For a week or so stewards have a new toy which became a very hot potato. We got it mysteriously (at least for me; while I may guess how did we get it), some of stewards started with tests, but, generally, to be honest, we don't have a clue what to do with that. Actually, some of us have some clue, some of us started with a very lite usage of that (we need help from SWMT [1] members, so some of us thought that it would be useful to give global rollback permission to them; however, the group is removed after two or three days because we don't have consensus about this).
So, there are global groups and they are documented at Stewards handbook [2]. As you are *not* able to see [3], there are a lot of interesting privileges [A1] and we (the community) need to start a discussion how to use them.
The other fact is that stewards are now sysops at all projects. This is, of course, very useful, because we don't need to become sysops for every action and some of stewards are using admin rights at small wikis at daily basis (usually, blocking spammers). Stewards are, also, doubtful about having global CheckUser and Oversight rights and there is no consensus about giving to ourselves such permissions. One group thinks that we are not allowed to have global CU rights, while other group think that we are able to have them, but we are not able to use them at projects which have their own CUs. I agree with both statements, while I prefer to treat those rights as purely technical, but we have some technical problems with treating those rights as technical, too :) So, yes, we are humans and we have our own doubts.
As I said, this is a hot potato which we got mysteriously. No one of the Board members said anything to us, as well as we didn't get any input from the WMF staff (except one not so significant Carry's question). As this is a *huge* change, I am willing to think that they are reading our emails and looking what should we do next. And I am sure that the situation is a little bit funny to them; as well as it is to me :)
The most important part of the implementation of the global groups is, of course, a possibility to make a fine adjustments of *global* permissions. At the [A1] you may see that all of the permissions are equal to the local ones. This means that we are able to make global admins, global bureaucrats, global checkusers as well as a global mix of the permissions (or, better, some new global groups which would fit better for a particular purpose).
I have some ideas how to make this or that, but I think that it is too early to talk about that. First of all, you should know what is going on and to discuss about the fact that we (the community) have something new -- good or bad (I think that this is a good thing) -- which we probably got from some extraterrestrial form of life.
== A1 ==
The list of global permissions are below.
* Use higher limits in API queries * Edit semi-protected pages * Have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled * Delete pages with large histories * Block other users from editing * Block a user from sending email * Administer elections * Be treated as an automated process * Search deleted pages * Administrate global accounts * Merge their account * Check user's IP addresses and other information * Create new user accounts * Create pages (which are not discussion pages) * Create discussion pages * Delete pages * View deleted history entries, without their associated text * Edit pages * Edit the user interface * Edit other users' CSS and JS files * Edit membership to global groups * Manage global groups * Review and restore revisions hidden from Sysops * Import pages from other wikis * Import pages from a file upload * Bypass IP blocks, auto-blocks and range blocks * Grant and revoke bot flags * Make users into sysops or bureaucrats * Mark rolled-back edits as bot edits * Mark edits as minor * Move pages * Not have minor edits to discussion pages trigger the new messages prompt * nuke * Override the spoofing checks * View a previously hidden revision * Mark others' edits as patrolled * Change protection levels and edit protected pages * Bypass automatic blocks of proxies * Purge the site cache for a page without confirmation * Read pages * Rename users * Overwrite an existing file * Override files on the shared media repository locally * Quickly rollback the edits of the last user who edited a particular page * Perform captcha triggering actions without having to go through the captcha * Not create a redirect from the old name when moving a page * Override the title blacklist * Submit a trackback * Override the username blacklist * Undelete a page * View a list of unwatched pages * Upload files * Upload a file from a URL address * Edit all user rights
== Links == [1] - Small wiki monitoring team: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_Wiki_Monitoring_Team [2] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_handbook#Adjusting_global_groups_.26_... [3] - The example is the list of the stewards' permissions: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/steward
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
While the list below may seem impressive, most of them are already available to sysops
Use higher limits in api queries? yes edit semiprotected pages? yes Have own edits marked as patrolled? yes Block other users from editing? yes Block a user from sending email? yes
So again, MOST of these rights are already available to sysops and they aren't "NEW" rights. It's just that they can now be fine-grained controlled (instead of granting sysop which would grant most here)
Reason I tell you this is because your mail sounds a bit alarmist as in "look how many powers we got!" and truth is, we could already exercise them (by manually +sysop) and also were being exercised by pretty much any sysop on any wiki
So not much is changed here regarding what stewards can access, just how easily available are them
== A1 ==
The list of global permissions are below.
