Requests for comment/Sheriff right Proposal

The following request for comments is closed. No consensus, and at this point of time there is no general upswell of demand or desire for this right. Local communities can discuss rights, and needs. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that on all the Wikis there should be a new rights permission called, Sheriff. Sheriffs would be a bit more "powerfull" than rollbacks and patrollers and a bit less "powerfull" then administrator. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reception123 (talk)

Possible Rights that Sheriffs could have

(These can be changed at request)

Rollback (function)
Patroller (function)
Change protection levels and edit cascade-protected pages (protect)
Create new user accounts (createaccount)
Have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol)
Import pages from a file upload (importupload)
Import pages from other wikis (import)
Mark others' edits as patrolled (patrol)
Edit pages protected as "Allow only autoconfirmed users" (editsemiprotected)
Move files (movefile)
Move pages (move)
Upload files (upload)
Add groups: Rollbackers, Patrollers
Remove groups: Rollbackers, Patrollers

Comments

What would be the purpose of such a global group? --Glaisher [talk] 05:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be global. There would be one on each wiki (or on those needed). --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every wiki community can freely decide which groups with which permissions they have set on their wiki and how they are called. I fail to understand the purpose of this RFC here. Vogone talk 06:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Vogone. --Glaisher [talk] 09:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see the following problems with this proposal:
- It's not clear what the purpose of the group would be. Which problems would be solved or mitigated by the introduction of a group that basically is "sysops without deletion rights"?
- The majority of WMF wikis don't even have local rollbackers or patroller groups.
- On e.g. enwiki, proposals for "groups with reduced sysops rights" are repeatedly being made and rejected. This is, as Vogone says, an issue that can be solved locally. Globally I see no reason atm to create such a local group everywhere. --MF-W 15:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Erroneously overlaps with Global rollback and Global sysops. but please do explain more, in case I'm wrong about my opinion.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 16:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarifications I assume this rights is global and not local just like on orainwiki.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 16:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not global. See the comment above by the proposer. --Glaisher [talk] 16:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes I've read the above comments before mine but I was assuming this would be global per on orain. If it's not global then he has to ask local community of that wikis, regards.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 16:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand this correctly, you are proposing an "admin-lite" group. What would be the purpose of this group? Is there anyone you trust with granting rollback, importupload (which can be used for forgery or messing up histories), and protecting pages who would not be trusted to delete or block? I really don't see a need for this. Each wiki can have a group like this created if the community desires it, but a default group just seems completely unnecessary. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that this could be done locally. I agree to end this RFC as you have had enough arguments. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Reception123, not "done locally", but "you have to ask local community". Local community can't make this usergroup, but they can make community discussion about this and when they reach consensus for it, they can ask for this new local user group.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 02:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sysops are like sheriffs, already. What is missing is an investigative group that can see things like deleted pages, somewhat like Jimbo's Founder privileges, after he dropped (almost all) of the intrusive rights (like delete and block). In theory, checkuser is an investigative privilege (but has some strong standards), the investigative group would not necessarily have checkuser, that would be separate. --Abd (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
w:Special:ListGroupRights#researcher? PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this disscution is now over. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I think an interesting point was raised by And (not that I agree, but I'm interested to see where it goes before formulating my own opinion). I'd like to see the "comment" section of the 'request for comment' continue. :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Abd is referring to is the deletedhistory and deletedtext permissions and maybe others. If by an investigative group, you mean a group of editors to help admins in their work then that is a good idea. I know some admins are hesitant about unbundling more admin tools but personally I feel that some projects are being stretched, with a gross shortage of admins overall, and a significant number of inactive admins. Green Giant (discuss) 12:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except if you can add "noratelimit" right, I'll Oppose this. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be an RfC on the project that wants the group - there is nothing to do at Meta. On the point Abd, similarly this would be a local decision but has the potential issue that assigning the ability to view deleted content without an "RFA equivalent process" has always been opposed by the Foundation. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He said "There would be one on each wiki (or on those needed).", so I'm afraid it's a part of MediaWiki core group (thus this group will add on non-WMF wikis too), could we move this RFC to MediaWiki.org?! --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]