Hi,
I'd like to ask for a broader spectrum of user rights. Not only sysop but also * SQL-User * delete articles * edit protected articles * ban user
We have a request on de: from a experienced user who didn't like the sysop-job but now, after being de-sysoped, misses the SQL functions very much.
ciao, tom
Thomas R. Koll wrote:
I'd like to ask for a broader spectrum of user rights. Not only sysop but also
- SQL-User
- delete articles
- edit protected articles
- ban user
We have a request on de: from a experienced user who didn't like the sysop-job but now, after being de-sysoped, misses the SQL functions very much.
What is "the sysop-job"?
I'm a sysop on [[en:]], and I don't have to do anything except to behave well (to not abuse the sysop powers). Do sysops on [[de:]] have to do chores?
Some sysops on [[en:]] only use certain powers and never others; for example, I never use SQL functions since I don't know SQL.
-- Toby
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 03:00:23PM -0800, Toby Bartels wrote:
Thomas R. Koll wrote:
I'd like to ask for a broader spectrum of user rights. Not only sysop but also
- SQL-User
- delete articles
- edit protected articles
- ban user
We have a request on de: from a experienced user who didn't like the sysop-job but now, after being de-sysoped, misses the SQL functions very much.
What is "the sysop-job"?
I'm a sysop on [[en:]], and I don't have to do anything except to behave well (to not abuse the sysop powers). Do sysops on [[de:]] have to do chores?
Some sysops on [[en:]] only use certain powers and never others; for example, I never use SQL functions since I don't know SQL.
SQL is very useful, especially if search is off or you're searching for spelling-mistakes or HTML-tables. But SQL-Queries can cause heavy load for the server, so it would also be good to seperate sysop and sql-rights and make them depending of the user's knowledge.
ciao, tom
Thomas R. Koll wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Thomas R. Koll wrote:
I'd like to ask for a broader spectrum of user rights. Not only sysop but also
- SQL-User
- delete articles
- edit protected articles
- ban user
We have a request on de: from a experienced user who didn't like the sysop-job but now, after being de-sysoped, misses the SQL functions very much.
What is "the sysop-job"?
I'm a sysop on [[en:]], and I don't have to do anything except to behave well (to not abuse the sysop powers). Do sysops on [[de:]] have to do chores?
Some sysops on [[en:]] only use certain powers and never others; for example, I never use SQL functions since I don't know SQL.
SQL is very useful, especially if search is off or you're searching for spelling-mistakes or HTML-tables. But SQL-Queries can cause heavy load for the server, so it would also be good to seperate sysop and sql-rights and make them depending of the user's knowledge.
That is a fair point, although it doesn't mean that we need to separate things in the MediaWiki code. Since I don't know SQL enough to use it, I don't run any SQL queries; there's no need to take SQL rights away. If another sysop only wants to run SQL queries, but not get involved in deletions or IP blocks, then that's OK too.
This is a matter of trying to keep the administration simple; I'm not saying that I oppose your idea completely. But in the case of the experienced user on [[de:]], I would suggest that this user be given back ''all'' sysop rights, but only ''use'' SQL. Perhaps this is a problem for some reason -- maybe other Wikipedians complained about this user as a sysop?
(By the way, you didn't answer my questions. That's OK, as long as you know that you didn't answer them! ^_^)
-- Toby
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:18:39PM -0800, Toby Bartels wrote:
SQL is very useful, especially if search is off or you're searching for spelling-mistakes or HTML-tables. But SQL-Queries can cause heavy load for the server, so it would also be good to seperate sysop and sql-rights and make them depending of the user's knowledge.
That is a fair point, although it doesn't mean that we need to separate things in the MediaWiki code. Since I don't know SQL enough to use it, I don't run any SQL queries; there's no need to take SQL rights away. If another sysop only wants to run SQL queries, but not get involved in deletions or IP blocks, then that's OK too.
I agree. If someone is given sysop powers it means that we trust them to know what they don't know :)
Arvind
Arvind Narayanan writes:
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:18:39PM -0800, Toby Bartels wrote:
SQL is very useful, especially if search is off or you're searching for spelling-mistakes or HTML-tables. But SQL-Queries can cause heavy load for the server, so it would also be good to seperate sysop and sql-rights and make them depending of the user's knowledge.
