Wikipedia talk:User access levels/Archive/1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Each wiki will need to decide which user groups to have and who can go in each one. Currently, the default is as follows, although might change before 1.41.5 goes lives:

Anonymous
Read, edit, createaccount
Logged in
Read, edit, move, upload
Sysop
"Logged in" + delete, undelete, protect, block, asksql (disabled), rollback, patrol, editinterface
Bureaucrat
"Sysop" + userrights, createaccount, siteadmin (non-functional)

There is also the "bot" level, which by default no one has (stewards would presumably still have this).

Should any changes be made to the default? Do we want to introduce new levels (for example, allow some people to edit the mediawiki namespace but not let them block users)? Should all current admins get at least the default "sysop" levels that are included in this new system? Angela. 23:06, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I think further levels of user hierarchy would complicate matters unnecessarily. I favor leaving the four levels as they are currently, leaving WP:RFA intact, and creating a separate page wherein users can request certain permissions for specific purposes. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]]
userrights would permit bureaucrats to desysop anyone locally, correct? Presumably by typing exact rights strings as stewards now do? Pakaran (ark a pan) 00:22, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Currently, bureaucrats would be able to desysop people, and even do more radical things like disallow editing to anons. I've reported this as a bug. Angela. 11:15, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

While this is at test, it's not necessarily going to be in 1.4. The developer concerned intends that it must exactly match current Wikimedia functionality or not be in 1.4. That is, no changes in capabilities at all are intended, so it's a complete non-event here if it happens. What's behind this is requests from other sites for more controls on their participants/ customers (possibly including things like charging for features). Jamesday 00:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree about it being a non-event. This potentially lets us have far more control over user levels, and will let people not trusted enough to be admins, or not brave enough to go through RfA, to still be able to do things like edit the interface, which currently they can't have unless they are full sysops. It also means if someone is sent to the arbcom for violating their blocking powers, they could have that exact power removed without losing the ability to rollback etc. Angela. 11:15, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

New user "classes"

Upon reading this, I'm immediately drawing a mental comparison to D&D-style "character classes", so I kind of pictured a "progression" approach to the new rights. Obviously, the names are debateable. I'd also see it possible that a user could progress through multiple paths and combine titles, gaining the appropriate rights (i.e. "multi-class").

  • "Level 0" - IP visitor - Read, edit (?), createaccount
    • Initiate - standard logged-in editor - Read, edit, move, upload, patrol
      • Protector - defends against vandalism - "Initiate" + delete, protect, block, rollback
        • Arbitrator - user disciplinary action - "Protector" + userrights
      • Librarian - page maintenance - "Initiate" + delete, undelete, editinterface, asksql
        • Administrator - site maintenance - "Librarian" + protect, siteadmin
      • Bureaucrat - user maintenance - "Initiate" + userrights, asksql

I dunno, these were some initial thoughts. I'll admit I don't know how "patrol" functions, but I assume everyone can verify an edit in Recent Changes. -- Netoholic @ 01:40, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Deletion rights

There should probably be a distinction between the ability to delete 'actual' pages and the ability to delete pages that have no history other than being redirects. I don't think that I've used my ability to delete for much other than deleting redirects, and even then usually only in order to move a page. -Sean Curtin 03:05, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Definition of "protect" access level

This states: "Lets users lock a page so it can not be edited by users without admin rights"

Since "admin rights" are not defined except in that they are some combination of various access levels, what is fundamentally meant by this? Right now, the definition effectively contains a circularity. Is the access level one might call "editprotected" equivalent to the "protect" access level, or one of the others, or something different entirely? --Michael Snow 03:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think, but am not certain, that protect would let you both protect a page and edit a protected page. Angela. 11:15, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Questions

Does the "patrol" mean that if somebody with that ability looks at a page and decides that it's okay, *I*, who have not seen the page, will never see it on Recent Changes? I want to make that determination for myself.

