Hello,
I'd like to throw in my idea to get some suggestions.
Because I've been contacted couple times by different wiki admins as well as WMF-wikis' users about that, I thought it would be good idea to incorporate it in MediaWiki.
The idea is to create another default group of users with working title "poweruser" since the step between normal user and sysop is too high. The most often request was to have poweruser to be able to edit protected pages without being able to change the level of the protection.
Therefore I filed bug 10897 to get the necessary prerequisites. Later on I've been explained on #mediawiki there might be problems with backward compatibility, so I've reformulated it in bug 10974.
However, during the talk on #mediawiki about technical stuff about "editprotected" right the opinion it's not necessary to have another default group ("poweruser") popped up. That's why I decided to throw it in to see more opinions about that.
Now some cases why I think it would be reasonable to have it as default: * Having poweruser able to edit protected pages could mean that user gained higher level of reliability or trust. So if the wiki has say half of articles protected (one admin told me he set his wiki to subjects are protected, their talkpages are open), currently there would have to be a bunch of sysops to be able to edit it which is unwanted. * There's no cascade semi-protection at the moment available, so eg. if Main Page is protected with cascade, normal users can't simply edit its parts such as article/image of the week, did you know..., actualities etc. Sysops have to take care about which is not flexible. Those parts are most usually edited by same people, so these could be the members of the poweruser group.
Summary: My idea is to add new default group "poweruser" (or choose any other name) with default rights same to normal user plus the new "editprotected" right by default since it's the most requested. Each wiki could add more rights on demand then.
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Kind regards
Danny B.
On 17/08/07, Danny B. Wikipedia.Danny.B@email.cz wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to throw in my idea to get some suggestions.
Because I've been contacted couple times by different wiki admins as well as WMF-wikis' users about that, I thought it would be good idea to incorporate it in MediaWiki.
The idea is to create another default group of users with working title "poweruser" since the step between normal user and sysop is too high. The most often request was to have poweruser to be able to edit protected pages without being able to change the level of the protection.
Therefore I filed bug 10897 to get the necessary prerequisites. Later on I've been explained on #mediawiki there might be problems with backward compatibility, so I've reformulated it in bug 10974.
However, during the talk on #mediawiki about technical stuff about "editprotected" right the opinion it's not necessary to have another default group ("poweruser") popped up. That's why I decided to throw it in to see more opinions about that.
Now some cases why I think it would be reasonable to have it as default:
- Having poweruser able to edit protected pages could mean that user
gained higher level of reliability or trust. So if the wiki has say half of articles protected (one admin told me he set his wiki to subjects are protected, their talkpages are open), currently there would have to be a bunch of sysops to be able to edit it which is unwanted.
- There's no cascade semi-protection at the moment available, so eg. if
Main Page is protected with cascade, normal users can't simply edit its parts such as article/image of the week, did you know..., actualities etc. Sysops have to take care about which is not flexible. Those parts are most usually edited by same people, so these could be the members of the poweruser group.
Summary: My idea is to add new default group "poweruser" (or choose any other name) with default rights same to normal user plus the new "editprotected" right by default since it's the most requested. Each wiki could add more rights on demand then.
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Kind regards
Danny B.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Rollback is often a very commonly wanted feature. Many users add this to their monobook.js, but it could be an additional feature. Would this type of user be created by bureaucrats?
Giving them editprotected sort of rights would put up a high burden of trust, they may as well be an admin. Not to mention that when a page is full-protected, NO ONE should be editing (save simple grammer/spelling fixes maybe), even admins.
Cascading semi is software supported, given the removal of 1-2 lines of code, but it isn't really that useful anyway. Even if we had it, it would rarely be used.
The 'Editor' (the working name) rights from the FlaggedRevs extension gives rollback/review rights. That may be better suited. It also scales better. Cascading editor protection might have it's uses, such as a way to stop determined socks from using throwaway accounts or less obvious things. Still, I really don't want a growth in protection. Pages should be as editable as possible.
At any rate, much of this is implementable, so it is not really a dev question, this thread may be best elsewhere, where it could actually gain support first. We don't want to waste time code for some unwanted change.
Danny B. wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to throw in my idea to get some suggestions.
Because I've been contacted couple times by different wiki admins as well as WMF-wikis' users about that, I thought it would be good idea to incorporate it in MediaWiki.
The idea is to create another default group of users with working title "poweruser" since the step between normal user and sysop is too high. The most often request was to have poweruser to be able to edit protected pages without being able to change the level of the protection.
Therefore I filed bug 10897 to get the necessary prerequisites. Later on I've been explained on #mediawiki there might be problems with backward compatibility, so I've reformulated it in bug 10974.
However, during the talk on #mediawiki about technical stuff about "editprotected" right the opinion it's not necessary to have another default group ("poweruser") popped up. That's why I decided to throw it in to see more opinions about that.
Now some cases why I think it would be reasonable to have it as default:
- Having poweruser able to edit protected pages could mean that user
gained higher level of reliability or trust. So if the wiki has say half of articles protected (one admin told me he set his wiki to subjects are protected, their talkpages are open), currently there would have to be a bunch of sysops to be able to edit it which is unwanted.