That is a fair point, although it doesn't mean that we need to separate things in the MediaWiki code. Since I don't know SQL enough to use it, I don't run any SQL queries; there's no need to take SQL rights away. If another sysop only wants to run SQL queries, but not get involved in deletions or IP blocks, then that's OK too.
I agree. If someone is given sysop powers it means that we trust them to know what they don't know :)
Arvind
Yes, I agree. I think that a sysop should be responsible. If I were a sysop, and I didn't know anything about SQL, I wouldn't mess with sql queries, and I would hope that other sysops would do the same. (note, this is just hypothetical as I know about SQL and I am not a sysop.) Still, I hope that only individuals who are responsible are given powers. On the other hand, I think that individuals who aren't sysops, might become, "SIP's" (sysops in training,) and they could edit protected pages, and could not delete, or block. Using this method, we could better test if newer wikipedians will abuse sysop powers. As I said, I'm not a sysop, so I can't comment as well on the way powers work, but this is just my thought on the issue. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free 15 Mb POP3 email @alexandria.cc Click here -> http://www.alexandria.cc/
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 04:18:39PM -0800, Toby Bartels wrote:
Thomas R. Koll wrote:
I'm not saying that I oppose your idea completely. But in the case of the experienced user on [[de:]], I would suggest that this user be given back ''all'' sysop rights, but only ''use'' SQL. Perhaps this is a problem for some reason -- maybe other Wikipedians complained about this user as a sysop?
But he doesn't want to be a full sysop, don't know his excact reasons. He was but gave his rights back a few months ago.
(By the way, you didn't answer my questions. That's OK, as long as you know that you didn't answer them! ^_^)
(Uhh, what was the question again?)
"Thomas R. Koll" tomk32@gmx.de writes:
Thanks Thomas, for taking care of my issue. I just decide to join this mailing list as well - one more list cannot hurt...
But he doesn't want to be a full sysop, don't know his excact reasons. He was but gave his rights back a few months ago.
It's me. I neither like the term/title sysop nor admin (resp. the German translation "Administrator"). I simply don't want to be responsible, I don't want to defend the WP in court. Etc. pp. Change the word sysop/admin to something else like "advanced user" and I would be happy again.
"GreenMountain" greenmountain@alexandria.cc writes:
Yes, I agree. I think that a sysop should be responsible.
I don't want to be responsible as a sysop; I want to be responsible for my own edits only.
On the other hand, I think that individuals who aren't sysops, might become, "SIP's" (sysops in training,) and they could edit protected pages, and could not delete, or block.
I'm not interested in those actions. I'm just interested in SQL. Maybe the Term/title ("SIP's" (sysops in training)) is good enough; to be translated as "Anwärter" ;)
Karl Eichwalder writes:
"GreenMountain" greenmountain@alexandria.cc writes:
Yes, I agree. I think that a sysop should be responsible.
I don't want to be responsible as a sysop; I want to be responsible for my own edits only.
On the other hand, I think that individuals who aren't sysops, might become, "SIP's" (sysops in training,) and they could edit protected pages, and could not delete, or block.
I'm not interested in those actions. I'm just interested in SQL. Maybe the Term/title ("SIP's" (sysops in training)) is good enough; to be translated as "Anwärter" ;)
I think that SQL could/should be taken away from those who abuse the privlege, but it should be granted by default. When I said responsible, I meant "use powers responsibly", not what you thought.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free 15 Mb POP3 email @alexandria.cc Click here -> http://www.alexandria.cc/
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
It's me. I neither like the term/title sysop nor admin (resp. the German translation "Administrator"). I simply don't want to be responsible, I don't want to defend the WP in court. Etc. pp. Change the word sysop/admin to something else like "advanced user" and I would be happy again.
IMO, "advanced user" is a better name anyway. Even better are "trusted user" and "old hand" (maveric149's suggestion).
GreenMountain wrote:
I think that a sysop should be responsible.
I don't want to be responsible as a sysop; I want to be responsible for my own edits only.