- Use higher limits in API queries
- Edit semi-protected pages
- Have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled
- Delete pages with large histories
- Block other users from editing
- Block a user from sending email
- Administer elections
- Be treated as an automated process
- Search deleted pages
- Administrate global accounts
- Merge their account
- Check user's IP addresses and other information
- Create new user accounts
- Create pages (which are not discussion pages)
- Create discussion pages
- Delete pages
- View deleted history entries, without their associated text
- Edit pages
- Edit the user interface
- Edit other users' CSS and JS files
- Edit membership to global groups
- Manage global groups
- Review and restore revisions hidden from Sysops
- Import pages from other wikis
- Import pages from a file upload
- Bypass IP blocks, auto-blocks and range blocks
- Grant and revoke bot flags
- Make users into sysops or bureaucrats
- Mark rolled-back edits as bot edits
- Mark edits as minor
- Move pages
- Not have minor edits to discussion pages trigger the new messages prompt
- nuke
- Override the spoofing checks
- View a previously hidden revision
- Mark others' edits as patrolled
- Change protection levels and edit protected pages
- Bypass automatic blocks of proxies
- Purge the site cache for a page without confirmation
- Read pages
- Rename users
- Overwrite an existing file
- Override files on the shared media repository locally
- Quickly rollback the edits of the last user who edited a particular page
- Perform captcha triggering actions without having to go through the
captcha
- Not create a redirect from the old name when moving a page
- Override the title blacklist
- Submit a trackback
- Override the username blacklist
- Undelete a page
- View a list of unwatched pages
- Upload files
- Upload a file from a URL address
- Edit all user rights
== Links == [1] - Small wiki monitoring team: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Small_Wiki_Monitoring_Team [2] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_handbook#Adjusting_global_groups_.26_... [3] - The example is the list of the stewards' permissions: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/steward
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 4:16 AM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanchez@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 8:32 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
While the list below may seem impressive, most of them are already available to sysops
Use higher limits in api queries? yes edit semiprotected pages? yes Have own edits marked as patrolled? yes Block other users from editing? yes Block a user from sending email? yes
So again, MOST of these rights are already available to sysops and they aren't "NEW" rights. It's just that they can now be fine-grained controlled (instead of granting sysop which would grant most here)
Reason I tell you this is because your mail sounds a bit alarmist as in "look how many powers we got!" and truth is, we could already exercise them (by manually +sysop) and also were being exercised by pretty much any sysop on any wiki
So not much is changed here regarding what stewards can access, just how easily available are them
Thanks for the addition! Of course, I didn't intend to make an alarm.
And thanks for the detailed information from the next email.
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the addition! Of course, I didn't intend to make an alarm.
And thanks for the detailed information from the next email.
you're welcome. And also I'd like to point that global rights are not meant to be for stewards only.
Basically the idea behind gobal groups/rights is that once a group is created and an user is added to it, that user gets the right everywhere.
Example hypothetical use: a "global cleaner" groups. Which thanks to the fine-grain control on the above list, would be possible to create giving +rollback +delete only (without all the other dozen <=== ) marked items above. And then users added to "global cleaners" could revert and delete vandalism on any wiki but wouldn't be able to edit mediawiki pages nor block users.
That's just an example of how globalgroups/rights are intented to be use.
So far *only one* global group exists, stewards, which allows them to use the tools they already use. But yes, community discussion needs to happen regarding what other global groups (having what global rights) could be created or are needed
Global adminship for regular users will be something controversial. It would effectively overrule rfa process that exists on some wikis.
What I would want to see is the granting of global adminship for a selective list of wikis. For example wikis with less than 1000 articles. it isn't stewards job to RC patrol inactive/tiny wikis.
I hole heartedly support global checkuser rights to stewards. Complicating our ability to deal with interwiki trolls, vandals and other pets is of no benefit to us. Stewards will be more than pleased to let local checkusers to handle non-interwiki tasks. Let's minimize the bureaucracy for a change.
