User:Imetsia/The deleter role

The deleter role is yet another in the series of intuitively good, but difficult-to-pass proposals. It would establish a new role of “deleter,” granted to certain users after a vetting process, that would allow them to delete and undelete pages. Such a system has obvious benefits and no risks. It would help cut down on the overload of RFV/D, facilitate editing for non-admin contributors, and allow admins' time to be devoted to more important activities. Nevertheless, opponents have advanced a flurry of reasons for opposition, ranging from the misleading to the unconvincing to the outright false. Some have resorted to handwaving about the grave dangers of the nomination process — the same nomination process that we have relied on for years without any agitation. Others have thrown out red herrings about copyrights and sensitive information. And yet others have jettisoned their own knowledge and experience to claim that RFV/D are irrelevant, or that the proposal's utility is minimal. Do not believe it. Many of these arguments are attractively worded, luring some of the less observant users to the side of the opposition, but they are of little effect. Analyzed critically, they cannot bear the heavy weight of justifying an oppose vote for a very helpful proposal.

The deleter role on its merits
The deleter role would be a useful addition to the Wiktionary toolbox. It would help us close failed RFV’s and RFD’s with greater dispatch, and it would empower other users to strike failed entries. Moreover, it would allow regular users to rectify their own mistakes by deleting obvious misspellings and other erroneously created pages. In the same vein, more users could undo acts of vandalism without having to tag each disputed page. Lastly, it would lift the annoyance of doing menial deletions off the shoulders of administrators, while at the same time making the life of contributors vested with the tool more convenient.

The deleter role would help address a real problem in the overaccumulation of failed entries at RFV. RFV has been so backlogged that users have complained about load times and have put forward proposals to make it more manageable. The first patch was to divide RFV into “English” and “Non-English,” a proposal twice suggested before implemented. Although this alleviated the issue in the short term, it took just a few years before the problem presented itself again. Once more, users proposed disaggregating RFV, but this time into “English,” “Non-English,” and “Chinese, Japanese, and Korean.” Again, putting in place this recommendation has eased the buildup of requests for verification. But, just as with the first fix, users have continued to lament the runaway growth of RFV. For example, one proposed solution had been to more quickly dispense with uncited RFVs. Given all the clamor about taming RFV, it is beyond debate that its expansion over the years has been unsustainable. Bestowing more editors with the power to delete entries and dispose of those we have deemed unmeritorious would rein in the problem.

RFDN suffers from similar faults. Entries that were nominated years ago still hang like a cloud over the management of RFDN. In some cases, an entry is discussed, and contributors weigh in with “keep” or “delete;” but months go by before the entry is stricken. In other cases, an entry is formally closed but continues to hang around at RFD for weeks on end before it is actually deleted. It is unquestionable that RFD is severely backlogged, and that we should look for solutions. (Although this has not stopped a number of editors from arguing otherwise and declaring RFV/D nonissues). A larger population of users equipped with the right tools could help clear RFD’s years-long congestion.

The deletion right would also make editing more convenient for users entrusted with it, while at the same time lightening the workload of administrators. Deleters could clean up after their own mistakes without distracting sysops from more important tasks. Similarly, they could combat vandalism on their own without diverting admin attention toward deleting obvious nonsense. In both cases, the benefits are twofold: deleters would be freer in their movements, and admins could focus on matters that truly require their intervention. Most deletions, after all, do not require the greater experience or judgment of administrators. It is emphatically not their responsibility to do Wiktionary’s janitorial work. Establishing the deleter role would allow sysops to delegate Wiktionary upkeep to another rank of trusted users, thereby making better use of administrators’ limited time and resources.

None of the objections to the deleter role are convincing
Opponents to the deleter role have objected on various grounds. None can meaningfully sustain an oppose vote.

