Wikiversity talk:User access levels

Comments
I vote for option 1 with "teacher" as the title.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 17:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Community page updated based on feedback provided. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Should the new role be named Teacher or Assistant? I think I like Assistant better. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But, if the goal is specifically to attract teachers, teacher might be the better option. There could also be both roles, with teacher as being discussed, and assistant perhaps replacing the probationary custodian role.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, from my perspective, Unblock self is a problem rather than a solution. Custodians who can bypass block don't have a reason to work with others to find a common solution. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, you bypassed block, in my opinion, precisely to continue to try to work with others. One solution as I've suggested is to have prob. cust. not able block custodians. If this isn't possible, I believe minimizing a need for steward intervention when either other custodians or bureaucrats are not available is important. SnowWolf is actually not one of our usually active stewards. My guess is SnowWolf happened to be monitoring something available to stewards. I'm probably one of our most active custodians now as well as then but back then I didn't even know you were blocked for a couple of days. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I was not blocked for days. I doubt if it was even hours.  And the only reason stewards became involved was because of unblock self, not in spite of it.  If the block on Sidelight would have held, we could have deescalated for a bit and discussed alternatives.  No harm would have been done.


 * Do you feel the need to have a role for probationary custodians in addition to the new teacher role? If so, what rights are appropriate for this role?  Note that we either need to have users new to the role be voted on (my preference), or we need to remove undelete from the rights.


 * Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I vote that we not make it too complicated. Let the probationals be teachers.  Also, virtually all of us multitask, keeping the two roles separate is artificial.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Probationary custodians, same except having a mentor to help with custodial responsibilities. To possibly include
 * 1. "Hide revisions using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion." as a probationary custodian may come across such content before a full custodian.
 * 2. "Monitor the AbuseLog (Special:AbuseLog) and create or update an abuse filter."
 * 3. "Block a user or IP address and monitor Category:Requests_for_unblock, but not able to block a custodian, if this is possible."


 * I see little reason to have a "teacher" do these, for example. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that a "teacher" would not do these, but combining the roles simplifies the rules and permits multitasking. The question is will we get into trouble giving one group the powers of the other.  Can a teacher cause trouble holding the powers of a probationary custodian and vice versa.  That is the question we must answer to know whether we need different groups.  All things being equal, we want as few levels as possible.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Revision deletion makes sense in terms of maintaining content. Anyone can monitor the abuse log, including anonymous users. Giving editing power for abuse filters is very risky. All edits across the entire wiki can be blocked with a single, simple filter, either created by accident or on purpose. I am not in favor of the teacher role having block capability. If we can keep it to a content role rather than a user management role, we can simplify the process. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I just checked rights. Revision deletion is a problem. It's not separated from revision restore, so it runs into the same issue as undelete in terms of requiring community approval for users in the role. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

One reason I see "unblock self" for Custodians and not for "Assistants" is precisely because they have gone through "Consensus" and have community support. If two or more custodians are blocking other custodians, unblock self establishes MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). By that I mean Bureaucrat or Steward intervention. But if one group makes pre-emptive strikes against another, the blocked custodians must remain blocked and beg for unblock, yet all have consensus. Unblock self is the only/best answer to maintain equality. Custodial wars on Wikipedia for example when no one can win end in futility. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Assistants must also go through consensus and have community support. The feedback you received in response to the Phabricator request noted this.  Anyone with undelete rights must be approved by the community.  Anyone with blocking rights should likewise be approved.  The past perception or practice that a single custodian could approve a probationary custodian is no longer appropriate.
 * The choice on unblock self comes down to whether a custodian has the right to ignore everyone else or whether they must cooperate with other custodians. We've already seen what happens when a custodian can ignore everyone else.  If it comes to this point, I do not view Bureaucrat or Steward intervention as a risk.  Instead, it provides necessary balance and oversight.  The last time this occurred, steward intervention was necessary because of unblock self, rather than because it wasn't available.
 * Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, assistants would not: "Our request is that you create a community review process to select all custodians who would have access to deleted content prior to giving them that access." The assistants would not have access to deleted content or the other tools that might allow access to deleted content. That's actually one of the benefits of assistants over our current process for probationary custodians that do not have consensus but do have access. Bold added.


