Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Hello,

I have a bad feeling about this request.

28 people have participated to the consultation, 18 supports the motion.

So, 18 people are going to introduce the word 'moderator' in the Wikipedia universe, where:
- we explain a lot to everybody there isn't any moderator on Wikipedia, ie nobody moderates the content publication, like in an editorial committee;
- a Google search to wikipedia moderators give very negative and troll posts and news.

I wonder if it's acceptable to let 18 person choose to introduce a word with such a negative connotation in the projects and if another name of the group wouldn't be more appropriated. Because this will have an impact in other projects: "Yes, you have moderators, see vi. for example.".

Furthermore, we're here in yet another strange rights divide situation. People trusted to delete, undelete, protect articles should normally be trusted to be full sysops.

Funnily there are examples for both concerns you mentioned. The Dutch language Wikipedia calls its sysops "moderators"[1] and the Portguese language Wikipedia has so-called "eliminators"[2], users with similar rights assigned as proposed here. So I don't believe viwiki's proposal is that revolutional. :-P

[1] https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moderator
[2] https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Lista_de_privilégios_de_grupos

(In reply to Dereckson from comment #1)
> 28 people have participated to the consultation, 18 supports the motion.

If I'm counting correctly, [[vi:Wikipedia:Biểu quyết/Quyền moderator]] had comments from 21 users and 4 IPs. That turnout is par for the course at the Vietnamese Wikipedia, and the 86% approval rate may be one of the highest this year. (The "Ý kiến" section is for comments, not neutral votes.)

The straw poll at [[vi:Wikipedia:Biểu quyết/Tên gọi Moderator]] had comments from 19 users and 4 IPs, split among nine options.

> I wonder if it's acceptable to let 18 person choose to introduce a word with
> such a negative connotation in the projects and if another name of the group
> wouldn't be more appropriated. Because this will have an impact in other
> projects: "Yes, you have moderators, see vi. for example.".

"Moderator" was just a working title until we could come up with a suitable Vietnamese term. "Điều phối viên" literally means "coordinator", so would it be possible to use that as the internal group name?

> Furthermore, we're here in yet another strange rights divide situation.
> People trusted to delete, undelete, protect articles should normally be
> trusted to be full sysops.

I was of the same opinion, but the general consensus was that the administrators need help with these tasks in particular, and that a number of users were interested in helping to fight vandalism but didn't consider themselves ready for adminship. The idea is that there will be little in the way of adminship once a user becomes a ĐPV.

(In reply to Vogone from comment #2)
> Funnily there are examples for both concerns you mentioned. The Dutch
> language Wikipedia calls its sysops "moderators"[1] and the Portguese
> language Wikipedia has so-called "eliminators"[2], users with similar rights
> assigned as proposed here. So I don't believe viwiki's proposal is that
> revolutional. :-P

"Eliminator" actually sounds pretty cool -- wish I'd thought of that -- but every Vietnamese translation I can think of sounds too much like "censor".

I think it'd also be fine if we reuse "eliminator" as the internal name but keep "điều phối viên" (coordinator) as the translation, just as the Vietnamese wikis translate "administrator" as "bảo quản viên" (maintainer) and the Spanish wikis translate it as "bibliotecario/a" (librarian).

(In reply to Minh Nguyễn from comment #3)
> I was of the same opinion, but the general consensus was that the
> administrators need help with these tasks in particular, and that a number
> of users were interested in helping to fight vandalism but didn't consider
> themselves ready for adminship. The idea is that there will be little in the
> way of adminship once a user becomes a ĐPV.

So this is like adminship-in-training?

I'm ready to initiate this but I'm wondering how would this new group could automatically inherit the autopatrolled, patroller and rollbacker rights.

(In reply to TeleComNasSprVen from comment #5)
> (In reply to Minh Nguyễn from comment #3)
> > I was of the same opinion, but the general consensus was that the
> > administrators need help with these tasks in particular, and that a number
> > of users were interested in helping to fight vandalism but didn't consider
> > themselves ready for adminship. The idea is that there will be little in the
> > way of adminship once a user becomes a ĐPV.
> 
> So this is like adminship-in-training?

There's no obligation to become an administrator, but the community does get to see how the user handles a wet towel before giving them the mop, as it were.

> I'm ready to initiate this but I'm wondering how would this new group could
> automatically inherit the autopatrolled, patroller and rollbacker rights.

Oh, I don't know if there was any request for _inheriting_ those rights automatically, only that ĐPVs get the autopatrol, patrol, and rollback rights to match.

Change 149637 had a related patch set uploaded by Withoutaname:
Add "eliminator" group to viwiki

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/149637

Some time has passed. Excuse me, but was had any update for this process?

Link in comment 7 says that somebody needs to rework the patch...

If deleterevision depends on deletedhistory and deletedtext, I'd suggest adding the required rights. I can start a new community poll if necessary, but it seems like an implementation detail and opposition would be unlikely. Had we been aware of the existing eliminator group at the other wikis, we probably would've asked for a similar setup.

Change 149637 merged by jenkins-bot:
Add "eliminator" group to viwiki

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/149637