"on the following grounds: (Seconded by Thadh, Brittletheories, PseudoSkull, SGConlaw, DannyS712, and Erutuon)
 * 1) The right to view deleted pages, equivalently to undelete pages, should not be granted to those who cannot be entrusted to have sysop rights, because much like with revision deletion, pages are often deleted due to containing potentially sensitive information, content that infringes on some copyright, etc.
 * 2) Without the right to undelete pages, the role would be left incomplete, unable to clean up after a user's own mistakes.
 * 3) There are likewise sufficiently worrying technical concerns regarding a deleter role like this that have been discussed before.
 * 4) None of the points for implementing something like this are likewise convincing; they're nothing that doesn't solve. Delegating tasks from sysops to subroles simply doesn't appear to be necessary.
 * &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 19:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)"

Surjection’s arguments are a jumbled mess. Unable to produce one good rationale to vote oppose, he instead offers four mediocre ones. None of them are convincing on their own, so maybe he hopes that they amount to something in conjunction. Instead, one bad objection serves only to amplify the defects of the others.

On his first point, Surjection completely ignores the utility of the deleter role, exhuming old arguments that have already been addressed. His attack on the proposal is simply a re-presentation of an outworn objection. The claim is the classic one that “we do [not] need hairsplitting between admins and ‘deleter’s.” But this elides a useful distinction. What sets an administrator apart from the lot of ordinary contributors is the blocking tools, which “put one in a position of power over other users.” It is understandable that we reserve that power to only the most trustworthy contributors – those who not only have a history of activity on Wiktionary, but also a track record of sage judgment. The blocking power more than anything else is the defining characteristic of an administrator. There are a great many editors for whom full sysop rights would be inappropriate but who would do well to exercise the deletion power.

The idea that a deleter role would be duplicative also fails on the basis of history. There are documented instances in which users came just short of extending adminship to someone else, citing the utility of giving over the reversion and deletion tools, but concerned about handing them the blocking power. For example, Tibidibi has once remarked that “Other privileges can be given as necessary, but adminship means blocking rights, which… requires… more professional conduct.” Likewise, TheDaveRoss has opined that the blocking power “is the function[] of admins which is most ‘powerful’, so anyone I would want having this ability I would be happy to have as an admin.” Finally, Fay Freak has noted that some users could not take full advantage of the admin tools, but would certainly “have use for the deletion tool.” So not only are there good policy foundations for the deleter role, but there is also a real need for it expressed by our editors.

Surjection tries to avoid the problem by suggesting an unheard-of theory of admins’ status. He tries to say that their greatest distinguishment from other contributors is not the blocking power, but the ability to view “sensitive information” and “content that infringes on some copyright.” But there is a reason that no one has ever adjudicated an admin nomination on these factors: They are not the main considerations for sysop rights. Rather, candidates for adminship are routinely judged on their competency, activity, and judgment. No one has ever floated Surjection’s criteria in an admin vote before; the newly-minted argument presented here is just an act of misdirection.

Throughout the discussion on the vote page, Surjection makes clear that this is his flagship argument; but it ends up being insubstantial. He repeats the deleter-admin line a total of three times, hoping that sheer repetitive weight will force the point through. Analyzed on its substance, however, his claim is empty and simplistic. Its core is that those whom we would be comfortable with entry deletion would also be good candidates for admins. While this is true in some cases, there are also a number of users to whom we would happily confer the deletion right but from whom we would withhold the full range of sysop capabilities. Those same users can also be trusted with deleting revealing information when necessary or cleaning up copyright violations; but maybe not with the heavy responsibility of blocking other users. Nor is this just hypothetical. A group of users over the years have echoed the same idea, making Surjection’s belief both unprincipled and ahistorical.

After digging up a discredited argument, Surjection shifts gears to proposing one that is simply false. He maintains that “[w]ithout the right to undelete pages, the role would be left incomplete.” Surjection did not read the vote attentively enough, for our proposal does include the right to undelete pages. The second objection is null.

Keeping with the trend, Surjection’s third ground for opposition revives an argument long thought dead. He baldly asserts that “technical problems” attend the implementation of the deleter role. Though he never mentions them by name, perhaps he refers to Chuck’s previous worry that it would be hard to tailor a new role to our specifications. Yet again, an objection that has already been negated. It is unlikely that any such technical issues would come up, and if they did, we would restrict the deleter right to its essential components.

