What is the "Edit user settings" feature? I hadn't heard anything about it before, but apparently now any sysop can edit the privileges of any other user -- including other sysops. A privilege formerly only granted to Jimbo.
This could be a useful feature if the sysops knew what each level does and there was some type of framework for sysops to follow (thinking of checks and balances here).
Also, what does it mean to be a:
System operator (I assume this means a sysop since this is checked for the registered sysops -- does this also mean that any sysop can promote any user to sysop status, or demote any sysop to a common user? If so, then a feature like this probably should have been discussed here -- on the policy mailing list -- before it was implemented.)
System developer (Does this refer to one of the wikiware gods (Like Brion or Magnus)? Probably should have been discussed before implementation too)
Trusted hand (What privileges does this grant a user beyond the defaults?)
-- maveric
On mer, 2002-05-15 at 22:28, Daniel Mayer wrote:
What is the "Edit user settings" feature? I hadn't heard anything about it before, but apparently now any sysop can edit the privileges of any other user -- including other sysops. A privilege formerly only granted to Jimbo.
This could be a useful feature if the sysops knew what each level does and there was some type of framework for sysops to follow (thinking of checks and balances here).
Bah! Always asking for documentation, you people! :)
Also, what does it mean to be a:
System operator (I assume this means a sysop since this is checked for the registered sysops
Yes.
-- does this also mean that any sysop can promote any user to sysop status, or demote any sysop to a common user? If so, then a feature like this probably should have been discussed here -- on the policy mailing list -- before it was implemented.)
It does seem a potentially controversial point... I think Magnus stuck it in specifically so he could grant himself developer priviledges and fix a problem with the database that was causing trouble (see below). I'm not sure whether this is intended as a permanent feature or if it's a entirely good idea.
In any case, having a convenient interface page for setting user priveleges is probably not a bad thing; if it's preferred that only the guy who owns the server gets to wield it, that's easily fixed.
System developer (Does this refer to one of the wikiware gods (Like Brion or Magnus)? Probably should have been discussed before implementation too)
This grants the ability to run SQL queries directly on the database that could affect the data.
This is occasionally useful to fix something: for instance, Magnus was recently able to recreate the "unlinked" link table which had been corrupted and was no longer accessible -- thus breaking 'Most Wanted' and several other things -- which could then be fully rebuilt by a script run by Jimmy. But it's easy to, say, delete the entire database if you don't know what you're doing; hence the restriction to known developers.
I'm quite sure that was discussed on wikipedia-l a month or so ago... Yeah, here it is: http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001707.html
Trusted hand (What privileges does this grant a user beyond the defaults?)
As far as I know there is nothing in the code that currently checks for this, and I'm not sure what it's intended to mean. Magnus?
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Trusted hand (What privileges does this grant a user beyond the defaults?)
As far as I know there is nothing in the code that currently checks for this, and I'm not sure what it's intended to mean. Magnus?
Originally, this was intended to be something between "normal" user and sysop, someone who can do things like deleting pages, but without, say, SQL access. As this was solved by making eveyone who wants to sysop and restricting sysop SQL access, it is currently not used at all. If (one day, in a galaxy far, far away;) we can decide on implementing a "stable" namespace for keeping good articles as a stable copy, the "trusted" status might come in handy as the "key" for copying articles to that namespace (if we let everybody do that, it won't be a stable namespace anymore...).
Magnus
________________________________________ Zeitschriftenabos online bestellen - jetzt neu im Infoboten! http://www.epost.de
Brion L. VIBBER wrote:
It does seem a potentially controversial point... I think Magnus stuck it in specifically so he could grant himself developer priviledges and fix a problem with the database that was causing trouble (see below). I'm not sure whether this is intended as a permanent feature or if it's a entirely good idea.
Wikipedia is based on trust. If we can't trust sysops, we're in big trouble anyway. :-)
I was opposed to the general ability to let people (even sysops) execute arbitrary SQL commands via the web, not because of trust per se, but because of the high risk of an accident. It makes me personally very nervous when I have to type in raw SQL, and so I imagine it's not a good thing for anyone to be doing, except for developers and then only for specific and emergency-ish reasons.
Sysop status should be available to just about anyone who asks, and the privileges of the sysop should be so minimal as to justify this policy.
The main thing we want to prevent is the notion of an "elite" who directs the wikipedia and gets to say who participates in driving the content *through the use of special powers*. The rare exceptions should be agonized over, and should be restricted to people who just refuse to even try to get along with us.
I think that all sysops and especially developers should work really really hard to make sure to NEVER use any special powers in a content argument. It's just not fair, and not in the spirit of wikipedia consensus.
For example, I'd be pretty pissed at a developer who made a raw SQL command to delete another user, or to delete an article that was in contention. Yuck.
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org