 * I understand your concerns and the recent history of "unblock self" as you've described it. I'm thinking more about as Wikiversity expands. Maybe this is a concern we should try to see what the community wants. What do you think? I know we don't want to do this piecemeal but if steward intervention for use of unblock can be minimized this may allow greater political freedom for let's say smaller political groups versus larger ones. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not in favor of anyone having the ability to block other users without community approval first. Perhaps we should focus our efforts on the teacher level instead.  There seems to be some consensus on the rights of that group.  Regarding custodians using unblock self, the only way to limit steward intervention for the use of unblock is to take away the option.  There is no way it can be used wisely.  Let's say a custodian from a larger group blocks a custodian from a smaller group and the blocked custodian unblocks self.  The next step is for the blocking custodian to contact stewards and request immediate removal of custodian rights for using unblock self.  It would have been better for the blocked custodian to discuss the block than violate it.  We've already seen this happen.  There's no need to repeat history just to prove consistency.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dave. Teachers need to manage their own classrooms and should not be responsible for managing Wikiversity.  Teacher can always protect their resources using permalinks.  It would be nice if they could protect all images in said permalinks, but that does not seem easy to do.  Fortunately, we can work around that.  This ability to independently protect images placed on Commons by mirroring them on Wikiversity is an important feature of Special:Upload that we don't want to lose (I recently experimented by protecting an image on Special:Upload and it works wonderfully.)


 * My university uses a course management system (CMS) that I use to create permalinks to Wikiversity. Our CMS commercial and constantly being upgraded, and I don't think anybody is passionately in love with it.  When I lecture, I bypass CMS and go directly to User:Guy vandegrift/sandbox where I can quickly navigate.  I think it is possible that we can recruit teachers to Wikiversity in large numbers.  We just need to plug away at creating quality resources.  --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we need both Teachers and Assistants, or can we just add the Teachers role (called either Teachers or Assistants)? I'm not sure we're gaining much with having the second role. We do gain by having the first one. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * All things being equal, we should have the fewest number of roles because viewers have no interest in organizational structure, and because its more trouble to promote through more ranks. Is there any way we can get into trouble by merging the groups?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * As Dave has pointed out in his latest listing of responsibilities the difference between "teacher" and "assistant" is "block". Guy has also made a good point with "Teachers need to manage their own classrooms and should not be responsible for managing Wikiversity." So a parallel functioning can occur for each plus "block" which a "teacher" may need for an occasional student and an "assistant" or "custodian" can perform. For example, "deletion" of resources, user pages, or files unrelated to the "teacher's" courses may be an unnecessary diversion for a "teacher", which is where assistants come in. Right now, most of the deleting has been outside the classroom, although this could change. As Guy has suggested with the "teacher" role, few may want to manage Wikiversity by becoming "Custodians" but the assistants most likely do. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying. I see no problem with giving teachers the right to block.  It was the obligation to block that concerned me.  I don't think people are likely to abuse the power to block.  If anyone blocks without cause, they are probably already involved in a dispute so severe that we don't particularly want them on Wikiversity.  I (tentatively) say we combine the Teacher and Assistant roles and eliminate the somewhat condescending Assistant role (everybody is a teacher).--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I recommend we consolidate the two roles and leave block out. Marshallsumter has never blocked anyone. Guy vandegrift has only blocked three users other than his own test. If custodians aren't using the tool, teachers/assistants don't need the tool. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. The busy vandal who does a lot in a brief amount of time is not particularly dangerous. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * BTW, I have lost all interest in the section.  If we ever had a newbie who wanted to ask questions without disrupting the flow of the conversations, we might put editable statements at the beginning.  If we ever have a verbose colleage, we could insist that they place these statements in their sandbox and link to them. (I was on the verge of doing that once).--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So far it seems most of the blocking is occurring while I'm developing content. But, I'm willing to do so should the need arise. I have no objections to combining the two roles, but WMF is not asking for consensus upon the person who blocks or unblocks, only the one who views deleted content. We could leave it up to the community regarding the "block" issue. We also have a Probationary Custodian who can block and unblock. We could consider "Adjunct Custodian", for anyone uncomfortable with the designation of "teacher" whose more inclined toward helping manage and clean up Wikiversity. The assignment of tasks outside consensus perhaps should be open as to titles, with viewing deleted content being THE restriction requiring consensus per person. Current tradition does not require consensus for Block or Unblock. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are my suggestions for proceeding to the Colloquium for community response as alternatives:
 * 1) Everything remains the same with respect to Probationary Custodians, except both the current Probationary Custodian and future ones will no longer have or revision deletion capability, to conform with WMF directives. WMF directives are not requiring consensus for Block or Unblock which current Probationary Custodians can perform.
 * 2) Teachers, a new position, with responsibilities as described in User Groups that can have alternative titles, and
 * 3) Custodians, with changes as described in User Groups regarding "Unblock self" and "Mass delete". Probationary Custodians no longer exist as is except the current one.

