Creating a "janitor" class

[J. Noel Chiappa]

Hi, all, I was thinking we might want to create a new class of users, "janitors", who are experienced users who are given access to the technical tools allowed to do things like delete 'speedy' deletion-requested pages, merge page histories, etc. In other words, they would have no responsbility/power in the area of user behaviour.

Do people think this is a good idea? If so, I'll turn it into a formal proposal.

Noel

[Hayford Peirce]

I think it's an excellent idea as long as:

* You don't try to inveigle *me* into being one!
* It's made absolutely clear that being able to carry out a speedy delete would *only* be for stuff such as mis-named articles, duplicated articles, etc. NOT for articles of, oh, let's say, really amateurish quality that hot-headed elitists (like me, for instance) have tagged thusly before waiting to see if a week or so of additions would make them presentable. I know that in at least two cases I jumped the gun somewhat.... So, in other words, the speedy delete power would just be for clean-up, not for editorializing in any way....

Hayford

[J. Noel Chiappa]

being able to carry out a speedy delete would *only* be for stuff such as mis-named articles, duplicated articles, etc. NOT for articles of, oh, let's say, really amateurish quality ... in other words, the speedy delete power would just be for clean-up, not for editorializing in any way....

Makes sense. What about formal deletion requests from Editors?

The whole page-deletion process on CZ, for pages that aren't clearly 'rubbish' (leftover redirects from typos, etc) is rather nebulous at the moment, anyway... best to leave any questionable cases to Constables.

Noel

[Hayford Peirce]

Makes sense. What about formal deletion requests from Editors?

Tricky, tricky.... Suppose an Editor and an Author were having a hissy-fit fight and the Editor baldly stated: Delete this baby!

The whole page-deletion process on CZ, for pages that aren't clearly 'rubbish' (leftover redirects from typos, etc) is rather nebulous at the moment, anyway... best to leave any questionable cases to Constables.

Yes, I agree. But as more and more people join, there will inevitably be more and more "rubbish" ones to remove....

Hayford

[Robert_W_King]

There are plenty of good stories that involve a janitor as the main protagonist.

[J. Noel Chiappa]

Makes sense. What about formal deletion requests from Editors?

Suppose an Editor and an Author were having a hissy-fit fight and the Editor baldly stated: Delete this baby!

Yesss... probably the best rule is the one I enunciated below (perhaps strengthened to "if there's any question at all"):

best to leave any questionable cases to Constables.

On the general point, what do others think, should we add "Janitors"?

Noel

[Chris Day]

On the general point, what do others think, should we add "Janitors"?

Yes.

[Hayford Peirce]

On the general point, what do others think, should we add "Janitors"?

Yes.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

Does "janitor" sound less demeaning in US English? I can't help feeling that a nicer job description should be possible...

[J. Noel Chiappa]

Does "janitor" sound less demeaning in US English? I can't help feeling that a nicer job description should be possible...

No, I think it has the same tone in US English. I actually picked that word quite deliberately (actually, I stole borrowed it from a phrase of Jimbo's over on Wikipedia); the concept is to present these sysops not as some high-and-mighty overlords, but rather make a point of the similarity to real janitors, who although they are given keys to everything, aren't in charge of much. Although the proposed CZ janitors would have some unusual powers, they would be there to serve, not be in control. The term is also a bit of a 'vanity filter' - nobody should aspire to become one because they think it will give them any kind of status; one doesn't get much status from being a "janitor"!

Oh, one other question before I set to writing (since the general reception seems positive): should janitors be empowered to do the "Approved" mechanics (once the time period has run), or should that be reserved to Constables? I ask because although we have very few Approved articles, if we try and up the rate of Approval, the Constables might be able to use a hand. My understanding is that the Approval is supposed to basically be the responsibility of the appropriate Editors, with Constables just there to apply the bits (e.g. protection) which most Editors don't have acess to. I don't have any preconceptions about whether the answer to this should be 'yes' or 'no' - whatever everyone thinks is wisest is fine with me.

Noel

[Hayford Peirce]

Martin -- "janitors" became "custodians" about a gazillion years ago, some years, I believe, before garbage collectors became "sanitation engineers". But since I grew up with school janitors, etc., the word still means something to me. What it means to a 22-yr.-old, I dunno.

As for Noel's question as to whether janitors should be able to Approve articles, even if they are carrying out mere mechanics, I would say, at least for the moment, No.  Let's not confuse too many issues here. Some magic moment when the number of articles that have actually been approved by the requisite Editors, and are merely awaiting implementation, reaches some overwhelming number, like three, four, or even five of them, maybe then we could reconsider the question....

Hayford

[J. Noel Chiappa]

whether janitors should be able to Approve articles, even if they are carrying out mere mechanics

Just to be clear: even now, Constables don't Approve article, Editors do. The Constables just merely do the mechanics. (No position on your position; just wanted to clarify that.)

Noel

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

There are occasions when the constabulary does not automatically validate the approval: since such discretionary power would also have to be given to the janitor, it would contradict your idea of keeping this as a low-level function. So, better to leave it with the constabulary.

[Todd Coles]

I think this is a good idea if limited to basic cleanup and steers clear of approval issues.

I also agree with Hayford that custodian would be the preferred title.  Unless we want to go one step further and be sanitation engineers..

[Larry Sanger]

Hi, all, I was thinking we might want to create a new class of users, "janitors", who are experienced users who are given access to the technical tools allowed to do things like delete 'speedy' deletion-requested pages, merge page histories, etc. In other words, they would have no responsbility/power in the area of user behaviour.

Do people think this is a good idea? If so, I'll turn it into a formal proposal.

Noel

This is what constables are supposed to be doing.  If we don't have enough constables doing the work, we should get more constables on board (if possible).  Constables are also the people who do the mechanics of the work of approving articles.

I would rather not designate people with real power and authority as "janitors."  Calling them janitors might make them and the rest of us feel good about the fact that they have authority that the others of us don't have, by making them seem to be menial laborers.  That is how Wikipedia administrators like to talk about themselves.  In the beginning, it might have started out that way.  But then those people ended up having (and using and abusing) substantial authority.  I am absolutely committed to disallowing that from happening on CZ.  There is a reason we used the word "constables" for people who actually have authority: it's honest.  It's important to be honest, I think :-)

Wales is and has been frankly confused about the nature of authority in projects like ours...sorry, but we make a huge mistake by taking our cues from him.

In short, I've always thought that we should not multiply roles unnecessarily.  As long as we can solve the problem this is meant to solve by simply adding more constables, I see no need for another whole layer of authority.