Actually, sysops can query the server; they are limited to "read-only" queries, however.
What I was suggesting was that some Wikipedians other than the Developers have the technical ability to: * grant "sysop rights" to users * block a signed-in vandal
I don't think a sysop blocking a signed-in vandal should need to see their IP address. Even I as a developer never bothered to look up the IP of the half-dozen or so users I've been told to block. I just ran an UPDATE query in the database.
Similarly, with promoting a contributor to sysop, I think Brion or Magnus could add a page called "Nominate user for sysop". After enough sysops nominated a user, they would automatically get sysop rights.
The point is, I don't want to do Gatekeeper Functions any more. Not only is it time-consuming (up to 10 minutes per operation), but the task of determining whether a person is a foe or a friend should not be centralized on 4 or 5 people.
And, yes, mav, I know I should put this on the main list, but I only subscribe to this one, so I hope anyone who responds will cross post back to wikien-l. And yes, Brion, I know you made a meta-page, but...
lazily, but non-hierarchically,
Ed Poor
Could one of the developers make it so that at the bottom of the userpages, there is a link to the talk page? For some reason it's not there, but it seems to fit.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:13:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] tiny change to code
Could one of the developers make it so that at the bottom of the userpages, there is a link to the talk page? For some reason it's not there, but it seems to fit.
That's odd, I see one on User: pages. Though it's called "Discuss this page", maybe that's why you think there isn't one?
Don't mind me; I'm just stupid. But for others like me, can you change that link to "User talk page" or something like that? "John R. Owens" jowens.wiki@ghiapet.homeip.net wrote:That's odd, I see one on User: pages. Though it's called "Discuss this page", maybe that's why you think there isn't one?
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
Hello Ed,
I'm posting your message (see below) here on the main list as well, since you said it should be there...
But I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with the idea that someone should become a sysop just from having the right number of supporters. I can easily imagine that a large enough group of sysops could support one person who is not trusted by the rest of the sysops. Would there be an "Oppose user for sysop" button as well? Both buttons could update counts without displaying the names of the people who have voted, so people would feel free to express their lack of trust in a nominee without anyone (apart from the developers) finding out and subsequently holding a grudge against them...
Ah, I'm being very evil today, aren't I? ;)
Oliver
On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Actually, sysops can query the server; they are limited to "read-only" queries, however.
What I was suggesting was that some Wikipedians other than the Developers have the technical ability to:
- grant "sysop rights" to users
- block a signed-in vandal
I don't think a sysop blocking a signed-in vandal should need to see their IP address. Even I as a developer never bothered to look up the IP of the half-dozen or so users I've been told to block. I just ran an UPDATE query in the database.
Similarly, with promoting a contributor to sysop, I think Brion or Magnus could add a page called "Nominate user for sysop". After enough sysops nominated a user, they would automatically get sysop rights.
The point is, I don't want to do Gatekeeper Functions any more. Not only is it time-consuming (up to 10 minutes per operation), but the task of determining whether a person is a foe or a friend should not be centralized on 4 or 5 people.
And, yes, mav, I know I should put this on the main list, but I only subscribe to this one, so I hope anyone who responds will cross post back to wikien-l. And yes, Brion, I know you made a meta-page, but...
lazily, but non-hierarchically,
Ed Poor _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
+-------------------------------------------+ | Oliver Pereira | | Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science | | University of Southampton | | omp199@ecs.soton.ac.uk | +-------------------------------------------+
Actually, sysops can query the server; they are limited to "read-only" queries, however.
Which is a bad thing until we set a timeout on queries. God knows how many times the server has hung because of some out of control query.
What I was suggesting was that some Wikipedians other than the Developers have the technical ability to:
- grant "sysop rights" to users
- block a signed-in vandal
1) As long as some sysop actions are hard to revert (delete page too long to use, no log of page protections, no IP block expiry) we should keep the sysop process controlled. It's OK if it takes a few days to appoint a new sysop. But I agree that some kind of nomination/voting process would help.
2) Yes, but only for new users. Established users who have a track record of valid contributions should only be bannable after a decree by Jimbo.
Regards,
Erik
Maybe, when blocking someone, we should put a cookie on their computer that doesn't let them edit under any username or IP adress. I know this could be a breach of privacy, so maybe it could expire in a week. It would be easy to get around, just a deterent. (just as it is easy to get around blocking usernames)
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 13:03:53 -0700 (PDT), Daniel Ehrenberg littledanehren@yahoo.com gave utterance to the following:
Maybe, when blocking someone, we should put a cookie on their computer that doesn't let them edit under any username or IP adress. I know this could be a breach of privacy, so maybe it could expire in a week. It would be easy to get around, just a deterent. (just as it is easy to get around blocking usernames)
So easy that I doubt it would be the least bit effective: Cookies are - optional in the first place - easy to find and delete - unique to each browser (I have 8 to choose from!)
It's easy to get around all of the banning tecniques, but this would be hard for someone who is just a passerby vandal, as opposed to an advanced cracker (who wouldn't even bother with Wikipedia, for it is too easy). Plus, what if they didn't know it was a cookie blocking them? Another thing, by all means, I don't want to require the enabling of cookies for use of wikipedia. That would be too much of an invasion of privacy, even if it *could* prevent vandals with that tecnique. Richard Grevers lists@dramatic.co.nz wrote:So easy that I doubt it would be the least bit effective: Cookies are - optional in the first place - easy to find and delete - unique to each browser (I have 8 to choose from!)
<clipped>
It's easy to get around all of the banning tecniques, but this would be hard for someone who is just a passerby vandal
</clipped>
I agree, plenty of people I know have never (to the great admiration of doubleclick anc Clique) cleared their cookies.
If it's quick to implement, it has my vote.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Maybe, when blocking someone, we should put a cookie on their computer that doesn't let them edit under any username or IP adress. I know this could be a breach of privacy, so maybe it could expire in a week. It would be easy to get around, just a deterent. (just as it is easy to get around blocking usernames)
I don't think it's a breach of privacy at all. It actually sounds pretty cute and good to me. Yes, an advanced user could figure out how to get around it, but if someone is going to all _that_ trouble, we've got a bigger problem anyway.
The cookie could just say 'edit=no', say.
--Jimbo
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:46:58 -0700, Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com gave utterance to the following:
Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
Maybe, when blocking someone, we should put a cookie on their computer that doesn't let them edit under any username or IP adress. I know this could be a breach of privacy, so maybe it could expire in a week. It would be easy to get around, just a deterent. (just as it is easy to get around blocking usernames)
I don't think it's a breach of privacy at all. It actually sounds pretty cute and good to me. Yes, an advanced user could figure out how to get around it, but if someone is going to all _that_ trouble, we've got a bigger problem anyway.
The cookie could just say 'edit=no', say.
Although something more obscure would reduce the likelihood of circumvention.
On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 14:46:58 -0700, Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com gave utterance to the following:
I don't think it's a breach of privacy at all. It actually sounds pretty cute and good to me. Yes, an advanced user could figure out how to get around it, but if someone is going to all _that_ trouble, we've got a bigger problem anyway.
The cookie could just say 'edit=no', say.
Although something more obscure would reduce the likelihood of circumvention.
Obscure enough to withstand the legendary "Remove All Cookies" attack?