, but they tie into this one, so I'll put them on the back burner. —David Levy 20:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, (just to make sure we're on the same page), did you see User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#FYI - my request for clarification? - jc37 20:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I hadn't seen that. It affirms my understanding; the qualification criteria are to be "exactly the same for moderators as for administrators. No setting two different sets of standards."

I'm trying to understand how this jibes with the analogy and related statements. —David Levy 20:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall (haven't re-read it since I last responded), but I think I quoted that clarification near the end of the analogy, to show just that.

However, let me pose something.

In response to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_215#My_opinion, you said: "The question shouldn't be "Can we trust this person to use of all of these tools well?" It should be "Can we trust this person to not misuse any of these tools?"."

I think, in that response, could be the crux of where you and I are not understanding each other.

Based upon that, (afaict), you are saying that you feel that trust with every single tool isn't necessary, but rather that trust (for you) is trust to the person, ie. that they will not misuse the tools granted.

That's a valid opinion, but that's not everyone's opinion, as I don't think you will disagree. Anyone spending any time at RfA knows that opinions vary greatly upon how each individual person ascribes trust. (I'll have to look, but there used to be a really lengthy subpage with lists of personal criteria from various editors.)

So with that in mind, the "full RfX process" means it is the whole community's standards for trust, but not just one individual's definition.

Some are concerned with block, some with delete, some with protect, some with the ability to assess consensus. Each individual has their own personal focus of concerns. The point is that it should be the process (not the individual criteria) that we need to make sure is the same. No two sets of standards. Obviously he couldn't be talking about an individual's personal criteria, as they very much vary from person to person.

So our standard is that the community "as a whole" puts the candidate through the typical vetting process of RfX. And that process should be the same as adminship. He even said he didn't care what the standard was as long as it was the same.

(I'll pause here to give you a chance to respond, rather than reiterate what I've said in the various threads : ) - jc37 21:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall (haven't re-read it since I last responded), but I think I quoted that clarification near the end of the analogy, to show just that

You appear to have paraphrased it.

Based upon that, (afaict), you are saying that you feel that trust with every single tool isn't necessary, but rather that trust (for you) is trust to the person, ie. that they will not misuse the tools granted.

Yes, more or less. I don't believe that an administrator must be trusted to use every tool correctly. I believe that he/she must be trusted to not misuse any of them habitually. (Everyone makes some mistakes, of course.)

That's a valid opinion, but that's not everyone's opinion, as I don't think you will disagree.

Indeed, I realize that others' opinions differ.

The point is that it should be the process (not the individual criteria) that we need to make sure is the same.

Philippe Beaudette explicitly stated that the selection of moderators must use "the same criteria" used for the selection of moderators. "The criteria for getting adminship" (or whatever all-encompassing name is used) must be "exactly the same for moderators as for administrators".

Obviously he couldn't be talking about an individual's personal criteria, as they very much vary from person to person.

Agreed. But my understanding is that bureaucrats and the community at large would receive the same instructions and be expected to apply the exactly the same criteria to the selection of moderators. The argument "You aren't qualified to be an administrator, but you can be a moderator." would be invalid.

Presumably, one of us has misinterpreted Philippe Beaudette's statements (and I fully accept the possibility that it isn't you). An additional request for clarification appears to be in order. Would you like to do the honors? —David Levy 21:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but let's make sure we're both talking about the same thing (I want to avoid confusion, and also want to know what we're specifically asking before we do.)

"...be expected to apply the exactly the same criteria" that criteria being the standard a bureaucrat uses to determine whether he/she should "push the button" or not. That criteria is: community consensus.

Do you disagree? - jc37 21:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#About RfA and its process is to what I'm referring.) - jc37 22:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the point in need of clarification, as my understanding differs from yours. In particular, I've interpreted "exactly the same [criteria]" and "not two different sets of standards" as applicable to the community at large, not merely to bureaucrats gauging consensus.

In other words, if someone isn't qualified to be an administrator, he/she shouldn't be a moderator either. —David Levy 22:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be defining "community at large" somehow different than I am?

But ok, I think the easiest route would be to just link our discussion to him and see what he says. Heading there now. - jc37 22:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By "the community at large", I mean "the English Wikipedia's editing community as a whole" (i.e. not just bureaucrats or any other subset). In the context of an RfX debate, this refers to all participants in good standing. —David Levy 22:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I guess I need to chalk it up to me being dense somehow here. I sincerely am trying to understand you. Or maybe there is some legal thing with this that I don't know or understand (IANAL, as I noted).

Anyway, I posted the request. We'll just have to wait and see I guess. - jc37 22:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I need to chalk it up to me being dense somehow here.

Or to me failing to adequately articulate my thoughts. But I prefer to treat it as "just one of those things" that isn't worth worrying about. What's important is that we're working to resolve the issue. (:

I sincerely am trying to understand you.

I appreciate it very much. I've been acting in kind. And now that I finally understand your interpretation, it seems entirely plausible.

Most of all, I'm relieved to finally recognize the source of our mutual confusion. We were, indeed, talking past each other. D'oh! —David Levy 22:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are few things on Wikipedia so horrible that we can't add a few thousand Kilobytes to... I mean that can't be discussed in some way : ) - jc37 22:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Significant: can we move?

Can we move this to the main discussion page as it is quite significant. Many people are posting !votes on the assumption that there would be different criteria for someone to become a "moderator" than an "admin" (in most cases that it would be easier). That appears to be directly in contradiction to the Foundation's view:

"...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.

This is therefore a very important discussion for people to see. --RA (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-affirmed this many times. People are perfectly allowed to interpret the proposal as they will. all I can do is to continue to clarify.

But anyway David has linked it to the discussion page. This is so we can understand each other.

Regardless, do you honestly believe that there will be any page related to this proposal that we could hide even with mount everest and T2 combined? I don't.

Please allow us to discuss. You're welcome to positively join in, if you like, but our goal here was for David and I to better understand each other through discussion. - jc37 21:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added links at the top of the main page to this discussion to help people find it. (I've noticed you've reverted it but I'll restore it now.) It's not in the interest of consensus to have significant discussion taking place on hard-to-find sub-pages. --RA (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I removed them. Don't cherry pick quotes. It's not neutral. Ask David about the lengthy discussion about that at the watchlist discussion page.

Please calm down. I have been in these kinds of discussions a fair amount over the years. people simply are going to interpret things differently. The best that can happen is the proposer clarifies their intention, and then it's up the each commenter to decide for themself after that. Our job is not to debate or convince people of anything in the straw poll. a link to the proposal and a link to the WMF statement is enough. - jc37 22:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the main page. --RA (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]