With his first three arguments fatally undermined, little is left of Surjection’s opposition to the deleter role. The last try to save his case is to say that “[d]elegating tasks from sysops to subroles doesn’t appear to be necessary” due to the template. One could say the same thing about the extended-mover role, explaining that editors could flag bad redirects after pages moves. Indeed, the same sort of argument could be presented against the rollbacker role: The undo button and manual reverts are good enough to clean up poor edits. Of course Surjection would not oppose those roles as duplicative, because the root of the argument is unconvincing. All of these roles, including the deleter role, greatly convenience administrators and regular editors alike. That alone justifies their existence and operation.

Putting together a patchwork of confused arguments, as Surjection did here, does little to rebut the merits of the deleter role. Whether denying history, making up facts, or fearmongering, each of Surjection’s points fails on a different ground. Bombarding the proposal with one objection after another simply does not work. Iudex non calculat. Taken together, they sum to a muddled mix of opinions. And examined individually, they all ring hollow in their own way.

"The proposed nomination / approval path towards giving someone the 'deleter' role seems absurdly lax. Furthermore there is no backlog of pages that need to be deleted and there is no lack of admins willing to delete pages. DTLHS (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)" (Seconded by Brittletheories, PseudoSkull, Metaknowledge, Rishabhbhat, DCDuring, SGConlaw, and Erutuon)

DTLHS presents a fashionable line of attack against the deleter role. Much of the opposition has rallied around it. However, despite its popularity, it runs into familiar problems. Just as with Surjection, denialism and contrivance are the hammer and anvil of his prosecution. First, he presents as dangerous and “absurd” a well-established method of nomination and approval. He then proceeds to deny the condition of RFV/D, ignoring its significant overload. Lastly, to round out a poorly conceived case, he turns back to the voguish line about “solutions in search of problems.”

The first prong of DTLHS’ opposition is that the approval process for deleters would be too lax. In the first instance, it is not clear that this is a problem at all. There is not much harm that the deletion tool could cause, and what little it might can easily be undone. At worst, some good pages would be deleted, but admins checking the logs would quickly restore them. And if a deleter was found to be abusing their power, an admin could strip them of it without even so much as a discussion. Wiktionary has safeguards in place to contain the scope of potential harm. It is “a lot stronger today” than in the past in preventing this sort of abuse. In any case, we cannot “preemptively deny[] a right because of a hypothetical… doubt” that it may end up in the wrong hands. The much more sensible approach is to exercise caution when deciding to whom we hand the deletion ability, and reserve the right to revoke it if is misused.

The nightmare scenarios that DTLHS suggests are also unlikely because the bar for approval is difficult to clear. Getting the deleter role requires not only the agreement of one admin, but also the confirmation of another to double-check that the nomination is sound. We regard even one administrator as particularly judicious (after all, they were vetted by the community and got their title only after a supermajority trusted them with the sysop rights). For someone to gain the deletion power, they would not only need to satisfy the standards of one admin, but then also quell the possible doubts of a second admin. This process weeds out those unfit for the role. Practice, not just theory, attests to the reliability of the proposed procedure. It is one that we have used for years, without incident, to approve autopatroller nominations. If the opposition were correct, one would expect scores of misbehaved autopatrollers roaming over Wiktionary. Instead, our system has worked for over a decade without any opposition. It should be no different here.

Even putting aside all the foregoing, supporters have done the extraordinary to accommodate the concern over nominations; but opponents continue to dig in their heels and refuse to concede anything. We would support making the approval system more rigorous, and requiring three admins instead of two to greenlight a nomination. This was not the original design. It would make the process more cumbersome, and it would inconvenience supporters to change the proposal in midstream. Nevertheless, we have taken the extra trouble to offer to change the vote so that some may switch sides for the greater good. In return, we have not been extended the same generosity. To the contrary, some have sharply resisted modifying the vote and others have ignored the discussion altogether. Supporters have extended an olive branch to those on the other side, and in exchange, the opposition has turned down the chance to come to the negotiating table.

