Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:06:05 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 10597 - Create group on English Wikipedia that can edit protected pages
Create group on English Wikipedia that can edit protected pages
Status: RESOLVED LATER
Product: Wikimedia
Classification: Unclassified
General/Unknown (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Lowest enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedi...
: shell
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-07-16 05:17 UTC by Matt
Modified: 2011-03-13 18:06 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Matt 2007-07-16 05:17:52 UTC
Per the page linked to above, it would be incredibly useful to have a user group for editing protected pages, primarily for bots, but could also be used instead of temporary sysophood, or in the case of the election, for election officials to access the protected pages. This group would have no privileges other than editing semi- and fully-protected pages.
Comment 1 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-07-16 14:25:43 UTC
Note that at present, the full-protection permission is set to 'protect', so anyone who can edit fully-protected pages must have the right to protect and unprotect pages.  This strikes me as a lousy default, but anyway, that's what we have.  To allow what you request, you'd have to ask that the following lines be added to LocalSettings.php:

$wgRestrictionTypes = array( '', 'autoconfirmed', 'editprotected' );
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['editprotected'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['editprotected']['editprotected'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['bureaucrat']['userrights'] = true;
$wgAddGroups['bureaucrat'] = array( 'editprotected' );
$wgRemoveGroups['bureaucrat'] = array( 'editprotected' );

and that UPDATE page_restrictions SET pr_type = 'editprotected' WHERE pr_type = 'sysop'; be run on the database.  This should all be feasible at this point, and should work, but this will be the first time changes to either $wgRestrictionTypes or $wgAdd/RemoveGroups will be used anywhere on Wikimedia sites, so don't be surprised if shell users decide that they'd prefer to avoid this for fear of breaking the site.

If you'd be okay with users being able to protect/unprotect pages it would a be a lot easier, and probably would happen faster.  :)
Comment 2 Matt 2007-07-17 00:35:11 UTC
No, bureaucrat should not have the userrights permissions - this would not work on wikimedia. What I am asking is the group is created (with the top three lines) and stewards put the bots/users into the group. That would be more restrictive, and people on wikipedia would not want bureaucrats to have more power (people already claim they have too much power). There are enough stewards, and it only takes a few seconds to do. ~~~~
Comment 3 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-07-17 00:38:49 UTC
Well, then it's just $wgRestrictionTypes that needs testing, and that's been around for quite a while.
Comment 4 Matt 2007-07-17 06:13:31 UTC
Ok, this should be done reasonably quickly then - how often do the devs check these pages? ~~~~
Comment 5 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-07-17 16:03:23 UTC
Probably it'll be done within a month or two.  Updating config files is boring work, and we're talking about a very few people who are mostly volunteers.  Which is why we really need some kind of usergroup and namespace managers within the software, so this can be shoved off onto stewards at least if not bureaucrats.
Comment 6 Matt 2007-07-18 00:54:32 UTC
That's my next project then. Move user groups to a wiki-based page. Of course you still have to edit the files to give people the "editgroups" permission, but I guess that doesn't really matter. I finally found something not too hard that would be incredibly useful :-).
Comment 7 Majorly 2007-08-18 20:30:22 UTC
I don't think that users should be added into this - sysops aren't supposed to edit fully protected pages as it is. Bots, on the other hand might be useful.
Comment 8 Matt 2007-08-19 22:57:48 UTC
Yeah, it is intended primarily for bots, such as those updating the main page and related things that are protected not so they arent edited, but to stop vandalism. It would also help with another current bot that adds protection tags to pages, which it cant do on fully protected pages.
Comment 9 Majorly 2007-08-19 23:04:21 UTC
Yes, adding the notice could be useful, but is there anything else? I can't imagine there being a lot of fully protected pages without tags - and then again, they aren't added sometimes with good reason.
Comment 10 Casey Brown 2007-08-19 23:05:35 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> Yeah, it is intended primarily for bots, such as those updating the main page
> and related things that are protected not so they arent edited, but to stop
> vandalism. It would also help with another current bot that adds protection
> tags to pages, which it cant do on fully protected pages.

Let's not use *that* as an example, it's being disputed on whether or not such a bot is a good idea.  But your point still stands that this would be useful for bots, but then we could just set it so that the "bot" group had edit-protected permission... that's a lot different than creating a whole new group.
Comment 11 Danny B. 2007-08-19 23:05:58 UTC
Bug 10974 is related, rather more general. I also point to
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2007-August/032961.html and
following posts.
Comment 12 Casey Brown 2007-08-19 23:07:43 UTC
Yes it is, that is a much better solution. :)
Comment 13 Casey Brown 2007-08-19 23:12:11 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> Ok, this should be done reasonably quickly then - how often do the devs check
> these pages? ~~~~

They don't "check these pages".  We watch a feed and/or are on a mailing list. :-)
Comment 14 Nobody 2007-08-19 23:13:26 UTC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PEREN#Hierarchical_structures

Sorry, but what makes this different from the various other multi-tiered administrative proposals that have been suggested? Why not simply assign sysop rights to a bot and make the botmaster responsible for ensuring the bot only did what it was allowed to do?
Comment 15 Casey Brown 2007-08-19 23:15:20 UTC
(In reply to comment #14)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PEREN#Hierarchical_structures
> Sorry, but what makes this different from the various other multi-tiered
> administrative proposals that have been suggested? Why not simply assign sysop
> rights to a bot and make the botmaster responsible for ensuring the bot only
> did what it was allowed to do?

