Wikipedia talk:User access levels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

2004-2005

About archives • Edit this box

Contents 1 unwatchedpages 2 Out of date 3 Banned users 4 siteadmin 5 An Inconsistent Description 6 "The colors..." 7 Founder user access level 8 deletedhistory and undelete 9 CAPTCHA required for new accounts 10 Checking user groups 11 Crats and sysops 12 Vandalism 13 Inherited 14 'founder' group 15 Edits to Autoconfirmed users

[edit] unwatchedpages

This is may not be the right page for this question - so point me somewhere else if necessary. Why is unwatchedpages an Admin funtion. Surely this would be a good tool for Reg Users to have, to help deal with Vandalism/Inappropriate pages?

Your thoughts please Lethaniol 12:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The basic thought is, if it was an all-users permission, it would be the equivalent of Wikipedia:Easiest pages to vandalize. Since anyone can create an account, and hundreds of vandal accounts are created each day, it would serve as a quick-reference list of pages that could be easily vandalized, and if done so subtly (so as to not raise red-flags with RC patrollers) could remain vandalized for months, because nobody is watching them. The original intent of having the special page, as I understand it, was so admins could find unwatched pages and watch them for vandalism and other problems, rather than to have a quick-hit list for potential vandals. Essjay (Talk) 01:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So why not make it a long-standing member type thing, like editing semi-protected pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Comperr (talk • contribs) 00:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Editing semi-protected pages doesn't require you to be a long-standing member, it only requires about 4 days. Opening up unwatchedpages would require much longer than that. --Tango 12:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of date

This table seems to be out of date. It doesn't mention semiprotecting, and doesn't distinguish between newly registered users and users that have been around a few days. Also, there is the new ipblock-exempt permission. Can someone that knows precisely how things are now update this table? (I could try, but it would be guesswork.) --Tango 17:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banned users

Ahem, I see that "banned users" (and only they) can "patrol" and "asksql". Excuse me, but this seems to be nonsense. Afaik, "asksql" is a (now abandoned) feature once available to sysops and patrol is probably open to all (registered?) users, when it is enabled on the wiki. Am I completely mistaken on this? --Mbimmler 10:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] siteadmin

Isn't siteadmin editing the MediaWiki interface? mrholybrain's talk 00:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No, this priv is called 'editinterface', while 'siteadmin's are responsible for locking database. And let me assure you, stewards can't lock it. Even more, I checked: developer permission gives you access to Special:Lockdb, but it says that lock file is not writable for the web server, that's why I marked siteadmin as depreciated. MaxSem 06:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine. mrholybrain's talk 10:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Inconsistent Description

The diagram on the page here differs from what is described here. I would have corrected it myself, but I don't know which is right. --P4wn4g3 03:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by P4wn4g3 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] "The colors..."

The table marks various cells as (two shades of) green, yellow, red, or black. Yet nowhere is there a key to explain what these colors mean. Of course, another problem is that many people can't distinguish red from green. Tualha (Talk) 02:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Red is disabled/blocked, yellow is "special" (EG. Click the link to see the userlist), green is applicable and I'm assuming lighter green is "Because you have to have permission to do this at lower levels" or some such. A key would be usefull. 68.39.174.238 15:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Founder user access level

Isn't this merely an extended version of the steward level?? --Solumeiras ^talk 16:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's just nominal. The steward and founder levels are separate but I don't think 'founder' has anything extra with it. Just Jimbo vanity. -- 213.152.52.38 (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] deletedhistory and undelete

The table differentiates between these; there are no groups with only one of the two on wikimedia wikis - keeping them separate would still be informative if they are separate permissions in mediawiki, but it needs to be clear just what is associated with each permission. —Random832 16:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CAPTCHA required for new accounts

Wikipedia:User access levels#New users says: "They are also not required to answer a CAPTCHA at any time". At Wikipedia:Help desk#External Link check a one day old account says that a CAPTCHA is required to add external links. Has there been a change? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it was corrected now. Autoconfirmed accounts aren't required to enter the CAPTCHA, new users still have to. -- 213.152.52.38 (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Checking user groups

