Thomas R. Koll wrote: 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

Arvind Narayanan writes: 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/

"Thomas R. Koll" &lt;tomk32(a)gmx.de&gt; writes: Thanks Thomas, for taking care of my issue. I just decide to join this mailing list as well - one more list cannot hurt... 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" &lt;greenmountain(a)alexandria.cc&gt; writes: I don't want to be responsible as a sysop; I want to be responsible for my own edits only. 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" ;) -- | ,__o | _-\_<, http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/ | (*)/'(*)

Karl Eichwalder wrote: IMO, "advanced user" is a better name anyway. Even better are "trusted user" and "old hand" (maveric149's suggestion). 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. 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

On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 06:45:05AM +0100, Karl Eichwalder wrote: Jimbo should announce: "All sysops and de:Administratoren belong to ME and are nothing but a herd of lemmings" ;-) -- http://www.tomk32.de - just a geek trying to change the world -.- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:TomK32 /|> http://tomk32.bookcrossing.com / \ http://tinyurl.com/u6de

Toby Bartels &lt;toby+wikipedia(a)math.ucr.edu&gt; writes: 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. Since I work more or less on the German version only, it is just a 'de' issue to me. -- | ,__o | _-\_<, http://www.gnu.franken.de/ke/ | (*)/'(*)

Thomas R. Koll wrote: 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 They were: and: 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. ^_^)