But opponents’ stubbornness should come as no surprise, because it is just another indignity in a series of many others. To begin with, opposing on the basis of the approval process is improper. DTLHS and his fellow voters had a full seven days to comment on the proposal and suggest changes. Instead, in a late-breaking maneuver to thwart the vote, he brought up a novel point as we were casting ballots. Supporters were therefore denied the opportunity to incorporate other users’ input and run a more successful vote. What is worse, many in the opposition are the same people who have campaigned against revotes in the past. Were this not the case, then letting the vote run its course and proposing a modified version later might have been a good idea. But, by airing their concerns in the wrong venue and at the wrong time, DTLHS and likeminded contributors have obstructed the operation of the vote.

The second part of DTLHS’ argument is that “there is no backlog of pages that need to be deleted.” As explained above, however, no reasonable person can agree with that. RFV and RFDN have been in terribly poor health due to a buildup of entries. A quick glance at either venue will verify it. If he wants to argue otherwise, the onus is on DTLHS to do so. Thus far, he has presented no evidence and cannot manage to make a serious argument.

As a finishing touch, DTLHS adds that “there is no lack of admins willing to delete pages.” But one could pose the same complaint about adminship (or any other role for that matter). By this logic, we should no longer grant admin nominations because there is no lack of people willing to block, delete, or revert. Furthermore, when cast in terms of utility, some admin nominations have been dubious. Some admins have made scarce use of their sysop tools, but there is no problem if they are reliable contributors and use their powers from time to time to make their work easier. If one adopts DTLHS’ argument to the contrary, we would have to rethink our entire system. Currently, we lack criteria for when someone should be nominated for a role, and for when they should be granted it. Lastly, DTLHS’ final line is premised on a falsity. There is in fact a lack of administrators to manage RFV/D, as evidenced by the overaccumulation of entries there.

Much like Surjection, DTLHS creates a hodgepodge of arguments to try to defeat the vote. But his omnibus objection fares no better than the one before it. He starts with an alarmist claim about the nomination system, but ultimately comes up short of making a meaningful argument. He both fails to explain why the approval guidelines are problematic in the first place; or why he believes that the built-in protections are insufficient. Then, DTLHS compounds his error by voicing his objections at the wrong place and time, knowing full well that he could have brought them forward much in advance to spare us the procedural difficulties. The rest of his response proceeds along predictable lines. The statement that there is no backlog at RFV/D is a pure falsehood, as is the accompaniment that there is no lack of admins to delete entries. Sadly, DTLHS’ argument relies on these untruths because it must; there is no other way to defend his oppose vote. Even sadder is that so many have been deceived by the specious but scary-sounding line about the approval process.

". There is marginal utility to this proposal, but the proposers have not created an approval system that handles the risks. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)"

The crux of this argument has already been addressed. I include this separately only to note a recurrent theme. Metaknowledge concedes the core of the proposal, but then advances a total non sequitur in order to join the ranks of the opposition. Compare this to his vote in the nullification proposal. There too, he agreed with the basis of the vote but managed to contort his way to opposition.

* * *

What is striking about unsuccessful votes is that they often fail not because a majority dislikes the idea, but because a minority can cobble together enough opposition to sink the proposal. Often, as is the case here, opponents gum together arguments that may seem tempting at first blush, but that ultimately buckle under factual study. Other users, perhaps not as attentive to the details, are then misled to cast a ballot in opposition. This is exactly what has happened in the case of the deleter-role vote. So many who have chosen to join the opposition agree with the bulk of the proposal, coming just inches away from supporting it, but then turn against it at the very end. It is even worse because they were deceived by arguments that are not just wrong, but also improperly presented. It is a sad reflection on our governance when such maneuvers are enough to frustrate the voting process and prevent the implementation of a highly useful proposal. That we are procedurally barred from remedying it is even more unfortunate.

Concurrences

 * I concur fully. —Svārtava [t•c•u•r] 06:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)