Last modified: 2011-01-25 00:42:02 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T17193, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 15193 - ipblock-exempt exists where it shouldn't
ipblock-exempt exists where it shouldn't
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 12518
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
General/Unknown (Other open bugs)
1.14.x
All All
: Normal normal with 1 vote (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
http://toolserver.org/~dungodung/cgi-...
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-08-17 01:07 UTC by Mike.lifeguard
Modified: 2011-01-25 00:42 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

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


Attachments

Description Mike.lifeguard 2008-08-17 01:07:34 UTC
The ipblock-exempt user group can be set on any wiki by stewards, which should not be the case. It should exist only on:
*enwiki (bug 9862)
*commons (bug 14507)
*meta (bug 14876)

On those wikis, it should be listed as a local group; elsewhere it should not be listed, as the user group doesn't exist. On wikis where there is no ipblock-exempt group, it should not be settable by stewards.

So there are two problems: it is settable where it shouldn't be and it isn't listed where it should be (until it becomes unsettable there by fixing the first thing).
Comment 1 Casey Brown 2008-08-17 02:31:58 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
> The ipblock-exempt user group can be set on any wiki by stewards, which should
> not be the case. It should exist only on:
> *enwiki (bug 9862)

There is no problem with this wiki.

> *commons (bug 14507)

Of course this wouldn't be listed there, because it was not yet enabled for Commons.

> *meta (bug 14876)

This isn't a problem.  It's probably not listed on the page because stewards have "userrights" which allows them to set *any* local right (that would incldue "ipblock-exempt").

> On those wikis, it should be listed as a local group; elsewhere it should not
> be listed, as the user group doesn't exist. On wikis where there is no
> ipblock-exempt group, it should not be settable by stewards.
> So there are two problems: it is settable where it shouldn't be and it isn't
> listed where it should be (until it becomes unsettable there by fixing the
> first thing).

It's also available on Russian Wikipedia because they requested it, see bug 14876.

So, I don't see there being any problems. => INVALID
Comment 2 Casey Brown 2008-08-17 02:35:20 UTC
I see the existing problem with the "existing where it shouldn't be":

* (User rights log); 01:00 . . Dungodung (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Mike.lifeguard@enwikibooks from Bureaucrats, CheckUsers, IP block exemptions and Sysops to Bureaucrats, CheckUsers and Sysops (this inconsistency is bad :\ and I complained on #wikimedia-tech but no one heard me :() 
* (User rights log); 01:00 . . Dungodung (Talk | contribs) changed group membership for User:Mike.lifeguard@enwikibooks from Bureaucrats, CheckUsers and Sysops to Bureaucrats, CheckUsers, Sysops and IP block exemptions (ya see) 

but the other half of your bug doesn't seem to be a problem, so I've removed that aspect of it.

Though, as long as local users shouldn't be able to set this, it shouldn't be a problem... because stewards aren't allowed to set it without a policy on the local wiki.
Comment 3 Mike.lifeguard 2008-08-17 03:59:56 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> I see the existing problem with the "existing where it shouldn't be":
> 
> * (User rights log); 01:00 . . Dungodung (Talk | contribs) changed group
> membership for User:Mike.lifeguard@enwikibooks from Bureaucrats, CheckUsers, IP
> block exemptions and Sysops to Bureaucrats, CheckUsers and Sysops (this
> inconsistency is bad :\ and I complained on #wikimedia-tech but no one heard me
> :() 
> * (User rights log); 01:00 . . Dungodung (Talk | contribs) changed group
> membership for User:Mike.lifeguard@enwikibooks from Bureaucrats, CheckUsers and
> Sysops to Bureaucrats, CheckUsers, Sysops and IP block exemptions (ya see) 
> 
> but the other half of your bug doesn't seem to be a problem, so I've removed
> that aspect of it.
> 
> Though, as long as local users shouldn't be able to set this, it shouldn't be a
> problem... because stewards aren't allowed to set it without a policy on the
> local wiki.
> 

The fact that stewards have full access to Special:UserRights is irrelevant to whether the right is listed on Special:ListGroupRights on meta.

Take the enwikibooks example: The right should not exist there at all. However, if it exists (as clearly it does, though erroneously), it should be listed on Special:ListGroupRights, which is is not. Both parts of the problem exist here, though my list of where it should and shouldn't exist may be incorrect.
Comment 4 Andrew Garrett 2008-08-17 09:39:35 UTC
Users can be added to the 'ipblock-exempt' group on any wiki. However, membership of that group does not confer any additional permissions on users in it, unless that wiki has the group set up properly.

This is because the available groups listed on Special:Userrights come from meta, not from the target wiki (bug 12518).

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 12518 ***

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


Navigation
Links