Because I can't find it anywhere - how can I (or in practoice a bot of mine) check whether a given user is a newbie (less than four days) or not? Pseudomonas_(talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are some scripts being developed for this, I've heard. In the meanwhile, you can use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&type=newusers&user=USERNAME to see when an account was created. Just subtract 4 from that date, if the difference is a negative number, then that user is a newbie. {{CURRENTDATE}} shows you today's date. -- penubag  (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Pseudomonas_(talk) 08:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crats and sysops

Enough cluttering up the page history :D. The important thing as far as I'm concerned is that, while the RfA/RfB process on en.wiki ensures that no one will ever be promoted to 'crat without first becoming an admin, there is no requirement in the MediaWiki software for that hierarchy, so it would be inaccurate of us to suggest in the table or text that it was the case. If a crat were ever to be promoted without being an admin, I expect it would be considered a gross abuse of rights for them to unilaterally promote themselves to sysop, in the same way it would be considered highly inappropriate for a crat who is also a bot operator to flag one of their own bots without first going through WP:BRFA. Happy‑melon 09:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. All requests to stewards to assign a crat flag without a +sysop are denied. However, technically crats aren't automatically sysops and shouldn't be described as @those who can do same things as sysops plus promote users and bots". MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But note that this table is not on mediawiki.org. While it may technically be possible, this page is about user rights on this site where all bureaucrats are admins. Mr.Z-man 15:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And so we've made a note of that fact above the table; perhaps a similar note should be added to the #Bureaucrats section also. But it would be misleading to colour the cells in the table for Bureacrat/protect or Bureaucrat/delete green, because that is not what is happening. Happy‑melon 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That table has its own problems. If I ever get really bored and have a couple hours of free time, I plan on redoing it. Mr.Z-man 19:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think is wrong with it? It's certainly not perfect, but I can't think of a better way of presenting the information. Happy‑melon 08:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Aren't crats able to remove the Bot flag? MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes they can: I've corrected the table. Happy‑melon 08:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Wow, is it just me or is there a sudden surge in vandalism to this page? Sockpuppets anyone? -- penubag  (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected - it's not an article or discussion, and there's clear evidence that, when the semi-protection expires, the vandalism returns immediately. Happy‑melon 09:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Still seems persistent. It's sock puppetry, who would edit this page as their first edit? -- penubag  (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inherited

What does Inherited mean exactly? Does it mean that a right is assumed for that usergroup but the right is not granted? So an administrator not in the group autoconfirmed would denied to move a page, but they inherit it because they are not revoked from the autoconfirmed group when promoted to an admin. -- penubag  (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that a bureaucrat 'inherits' admin rights? -- penubag  (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins are explicitly autoconfirmed; crats don't automatically inherit sysops' rights. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 05:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

So sysop accounts automatically get the ability to use e.g. movepage even if the account is newer than four days? --Random832 (contribs) 15:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case; although I'm prepared to be proved wrong, I don't think that's how the software works. Someone with a personal wiki want to test it? Happy‑melon 15:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'founder' group