Well, technically, this fix wouldn't just be for Wikimedia... it's a valid point, the ability *should* exist.  But you are right, it would be a lot easier to just give the bot sysop status (bot first, then sysop).
Comment 16 Majorly 2007-08-19 23:17:42 UTC
For Wikimedia projects, I simply don't see a real need for another group. Protected pages are protected so they don't get edited.
Comment 17 Danny B. 2007-08-19 23:22:55 UTC
(In reply to comment #16)
> For Wikimedia projects, I simply don't see a real need for another group.
> Protected pages are protected so they don't get edited.
> 

a) MediaWiki isn't forWikimedia projects only
b) The group doesn't have to be used on WMF wikis (however, I already had requests for that on WMF wikis)
Comment 18 Casey Brown 2007-08-19 23:24:13 UTC
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > For Wikimedia projects, I simply don't see a real need for another group.
> > Protected pages are protected so they don't get edited.
> > 
> a) MediaWiki isn't forWikimedia projects only
> b) The group doesn't have to be used on WMF wikis (however, I already had
> requests for that on WMF wikis)

I feel the same way, but this is the bug for enwiki, perhaps this discussion should take place off-wiki, or if they are commenting on the technical ability, on the more general bug that you linked.
Comment 19 Majorly 2007-08-19 23:27:12 UTC
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > For Wikimedia projects, I simply don't see a real need for another group.
> > Protected pages are protected so they don't get edited.
> > 
> 
> a) MediaWiki isn't forWikimedia projects only
> b) The group doesn't have to be used on WMF wikis (however, I already had
> requests for that on WMF wikis)
> 

a) I know it isn't. See my comments on the other bug (10974)
b) That's good :)
Comment 20 Matt 2007-08-19 23:31:25 UTC
Protected pages are not just used for pages that shouldnt be edited - what about the main page elements? Having one featured article 24/7/365 wouldnt be fun, same as in the news. Also, full sysop rights should not be used, because people don't trust botops, especially if they do not have sysop powers themselves. The community has rejected adminbots time and time again, at least on enwiki. This is a reasonably simple thing to implement, requiring three lines to be changed, and makes no difference unless a particular wiki chooses to use it.
Comment 21 Matt 2007-08-19 23:32:21 UTC
Also, this is a request to be implemented on Wikimedia wikis, not in the general config.
Comment 22 Majorly 2007-08-19 23:34:30 UTC
Main Page editing requires more trust - about as much trust as being a normal admin.
Comment 23 Matt 2007-08-19 23:45:36 UTC
That is true in some respects, but that was one example. Also, simply editing is the least damaging of any admin action - you can do near-irreversable damage with any other admin tool, however edits are extremely easy to undo.
Comment 24 Majorly 2007-08-19 23:50:37 UTC
Ability to edit MediaWiki: space could result in very bad damage. Would this edit protection right extend to that?
Comment 25 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-08-19 23:53:05 UTC
Please discuss this on-wiki and reopen if agreement is reached that this is desired, since it seems unclear that this is the case.
Comment 26 Casey Brown 2007-08-19 23:54:31 UTC
(In reply to comment #25)
> Please discuss this on-wiki and reopen if agreement is reached that this is
> desired, since it seems unclear that this is the case.

Agreed, I was just commenting this on IRC actually. :)  A bug that someone wants to be enabled on a certain wiki needs community discussion first.  The technical ability request still stands though, as illustrated by Danny_B's bug.
Comment 27 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-08-19 23:55:56 UTC
(In reply to comment #24)
> Ability to edit MediaWiki: space could result in very bad damage. Would this
> edit protection right extend to that?

Not unless specifically requested.
Comment 28 Nobody 2007-08-20 00:35:12 UTC
The ability of non-Wikimedia projects isn't much an issue here, as non-Wikimedia projects can already create groups assignable in special:userrights (In reply to comment #17)

> (In reply to comment #16)
> > For Wikimedia projects, I simply don't see a real need for another group.
> > Protected pages are protected so they don't get edited.
> > 
> 
> a) MediaWiki isn't forWikimedia projects only
> b) The group doesn't have to be used on WMF wikis (however, I already had
> requests for that on WMF wikis)
> 
In fact, you could make a library of predefined usergroups the MediaWiki enduser could copy-and-paste. Perhaps it would be more reasonable to make a category on mediawiki.org to develop those, however?

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links