Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nathan Johnson (talk | contribs) at 16:11, 26 June 2013 (→Use of account creator: close per request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

Use of account creator

Per a request at WP:ANRFC, this RfC is closed with the consensus in favor of proposal 2 There was wide agreement that users performing these actions be active account creators. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello everyone, it's been bugging me for the past while that people have been using the Account creator flag for other purposes, such as pagenotices and overriding the blacklist. It was originally intended to just be for account creators, but now it's essentially an unbundling of the admin abilities of noratelimit (ability to edit like a bot - needed for Account creators to override the 6 accounts per day limit), tboverride (allowing page notices to be changed and blacklists to be overridden - needed to override blacklisted usernames when appropriate), and give them override-antispoof (which is for overriding similar account names, etc. - directly needed for Account creation work). We give admins the ability to do these because we trust them. So what makes us trust people who are getting these flags for non-account creation reasons over normal members of the community?

I originally thought, like with a few other admins that I've talked to, that this was only for account creation purposes. I would like to know where the community stands on this, so that the proper use is reflected in policy, and the community knows how these permissions are being used.

  • Proposal 1: Active account creators (both ACCers and people at educational institutions creating multiple accounts) are allowed to carry this flag while they are performing their duties, and not use them for other purposes such as edit notices, overriding the rate limit, and title blacklist overriding.
  • Proposal 2: Active account creators (both ACCers and people at educational institutions creating multiple accounts) are allowed to carry this flag while they are performing their duties, and are allowed to use them for other purposes such as edit notices, overriding the rate limit, and title blacklist overriding.
  • Proposal 3: Anyone who an admin at WP:PERM feels is ready are allowed to carry this flag to perform edit notice changes, overriding the rate limit, and title blacklist overriding. (Obviously Account creators/ACCers are allowed to use the flag freely also)

Please use the comments section for discussion. Thanks, -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 01:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1

  1. 1st choice - As proposer. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 01:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mike (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While it's well known now that Account Creators have the technical ability to make these kinds of edits, the fact remains that they are not what the users signed up to do when the became ACCs, and it's not what they were vetted for. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, per explanation by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2

  1. Support: I don't see any problem with using this to perform other minor things like editing edit notices and whatnot if they are active account creators and not abusing the privilege. Technical 13 (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 2nd choice, this is not really a bad idea, I just oppose the free open use of it. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 02:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support: There has been several times where I have used the AC right to fulfill ignored protected edit requests. -- Cheers, Riley 03:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Mlpearc (powwow) 03:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. While I recognize the partly-sensitive aspects of editing page notices and blacklist overriding, my reaction is mostly pragmatic: are non-admin Account Creators abusing these tools? And conversely: are they using them to help Wikipedia? I don't like the idea of creating more rules, that prevent people from solving problems, from an abstract notion that non-admins are less trustworthy than admins. A better reason to implement it would be because non-admin Account Creators are actually abusing the tools, and in that case I'd probably support Proposal 1. But without that I don't want to see the red tape. NTox · talk 03:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - There's been times I've had to ask an ACC to make a minor editnotice change. I mean, they have to identify to get ACC anyway, and we have to trust them (rather the tool admins) to not abuse things, so why not just trust them to do something that it's basically only a software issue why everyone isn't allowed to? gwickwiretalkediting 04:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. While the current editnotice hacks are still in place, I seen no issue with this. I'd prefer it if it was split away from +accountcreator though. [stwalkerster|talk] 05:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support As long as you're not causing problems, there's nothing wrong with this. If you're misbehaving by doing things against policy or against consensus, your flag should be removed. Nyttend (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Meh, Account Creator is a good hack, in that people who are given the flag under the guise of actually using tboverride for what it was meant for, can do that if they're given the flag and simply not given access to the internal account creation interface. No consensus for that exists yet, but it would be a lot easier to add a hook to the application process than to tweak (and inevitably break further) core software functions. Credit for the idea though, I do like it. -T.I.M(Contact) 19:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support (first choice) I understand the issues raised by some of the supports of proposal one, however I echo NTox's comment above - if there isn't a problem to fix and if they are being used to help then why should we stop people helping and solving problems. In one sense the trust given to an account creator is similar to that of an admin (eg. you can't uncreate an account but you can unblock or undelete something, and the damage done to reputation can be similar when a mistake is made), so why should we be suggesting at a non-admin is less trustworthy. If there is pattern that the ACC right is being abused (primarily with editnotices or other blacklist protection) so removing it isn't an option then I can see where this would be helpful. But while ever an admin can giveth and taketh away at their discretion I don't see the need for a blanket rule to stop the right being used. And I'll also add that when moving pages you don't get the option to override the blacklist (or rate limits I'm fairly sure) it just happens automatically. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, so long as whether someone has or doesn't have the flag is solely determined by their level of activity at account creation. It Is Me Here t / c 14:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support With no history of abuse and some benefit, why not? The privilege can be pulled instantly if abused. AGF of those with the flag. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 23:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Until there is evidence that this actually causes a problem, I don't see a need to change it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per NTox. I am a moderately active account creator, and not an admin. I actually wasn't aware of these other possible uses of the flag. We do need to concentrate on genuine problems. If someone is abusing the flag (using it to do harm), take it away from them. Ummm... and yeah, I'm not less trustworthy because I'm not an admin.  ● Thane — formerly Guðsþegn  22:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - they have the rights, and I think they can be trusted to use them. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3

  1. I had the flag but it was removed as I haven't time for ACC at the moment. Sadly I do need the flag on a regular basis for edit notice (and also for the blacklist needed at AfC). mabdul 09:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've edited edit notices for people, specifically people using the edit request templates to request the change. It's one of those things where most people probably don't even know how to do it, and like anything else, abuse is grounds to have the right removed. I think less trust is required in giving someone the ability to edit editnotices than to create similar usernames anyway. — Bility (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice - whilst I can see the benefit in allowing other editors to have the right I just think that the power it gives is too much for it to be handed out like reviewer or rollback or even autopatrolled for that matter. However if the consensus goes this way or against proposal 2, I'm here. I'd rather have people able to fix things then give people the power to do it and make them submit edit requests instead. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First and only choice: The threshold for users to be accepted for ACC tool access is quite high and rightly so considering the access to non-public data; furthermore, ACC users must demonstrate competence on the tool before the flag is given, that's how it works currently. I don't see a problem with users who meet these criteria using the flag to its full potential, nor am I aware that any such users have used this flag abusively. On the other hand, I don't believe in dishing this flag out to users involved in the education program. They are an unknown and untested quantity. How do we know what, if any, knowledge they have of the username policy? Do they know how to properly check for similar accounts before using their flag to override anti-spoofing? