Wikipedia talk:Moderators/Proposal/2013

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]

I don't see the value in this proposal, but I do see the value in "Requests for Moderatorship". Regarding viewdeleted, one possible workaround is that a moderator can delete stuff, but not see what they've deleted, so if they make a mistake (eg: as reported in WP:DRV or WP:REFUND), that has to be handled by an administrator. My thoughts on RfA match Carrite's below - I just don't have the enthusiasm for locking and blocking, as I tend to work with improving unloved pages which don't invite contention, but it would be nice to occasionally do the "delete" equivalent of a non-admin close when I'm certain about consensus. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:41, 9 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]

Conflicting flags and lesser rights

Should this user right not include flags like 'autopatrol' and 'tboverride'? I would think both would be useful. If not, it would be necessary for 'moderators' to additionally hold (autopatrolled), (rollback) and possibly the entire (reviewer) package. Pol430 talk to me 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I intentionally did not add rollback, etc., as I note in the proposal. If wanted, it's easy enough to request those.

And hmm about tboverride. It doesn't seem to be listed at mw:Manual:User_rights, but it is at Special:ListGroupRights, under sysop. I'm not entirely clear on what it's used for in practice. - jc37 22:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tboverride userright allows the overriding of the title and username blacklists, i.e. for a user that wants a username normally blocked by a stray blacklist entry. Administrators and Account Creators are the lowest groups that have this right, and I see a reason a 'moderator' might want this. However, discussions involving the tboverride userright have been really contentious in the past.. gwickwire^talk_edits 13:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's this exactly?

why is this protected?
why does the page not have a protected icon?
there's so much technical jargon. explaing this as if I were a 5-year old
in the sentence:

But which does not include all the user-rights in the sysop group.

You should add: "such as so-and-so".

I'm still not sure what exactly are you guys trying to do here. So explain it like this:

Group A has these privileges. We want to create Group B as a subset of A with only the following privileges (1), (2), and (3), which would mean they lack (4), (5) and (6).

ie: WP:LEAD =P

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point?

It seems that the proposal is basically a way to partially resign from adminship. If someone wants to keep some of their tools, why can't they just not resign? Are people allergic to being able to block users? If they don't want to exercise their right to block/protect, just don't. I don't see the point of creating a whole new usergroup for this. -- YPN YPN ✡ 14:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I don't really see the point either. If someone has been given the admin toolset, they're under no obligation to use any part of it they don't want to - I, for example, gained the ability to mess around with the MediaWiki interface as part of my admin package, but I don't feel comfortable doing so, so I don't. Admins "are never required to use their tools"; if you want to be an admin who doesn't hand out blocks, surely you can just avoid handing out blocks? Why have a whole new usergroup? Yunshui 雲‍水 15:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]