Comments, questions, criticisms, and suggestions are welcome. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 04:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me there are two parts to this. One is creating the new role and moving unblock self and mass delete from custodians to bureaucrats.  The other is addressing probationary custodianship.  To keep us from getting bogged down on the second discussion, I recommend focusing on the new position and change in rights first.  If we have support for the new role, we can then look at the probationary custodianship process.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I am confused about mass delete. If you look at User:Guy_vandegrift/sandbox you will see that I deleted a page but its subpage survived. If mass delete does not remove subpages, what is mass delete?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * See Special:Nuke. It is extremely dangerous, and not necessary.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I added "Mass delete" to number three above. Number one is the simplest solution requiring the minimum of community effort to comply with the WMF directive of legal concern. There's no hurry on the second two. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have an idea: What about denying unconfirmed users the right to make external links? I doubt that the Wikimedia software could be configured to enforce this restriction, but can bots be taught the difference between confirmed and unconfirmed users?  If so, they can do the dirty work. Either way, we need to use the bots.  For example, we could make a version of the prod template that wouldn't offend contributers, and leave a message on the user talk page telling them that they need to defend or explain the pedagogical nature of their resource.  Making people justify what they are doing on Wikiversity has intrinsic educational value.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This can be done with an appropriately crafted abuse filter. It can deny external links by new and anonymous users.  It would be very similar to the one already in place that identifies new external links.  Bots, unfortunately, aren't a simple solution.  They must be coded, they must be run, and they must be supervised / audited regularly.  They also have to be rewritten when the API changes.  My bot is currently broken due to API updates.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs)
The statement section was tried as a solution to the rare dysfunctional discussion. I don't think they occur often enough to warrant this complication. If I ever encounter such a situation again, I (we) can request that people move off-topic comments to another page and link to them.--16:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The one application for this format would be in the case of a newbie who wants to sit in on the conversation and ask questions in a way that does not interfere with the flow of the conversation. We might, for example reserve a special heading at the top for questions and comments.  This section would be editable, with the understanding that if you have nothing to say, then clear both your name and all material that was written.  The text could reside either in the history of the discussion, or be pasted into the person's userspace.  I would advocate setting this up only on an "as-needed" basis.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Confusion about user rights: upload
 * Current page has "upload" for the teachers. I thought confirmed users could upload files.  If so, this item is redundant.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 00:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC) (Still confused 16:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC))


 * See Special:ListGroupRights. For some reason, Upload is listed for each group, apparently redundantly.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Dave Braunschweig, If you don't like the format of this page, it is welcome at Discussions

I propose that we experiment with a different way to discuss this. I feel the usual wiki way of speaking and rebutting creates circular discussions that resemble two sided debates. I'm a writer, not a debater. Let's try putting our thoughts down, and then editing them in view of what others write. This paragraph will be deleted if there seems to be consensus on this. I propose that:


 * 1) We place the topic in the lede that led to the creation of this page, namely a special access level for instructors.
 * 2) Individuals who wish to discuss do so under their own heading (created with the wikitext ==Statement by ).
 * 3) While placing comments inside other people's space is permitted, it should not be done often. And the user is expected to delete.
 * 4) All things being equal the statements are sorted in decreasing order of length. All such rearrangements require a consensus, and the expectation is that exceptions will be routine.  Irrelevant short statements should go at the bottom, for example.  And there is no reason to sort among statements of roughly the same length.