I also support selective global bureaucratship for wikis who either do not have a bureaucrat or the bureaucrat they have is inactive (does not have any edit in the past +30 days). Stewards handle bureaucratship related tasks on such wikis anyways.
- White Cat
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:25 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
What I would want to see is the granting of global adminship for a selective list of wikis. For example wikis with less than 1000 articles. it isn't stewards job to RC patrol inactive/tiny wikis.
Maybe full adminship, maybe just rollback+delete/undelete. Also, I think that users should get such right via simple process, same as RfA for Meta admins.
I hole heartedly support global checkuser rights to stewards. Complicating our ability to deal with interwiki trolls, vandals and other pets is of no benefit to us. Stewards will be more than pleased to let local checkusers to handle non-interwiki tasks. Let's minimize the bureaucracy for a change.
I support global CU rights for all CUs. All of those persons are identified to WMF, which means that all of them are trusting contributors. So, I don't see a reason why not to give them global rights, as well as a software possibility to compare instantly edits on all wikis. This may help a lot in fight against cross-wiki abusive users.
I also support selective global bureaucratship for wikis who either do not have a bureaucrat or the bureaucrat they have is inactive (does not have any edit in the past +30 days). Stewards handle bureaucratship related tasks on such wikis anyways.
I think that we need only global bureaucrats for [interwiki] bots for now. (For both: granting and removing access to the permissions.) They may be chosen at the similar way as anti-vandal fighters.
Giving admin/bureaucrat/CU/etc rights is still a completely acceptable task for stewards. For example, I am subscribed to Requests for permissions via Atom feed. During the first days of my stewardship I wanted to do promptly my job. However, as I had 1 hour of refresh time, I was usually too late for any task.
*But*, if we decide to have some other kinds of global permissions, it is possible that we will need bureaucrats for more tasks. +10-20 stewards per year may be not sustainable growth.
I think this is available to any sysop: <==== Also I note the only few actions already requiring higher access
And finally, becuse it's not clear from your previous mail.
NOT EVERY ONE OF THESE BITS IS SET FOR STEWARDS pretty much only the "sysop" marked ones
== A1 ==
The list of global permissions are below.
- Use higher limits in API queries <====
- Edit semi-protected pages <====
- Have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled
<====
- Delete pages with large histories
- Block other users from editing <====
- Block a user from sending email <====
- Administer elections
- Be treated as an automated process (this = bot)
- Search deleted pages <====
- Administrate global accounts <------- also meta's bureaucrats
- Merge their account <==== (this available to ANY user
now)
- Check user's IP addresses and other information = This is
checkuser
- Create new user accounts <====
- Create pages (which are not discussion pages) <====
- Create discussion pages <====
- Delete pages <====
- View deleted history entries, without their associated text <====
- Edit pages <====
- Edit the user interface <====
- Edit other users' CSS and JS files <====
- Edit membership to global groups
- Manage global groups
- Review and restore revisions hidden from Sysops <---- dev?
- Import pages from other wikis
- Import pages from a file upload
- Bypass IP blocks, auto-blocks and range blocks <====
- Grant and revoke bot flags <--------- bureaucrat
- Make users into sysops or bureaucrats <--------- bureaucrat
- Mark rolled-back edits as bot edits
- Mark edits as minor <====
- Move pages <====
- Not have minor edits to discussion pages trigger the new messages prompt
- nuke <----------- only available at meta, commons and a couple other
wikis
- Override the spoofing checks
- View a previously hidden revision <===== (unless it means oversight(
- Mark others' edits as patrolled <====
- Change protection levels and edit protected pages <====
- Bypass automatic blocks of proxies
- Purge the site cache for a page without confirmation <====
- Read pages <====
- Rename users <------------ bureaucrat
- Overwrite an existing file <====
- Override files on the shared media repository locally
<====
- Quickly rollback the edits of the last user who edited a particular
page <====
- Perform captcha triggering actions without having to go through the
captcha
- Not create a redirect from the old name when moving a page
- Override the title blacklist <====
- Submit a trackback
- Override the username blacklist <====
- Undelete a page <====
- View a list of unwatched pages
- Upload files <====
- Upload a file from a URL address
- Edit all user rights (not set for stewards as global right(
Hope that clears the impressions that stewards suddenly got all mighty and got a dozen of new powers
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org