Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Proposal/2013

See also the proposal and the straw poll of this proposal.

Before commenting, please read the proposal thoroughly.

Implementation

Despite reading the page, I'm still confused about the technical aspects of this. Let's say your proposal succeeds: will developers have to create a new usergroup? Or will bureaucrats simply grant each right individually to a new moderator? Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for being unclear.

Awhile back, the devs added the functionality to more easily create new user-right groups. This would just be one of those. I can see if I can find the link, if you like. - jc37 16:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had no clue that anyone else could create new userright groups. Thanks for the clarification! Nyttend (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See mw:Manual:User_rights for more info : ) - jc37 18:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only for admins?

So, is this only for admins? That is, is there an alternative to RfA (even if it's just specifying within an RfA that one's only applying for mod rights) in this proposal? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not in this proposal. This proposal is specifically limited to editors who have already successfully gone through RfA. - jc37 16:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Still sounds like a good idea, but if it passes, it'd be interesting to expand it to be a requestable level of rights. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Something like "Requests for Moderatorship" ("RfM")? Or simply a request at Requests for permissions? The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 17:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Foundation has said that anyone with access to viewdeleted must have undergone scrutiny equivalent to an RfA, as viewdeleted is potentially quite damaging (and it is), so RfPerm is right out. I'd imagine it would have to be just an RfA where you say "I'm only going for mod access", but that's a discussion for another day, I suppose. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) - I'd be for Requests for Moderatorship on the RFA page, like RFB shares that page. But I am doubting that that would gain consensus at this time. - jc37 17:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself

I have no inclination to ever submit myself to the RfA process because I have no interest whatsoever in obtaining or ever using blocking buttons, nor a desire to complete a 20 question open book exam on things that don't matter to me, and I have a hunch the nomination would likely be highly contentious. Not much point in all that for a bunch of unused buttons... There are, however, a few things in the administrative toolkit that would periodically be of use. The ability to execute article name changes when the software stops regular users is one thing — I still have no clue why those efforts crash every now and then... The ability to read deleted material is another, periodically bumping into recreation situations where it would be good to know what was deleted the last time around. That's just me and I don't know whether either of these things would be included in the Admin Lite package.

Speaking in terms of the general rather than the specific, I think blocking buttons should be granted to a small subset of administrators who deal with vandal-fighting as their main task, since these are the source of much fury and grief at WP. I have a hunch — and this is the main thing — that the approval process of Semi-Administrators or whatever you want to call them would be looser than the epic wars fought over new Administrators and that the so-called "Administrator shortage" would thus be solved in one fell swoop. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user-rights included in this user-group are listed here. Block and protect are specifically not included.

Ages ago, I tried to gain a consensus on a "blocker" user-group, but it had strong opposition at that time. Particularly because I had not then addressed the interdependency of protect and block. I can see if I can find that old discussion if you like. It was on a VP, several years ago. - jc37 17:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction with de/resysopping and cloudiness

So, how does this work? The situation I'm wondering about is this: an admin partially resigns their tools and becomes a mod under what would clearly be considered a "cloud", but no further sanctions ensue. After a few months of normal activity, they go inactive and, after the normal year of inactivity, their mod bit is removed. They come back two years after they left (a year after they were demodded) and request their tools back. What do the crats do here? The original admin tools were clearly resigned under a cloud, but the mod tools clearly weren't. Do they decline the request altogether, per "This package may be requested by any former admin who is eligible for restoration of adminship"? Do they allow the user to get only the mod tools back, per "And so, just like adminship, as long as removal of moderator was not "under a cloud", it may be restored by any bureaucrat per the normal rules."? (emphasis mine, in both cases) I think there's some tension there; the bolded words should be the same, as otherwise, there's ambiguity. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a typo in the bolding in the proposal - I fixed it : )

That aside, my understanding is, in general, if the removal of any user-right group is deemed to be "under a cloud", then afaik, the editor in question must go through the requisite process again to regain.

So in your example, the admin clearly knows that they are switching to moderator "under a cloud". So they know they will be unable to merely re-request the admin user group at WP:BN, but need to go through WP:RFA. In your scenario, the moderator user group was not removed "under a cloud", so the editor should be able to re-request the moderator user group at WP:BN. - jc37 17:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]