What is going to happen to all of the broad sysop powers that we currently have? Will we automatically be given all of the authority, none of it, or parts of it? RickK 07:36, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

You can hide patrolled edits from recent changes if you want to. You don't have to. It's similar to the "hide logged in users" option on recent changes now.
As the system currently stands, you start off with no levels at all. I strongly expect this will change before it goes live here so sysops now will basically have the same powers in 1.4. The difference is that non-admins will be able to apply for new lower levels if they want to. Angela. 11:15, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
Is everybody who's now a sysop going to have to re-apply for adminship? RickK 00:07, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
The way I understand it, those who are currently admins will remain so and will retain all the same abilities. There will be the potential for non-admins to request certain permissions short of full adminship. (I highly doubt all current admins would have to re-apply - it would be a huge inconvenience.) [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

edit protected page

Is there an "edit protected page" capability? Or is it implied by some other capability? —AlanBarrett 10:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's currently implied by "protect". It'd make more sense for it to be separate (but still implied by "protect"). -- Cyrius|✎ 16:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

view deleted page

I think that "view deleted page" should be separate from the "undelete" capability. —AlanBarrett 10:13, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In general I'm with the people who want to split "undelete" (as above), "delete" (into pages and images), "protect" (into protect and edit-protected), etc. Not that I feel we will want to make a practise of splitting them apart (especially not right away), but rather because I think that if we're going to change this part of the interface, we should do it all at once, and not dribble additions on later. I would assume that these changes are only an incremental amount of work for a developer (now that admin has already been split into a large number of different capabilities) so I don't feel too bad about requesting "just one more small change"! Noel (talk) 13:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Comments from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Administrators will not exist in quite the same way in MediaWiki 1.4, due for release in a few weeks. Instead there will be user groups, and these can be assigned any mixture of access levels. See Wikipedia:User access levels and its talk page for details. This could seriously affect the way requests for adminship is handled since people will have the option of applying only for specific powers, such as rollback, rather than having to apply for full adminship powers. Angela. 23:14, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I assume there is also the alternative of keeping things as they are, in order to not introduce additional complexity in the bureaucratic system… — David Remahl 23:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

These are not necessarily going to be in 1.4. They are at test but what is at test does not indicate what is going to be in 1.4 yet - it's unlikely to until just after the include/exclude decisions are made. In thie case of this feature, desired by some third party sites, the developer concerned intends that it must exactly match the current capabilities if it's to be in 1.4. It doesn't at present. Jamesday 00:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In practical terms, what does this mean? Is there any compelling reason v1.4 admins shouldn't have the same powers as now, just because it's possible? What are some reasons we would want to have different levels of admins, and how would the community decide whether a person might be suitable for one level but not another? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In practical terms, this means that when 1.4 is released, nothing will change with regards to admin powers on Wikipedia. There is the potential in the future for us to change how the powers are arranged and portioned out, with applications for specific abilities being a possibility. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Is there the possibility that perhaps the community could get to vote on this change? I mean, there are a lot of people that like things as-is, I think. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, I'd hope that things would stay as they are unless people voted to change them. That is, the ability to change would be in 1.4, but things would keep on working the same way by default. Shane King 07:08, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
I do hope this will be the case, as I've not heard anything of this before. Ambi 02:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not doing it but that's the intent as I understand it: it's to be a non-event even if the details of how it's implemented internally change. Jamesday 13:47, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Principle of least privilege. — Matt 01:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd argue that the principle wikis in general and Wikipedia in particular have applied is the Principle of most privilege. The only reason administrative functions are at all limited, is that they would be abused and cause a lot of damage if they weren't. However, that risk is very low for "trusted members" of the community. That is why adminship is a broad thing and not a big deal. — David Remahl 14:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
what he said. dab 16:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1.5

As an anon so briefly noted, the new permissions system is now being held back until Mediawiki 1.5. Brion Vibber says that they're aiming for February with 1.5. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheckUser

Please see meta:CheckUser for a page about whether this permission should be extended to more than the two people who currently hold it, and how we should go about doing that. Angela. 03:46, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)