 * Aside on format of this page: I will delete or collapse the above section if a consensus appears that we should focus only on the "Teachers" role.  I already collapsed the section that follows because I believe Dave pasted it here from the original page, which I interpret to be an endorsement of the format.  (As you can see above, we can have both)


 * The advantage of collapsing instead of deleting is that someone else might want to revisit a topic. I do believe that it should be possible to edit our statements.  Consider this anology:  A democratic society has the press, where things are said and forgotten, and the government, where policy is made.  A democracy needs both.

More comments archived at User_talk:Guy_vandegrift/Archive_8

Statement by Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs)
I'm okay with statements vs. discussion, but on the talk page vs. the policy page. I'm concerned about sorting them later, as time sequence is a significant determiner of content. Moving, "I agree with Guy" to the top doesn't help if the reader doesn't know what Guy thinks. Perhaps summarization at the top would work instead.

As for page content, I would see it lay out the existing and proposed access levels, with a list of rights included in the level and some justification for the design. It can rely heavily on the Wikipedia page for background information.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

After reviewing Special:ListGroupRights, I noticed that rights are applied cumulatively. By that, I mean that Bureaucrats do not have all of the rights of Custodians plus. They are custodians and then have additional rights as bureaucrats. With that in mind, my proposal would be to split the current custodian role into two parts, The first part would be the teacher or instructor role (which could also be called custodian), and the second would be the administrative role, currently called custodian.

The lower level role would include rights for Delete, Import, Merge History, Move (files, pages, subpages, suppress redirect), Rollback, Upload. Specifically, the lower level role does not include any rights that allow impacting other users or viewing hidden / deleted content. It is a content role rather than a user management role.

The higher level role would include the remaining administrative rights, except Mass delete and Unblock self. Additionally, this group would be able to add users to the lower level group.

Bureaucrats would gain the rights of Mass delete and Unblock self.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I've listed two different approaches on the community page. I'd appreciate feedback on alternative 1 or alternative 2, and if alternative 1, the best name for the new group (instructors, teachers, etc.).

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

We will need a protection policy, as the initial reaction by most teachers is that they need to protect their content vs. allowing the community to build on it. We have very little targeted vandalism at Wikiversity. Most vandalism is random. Allowing perceived ownership and protection leads to a fiefdom perspective (protecting one's own castle) rather than a community view of watching out for all content.

Perhaps it can be as simple as, "Protection is used to deter targeted vandalism. It is a reactive response to existing issues rather than a proactive (paranoid) approach to what might happen."

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
In reading again what I C&P'd from meta, I see three simple groups which at first glance is similar to what is being proposed:
 * 1) Assistants - same as "teachers" without viewdelete and without "restore deleted pages", and possibly without that which is listed here under prob. cust.
 * 2) Probationary custodians, same except having a mentor to help with custodial responsibilities. To possibly include
 * 1. "Hide revisions using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Revision_deletion." as a probationary custodian may come across such content before a full custodian.
 * 2. "Monitor the AbuseLog (Special:AbuseLog) and create or update an abuse filter."
 * 3. "Block a user or IP address and monitor Category:Requests_for_unblock, but not able to block a custodian, if this is possible."
 * 3. Custodians, all of the above plus unblock self. I'm suggesting this in view of what happened to Dave by Sidelight12. He was the only active full Custodian and both Bureaucrats were not available. A steward had to step in after Dave unblocked himself. A steward should not be necessary unless we have some kind of Custodian warring (hopefully, highly unlikely with community consensus).