I'm pretty sure that this is just what GreenMountain meant. (Well, change "edits" to "actions" to be more general.) In context, an administrator is responsible for their own SQL queries. But administrators aren't responsible for anybody else's actions.
and they could edit protected pages, and could not delete, or block.
I'm not interested in those actions. I'm just interested in SQL. Maybe the Term/title ("SIP's" (sysops in training)) is good enough; to be translated as "Anwärter" ;)
We already have a position for somebody that wants to do SQL queries but doesn't want to edit protected pages, [un]delete, or [un]block, and who is trusted by other Wikipedians to do what they say. This position is called "Administrator" (or a translation thereof), popularly called "sysop".
Both of these names are bad, IMO. I would support a change in names -- which should probably be taken to <wikipedia-L>.
But in the meantime, if you become "Administrator" on [[de:]] (or whatever y'all say in German), then you will not be responsible for any actions other than your own edits and your own SQL queries. If you doubt my word, I am certain that Jimbo himself will back that up.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu writes:
IMO, "advanced user" is a better name anyway. Even better are "trusted user" and "old hand" (maveric149's suggestion).
Agreed. Please change to one of these versions ASAP.
In context, an administrator is responsible for their own SQL queries. But administrators aren't responsible for anybody else's actions.
Sure, but the question is whether the lawyers will think the same and I don't want to proof it in court for now.
But in the meantime, if you become "Administrator" on [[de:]] (or whatever y'all say in German), then you will not be responsible for any actions other than your own edits and your own SQL queries.
Sure, that's what I did in the past - it's just the name and its implications I do not like.
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 06:45:05AM +0100, Karl Eichwalder wrote:
Sure, but the question is whether the lawyers will think the same and I don't want to proof it in court for now.
Jimbo should announce: "All sysops and de:Administratoren belong to ME and are nothing but a herd of lemmings" ;-)
Karl Eichwalder wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
IMO, "advanced user" is a better name anyway. Even better are "trusted user" and "old hand" (maveric149's suggestion).
Agreed. Please change to one of these versions ASAP.
You can change it on [[de:]] by editing the pages there. I suppose that this should be taken up on <wikiDE-L>? (I don't normally read that, but if you want my support, then I can take part in the conversation there. My German is comprehensible, although not always correct. ^_^)
If you think that the issue is larger than just [[de:]], then we could move this discussion to <wikipedia-L> instead.
But I don't believe that anything in the MediaWiki code forces this term.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu writes:
You can change it on [[de:]] by editing the pages there. I suppose that this should be taken up on <wikiDE-L>?
They are still voting (since November 2003)... And most of them do not seem to get the idea. Don't waste any more time on this issue. All in all, it isn't that important to me.
If you think that the issue is larger than just [[de:]], then we could move this discussion to <wikipedia-L> instead.
Since I work more or less on the German version only, it is just a 'de' issue to me.
Thomas R. Koll wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
I'm not saying that I oppose your idea completely. But in the case of the experienced user on [[de:]], I would suggest that this user be given back ''all'' sysop rights, but only ''use'' SQL. Perhaps this is a problem for some reason -- maybe other Wikipedians complained about this user as a sysop?
But he doesn't want to be a full sysop, don't know his excact reasons. He was but gave his rights back a few months ago.
Many Wikipedians (mostly in places other than this mailing list) are concerned about hierarchy and levels of access/power/authority, so it will be controversial to make the hierarchy more complicated. Also it's a Bad Thing in general to complicate code more than necessary. So my impulse is still to tell this guy «We don't mind if you're a sysop and you only use your SQL powers, and it's painless, so just do that.».
But if there is a real need to complicate the hierarchy and the code ... well, I won't make any more fuss about it.
-- Toby
(By the way, you didn't answer my questions. That's OK, as long as you know that you didn't answer them! ^_^)
(Uhh, what was the question again?)
They were:
What is "the sysop-job"?
and:
Do sysops on [[de:]] have to do chores?
It may be best just to go back to the original for context: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2004-January/007609.html. (And it's OK to ignore these specific questions now that we've gone on, unless you think think that they're still relevant. So this whole thing is a digression. ^_^)
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org