There has been some back-and forth regarding the definition for this group, I've set it to a very basic explanation as it does exist--but will leave it to this talk page for the need for further information. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the locus of the dispute - that there should be some independent reference for a fact in the wikipedia namespace - is utterly ludicrous. Happy‑melon 13:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Note, my only personal argument is that there should be a description of this group, but don't really have an opinion as to the inclusion of the history of it. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The 'founder' group exists on en.wiki, therefore its existence should be noted on this page - that much, I think, is indisputable. I really can't understand what's wrong with the original wording. Happy‑melon 14:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I question the claim that it was created as a "mark of respect for Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia". If this was authorized by the Board, there should be some documentation. Otherwise, I think it's likely Wales himself did (or ordered some developer to do) this. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes you assume that it would need to be authorised by the board? As long as we don't impinge on WMF's legal isolation (ie host copyrighted material, egregiously violate WP:OR, etc) there's no need for the board to 'authorise' anything, and they're far too busy to do so. As long as we're in line with their values, they have many other better things to do than micromanage our user-rights choices :D. The 'founder' usergroup is not implemented on any other wikimedia project (see wikimedia's actual config files), which is evidence against it being implemented by either the devs or Jimbo. Besides, it's completley useless - Jimbo already has steward rights on meta, so he can make any rights changes there. 'founder' gives him local access to all user-rights and to Special:Makesysop, which he's never going to use, even on himself (as he's an admin anyway). There's no possible use for the group other than as a mark of respect. Happy‑melon 19:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, who's "we"? Ordinary users can hardly create new user access levels. Only developers can do that; they might do so on their own initiative, or by order of some authority, or indeed after a community decision, but in the case of a community decision a record should be on the wiki somewhere, and I can't find such. I agree it's functionally useless, only serving to bolster the Jimbo cult (and to support his "sole founder" myth), but the question is who initiated this? The passive-voice statement "it was created as a mark of respect" is a bit dubious if it may have been Wales who created it as a mark of respect for himself. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes you so suspicious that it was his own initiative? Happy‑melon 19:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he's self-aggrandizing all the time, this would be typical. And I find it unlikely anyone else would do this on their own initiative. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well that's your opinion, to which you're fully entitled. I'm going to e-mail the developers to get a comment from their side. Happy‑melon 20:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I created the group, for reasons I have explained a number of times. There were complaints from some Wikipedians about Jimmy being a steward, because it was said to be confusing. But other Wikipedians wanted him to have that group as a mark of respect. I created the founder group as a compromise between those two positions, added Jimmy to it, and then informed him afterwards that I had done so, in an apologetic email. I also wrote this description of the group. -- Tim Starling (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume those "other Wikipedians" told you that in private, or was there an on-wiki discussion? Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does it matter?? Happy‑melon 15:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it wouldn't be appropriate to give the impression that the community at large expressed its respect for Wales when it didn't. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't under the impression that the original wording implicated anyone in the group's creation. The version you've just added, which gives the impression that it was entirely Starling's idea, is less accurate than the intermediate version. WP:AGF extends to all namespaces, you know - why is it so difficult to accept the possibility that there might not be any conspiracy here? Happy‑melon 16:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

By not implicating anyone, the original version implicated a collective decision. Apparently it was pretty much Starling's decision, backed up maybe by a handful of people on IRC. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider the text as it stands after my edit just now to be a fair representation of events? Happy‑melon 19:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The unspecified talk about "requests" is still misleading, suggesting that there was some widespread movement for this, which there wasn't. Unless Tim Starling can name the people who "requested" this, he should take the sole responsibility. Also, I don't think "sinecure" is the right word here; all user rights are sinecures in that they only involve rights and no obligations to do anything. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be of the opinion that the creation of this user group constitutes a mistake for which "responsibility" (=blame?) needs to be assigned; as I've said, you are welcome to that opinion, but I don't think very many people would agree with it. Is there any particular reason why we shouldn't trust Starling to be telling the truth just a few lines above? I agree, on re-reading, that sinecure doesn't quite mean what I thought it did - can you think of a better word to sum up the nature of the group? Happy‑melon 21:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying what he said isn't the truth, it's just not the complete truth since "other Wikipedians" isn't specified. In all likelihood it was just a few people, otherwise there would be a record of an on-wiki discussion about it. Whether that makes it a mistake is a question anyone can answer for themselves. I'm just saying the page should make clear what the facts are. As to the nature of the group, you might say it's a pure "status symbol" for Wales if it doesn't add to the powers he already has without it. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Autoconfirmed users

Very new users who try to upload an image are brought to Autoconfirmed users. I edited Autoconfirmed users to give these new users better insight into where the restrictions derive (e.g., the MediaWiki software itself). MediWiki List of Groupshttp://www.mediawiki.org../../../../articles/u/s/e/Manual%7EUser_rights_9baf.html indicates at the bottom that "From MW 1.12, you can create your own groups into which users are automatically promoted (as with autoconfirmed and emailconfirmed) using $wgAutopromote." I presumed this meant bureaucrats since that same MediWiki List of Groups indicates that bureaucrat are "users who by default can change other users' rights." If some other group does this, please change the sentence. I included the info about an alternate (a remote one at that) to the 4/10 software scheme so that new users don't think Wikipedia is a heartless machine run by computers and more willing to continuing editing after being prevented from uploading their image, moving a page, etc.. -- JohnABerring27A (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)