Discussion
I noticed "upload" under "teachers" and "no change" under autoconfirmed users. By upload if what is meant is using "Upload file", autoconfirmed users can do this. Why is this under teachers? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Ditto with "move". I believe autoconfirmed users can already do this. Yes, no? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * See Special:ListGroupRights. The design was based on splitting existing custodian rights.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It looks like the only "Move" unique to Custodians is "Move files". "Upload' has nothing unique to Custodians and can be removed from the proposal unless there's something else intended. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest pinging our other currently active custodians: CQ, HappyCamper, Juandev*, Leighblackall, Leutha, MichaelBillington*, Ruy Puliesi*, SB Johnny! and, Jtneill!. The ! indicates bureaucrats and * indicates stewards who are also custodians here for input in case they didn't read the Colloquium. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Received an email that "Luke081515 moved this task [T113109] to Blocked on community consensus on the Wikimedia-Site-Requests workboard." I've mentioned this discussion. Once we have consensus on how we'd like to proceed and "Our request is that you create a community review process to select all custodians who would have access to deleted content prior to giving them that access. We are fine with this proposal to create different levels of admin rights as long as that community review process is completed." from Jrogers-WMF. I also let them know that we already have a policy of consensus for approval of full custodians. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Colloquium copy: Assistant custodians group
Here's an update of comments received for [url=https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113109] T113109 at the phabricator.

"It looks like the WMF will still be happy with this request if (a) assistants go through a community selection process, or (b) they don't have access to deleted content. We'll see what the Wikiversity community has to say." TTO

This is based on these comments from Jrogers-WMF:
 * 1) It’s extremely important for the health and protection of the projects to limit access to deleted material that may include sensitive content. For this reason, we can’t support a proposal to create an assistant admin class that has access to deleted content before going through any kind of community selection process. We would not have the same concerns with a class of probationary administrators (or custodians) who have undergone a community selection process, even if other “full” administrators were given the right to add and remove their advanced user rights. We applaud the idea of having experienced administrators (or custodians) mentor new users with advanced rights; what is important is that users who receive access to deleted content have gone through a community selection process first.
 * 2) Our request is that you create a community review process to select all custodians who would have access to deleted content prior to giving them that access. We are fine with this proposal to create different levels of admin rights as long as that community review process is completed.

--Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Current Proposal

 * Why does the Teacher's group need "Protected, Edit Protected, Delete"? Let the custodians do it, why is there a need for the teachers to have those rights? Otherwise, I support everything else. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The Protect and Edit Protected might not be necessary, but help provide peace of mind to new teachers and don't add any risk. Delete is one of the most common features a teacher needs when bringing a class of students to Wikiversity, because students invariably create pages in the wrong place, create duplicates that need to be merged or removed, etc.  Including Protect and Delete also allows the Teacher and Assistant roles to be combined into a single group that could substitute for probationary custodianship.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the "provide peace of mind to new teachers and don't add any risk". What do you mean by that? --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * New teachers are often concerned by the idea that anyone can change their materials. Having the ability to protect gives them peace of mind that they can protect their materials if they were to come under attack.  So far, it hasn't been an issue on +99% of our content.  Not adding any risk means there isn't a risk to having Curators be able to protect content.  They can't do anything bad with it, and we can quickly undo anything that shouldn't have been protected.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree with removing "unblock self" from Custodians. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Minority views such as those needed to perform exploratory original research (often high-risk and therefore unpopular), especially, and those for research in general, could result in the blocking of any Custodian assisting in research efforts that a "teaching only" majority may not want in their multiversity. While this is unlikely to be the case with current "teachers", it has been a serious concern in the past.