- There's no cascade semi-protection at the moment available, so eg. if
Main Page is protected with cascade, normal users can't simply edit its parts such as article/image of the week, did you know..., actualities etc. Sysops have to take care about which is not flexible. Those parts are most usually edited by same people, so these could be the members of the poweruser group.
Summary: My idea is to add new default group "poweruser" (or choose any other name) with default rights same to normal user plus the new "editprotected" right by default since it's the most requested. Each wiki could add more rights on demand then.
Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Kind regards
Danny B.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
I'd like to throw in my idea to get some suggestions.
Wrong mailing list. The features you want already exist in the code, it's just a matter of the settings for an individual project. You need to establish a consensus on Wikipedia before the Wikipedia settings will be changed. (But I wouldn't bother - a semi-admin "rank" has been suggested hundreds of times and it's always been concluded that it's more trouble that it's worth.)
On 17/08/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to throw in my idea to get some suggestions.
Wrong mailing list. The features you want already exist in the code, it's just a matter of the settings for an individual project. You need to establish a consensus on Wikipedia before the Wikipedia settings will be changed. (But I wouldn't bother - a semi-admin "rank" has been suggested hundreds of times and it's always been concluded that it's more trouble that it's worth.)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Yep - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_rollback for the rejected proposal for rollback, as I said previously.
On 8/17/07, Danny B. Wikipedia.Danny.B@email.cz wrote:
- There's no cascade semi-protection at the moment available
And there shouldn't ever be, unless you want autoconfirmed users to be able to semiprotect pages. You could, however, have full protection that cascades to semiprotection, I guess.
On 8/17/07, Voice of All jschulz_4587@msn.com wrote:
Giving them editprotected sort of rights would put up a high burden of trust, they may as well be an admin. Not to mention that when a page is full-protected, NO ONE should be editing (save simple grammer/spelling fixes maybe), even admins.
You're assuming most wikis are like Wikipedia. They aren't. Many wikis are only semi-open, with protection being used for many content pages. The question is whether we want to encourage that in the default configuration. I suspect we don't.
On 8/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Wrong mailing list. The features you want already exist in the code, it's just a matter of the settings for an individual project.
The request was to set the MediaWiki defaults. That is, in fact, a question for the development list (and/or the bug tracker), since it's the developers who decide default software settings for the tarballs that get released. This is also the system administration list, and it's the system administrators who decide the default settings for Wikimedia projects (i.e., when a site hasn't expressed a particular preference), so it's also the correct place for that.
...sigh...
I am not assuming everything is like wikipedia, I just don't see the use. I suppose 'editprotected' can be made a right (since it's easy to do), but it still doesn't make sense to full protect a page and want people to be editing it.
If I had my own serious wiki, I'd make a custom group X for trusted users and make it a new protection level. That would let the trusted users and admins edit, and "trusted" can be whatever I want. Having a top lock DO NOT EDIT THIS level can be useful, with different levels below.
The reason we don't is that, for one, it's very hard to define this group and get the rights out and such, which these smaller (though perhaps still big) wikis would have no problem with. And if they did, they would have the same problems scaling out this 'editprotect' right magiggy thing.
Simetrical-3 wrote:
On 8/17/07, Danny B. Wikipedia.Danny.B@email.cz wrote:
- There's no cascade semi-protection at the moment available
And there shouldn't ever be, unless you want autoconfirmed users to be able to semiprotect pages. You could, however, have full protection that cascades to semiprotection, I guess.
On 8/17/07, Voice of All jschulz_4587@msn.com wrote:
Giving them editprotected sort of rights would put up a high burden of trust, they may as well be an admin. Not to mention that when a page is full-protected, NO ONE should be editing (save simple grammer/spelling fixes maybe), even admins.
You're assuming most wikis are like Wikipedia. They aren't. Many wikis are only semi-open, with protection being used for many content pages. The question is whether we want to encourage that in the default configuration. I suspect we don't.
On 8/17/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Wrong mailing list. The features you want already exist in the code, it's just a matter of the settings for an individual project.
The request was to set the MediaWiki defaults. That is, in fact, a question for the development list (and/or the bug tracker), since it's the developers who decide default software settings for the tarballs that get released. This is also the system administration list, and it's the system administrators who decide the default settings for Wikimedia projects (i.e., when a site hasn't expressed a particular preference), so it's also the correct place for that.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 8/17/07, Voice of All jschulz_4587@msn.com wrote:
If I had my own serious wiki, I'd make a custom group X for trusted users and make it a new protection level. That would let the trusted users and admins edit, and "trusted" can be whatever I want. Having a top lock DO NOT EDIT THIS level can be useful, with different levels below.
That would, I think, basically fulfill this request.
On 17/08/07, Simetrical Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/17/07, Voice of All jschulz_4587@msn.com wrote:
If I had my own serious wiki, I'd make a custom group X for trusted users and make it a new protection level. That would let the trusted users and admins edit, and "trusted" can be whatever I want. Having a top lock DO NOT EDIT THIS level can be useful, with different levels below.
That would, I think, basically fulfill this request.
That's what I had in mind when I said the features already exist. You can set whatever protections levels you like, it's just a matter of editing LocalSettings.php. I see absolutely no reason to change the defaults.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org