 * Just FYI, but to conform with WMF-legal directives all we need to do is remove and revision deletion capability by consensus from our present and future Probationary Custodians. WMF-legal directives are not requiring consensus for Block or Unblock which current Probationary Custodians can perform. Everything else can remain the same with respect to Custodians.
 * This concern addresses liability issues that are eased by community consensus for Custodians in viewing deleted content. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The separate "teacher", "educator", "curator" idea is good but should be separate from my first concern and after my second concern. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To the separate "teacher" idea as an additional parallel position I'd like to suggest "researcher". This brings the alternate suggestions to four: "teacher", "educator", "curator", and "researcher". --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to call the group "Curator" and have it apply to all four of these positions? That seems to meet the generic and enabling / enobling goal that Jtneill recommended.  It also matches up well with the Custodian label in terms of theme and alliteration.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I also like "Curator". According to Wiktionary, the curator organizes a collection; it could be a collection of teaching or research resources.  The "Custodian" keeps the place clean and has power, but only to maintain order.  There is no connotation that the Custodian has more influence over content decisions.  Also, will custodians be able to block other custodians?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Blocking is either on or off. There is no control over who someone could block once they have that right.  Curators don't have a blocking right, as that would be a user-management function rather than a resource-management function.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * What I mean to ask was if Custodians can't unblock self, can they unblock other Custodians who got blocked? Or do we have to wait for an administrator to do that?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Unblock also is not group-specific. You can either block and unblock, or you can't.  All custodians are able to block and unblock anyone else.  Currently, they can also unblock themselves.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Curator" I like as a generic for all. Custodians now can unblock all and block all. After the voting is finished custodians can block only custodians and below and unblock others but not themselves. Only bureaucrats can unblock self, as I understand this. I guess Bureaucrats could not unblock self before which seems strange. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Bureaucrats are also custodians. That wouldn't change.  Technically, Custodians can block Bureaucrats.  It's probably not advisable, but is possible.  Since they will be able to unblock self, it's just a quick way to get yourself blocked instead.  But it is possible.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If Bureaucrats are already Custodians, then there is no need to "Add Mass delete and Unblock self" to them. Is this correct? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The proposal is to remove Mass delete and Unblock self from Custodians and add those rights to Bureaucrats rather than remove them from everyone. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The proposal is certainly right on Mass delete. Regarding "unblock self", there are advantages both ways, but I lean towards restricting "unblock-self" to higher level administrators.  The advantage to making unblock self unavailable to Custodians is that it lowers the bar of trust required to become a Custodian (I am speaking of trusting one's judgement, not one's honesty or character).  If a Custodian ever goes rogue, he/she can be blocked until a higher level authority steps in.  There is a shortage of Custodians, and making it easier to allow a person to become a Custodian has distinct advantages.  Also, if one Custodian block another Custodian, something has gone wrong and we all need to stop and reevaluate the situation.  Removing unblock self from the Custodian privileges forces that reevaluation.  --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Voting

 * --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC) I followed as much of the conversation as I could understand and there were no red flags. All the peculiarities that I didn't like seemed to be due to restrictions placed by Wikimedia software and Wikimedia policies..
 * - as co-proposer. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - Suggest teacher's don't need "protect" and "edit protect" as there is no need for a teacher to edit protected pages. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - I welcome these well-considered user right changes. They are particularly appropriate to the nature of Wikiversity (e.g., to engage teachers). They offer numerous potential benefits for the development of Wikiversity (e.g., easier for teachers to manage content) with little downside. Consider perhaps a generic, yet enabling/enobling name for the new user group (e.g., Curator). -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * - I like the new user group idea, but must oppose for now for the reasons stated in the Comments above. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

What is be the procedure for adding people to Curator status?
It has occurred to me that an unintended consequence might be that lots of people will want this status. This might be a good thing because I am convinced that Wikiversity is currently a woefully underused resource that might someday be huge, and this status may provide an incentive for educators to use it. But either way, we need to think about the procedure by which such status is requested and what guidelines should be applied. Also, I just edited the document by removing the word "proposed" from Curator status. It seems too me that the new user access level is already in effect.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it went into effect this morning. I created Curators as a starting point for the discussion on how the role gets added.  I borrowed heavily from the current Custodian process, not necessarily because it's the best approach, but simply a starting point for discussion.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)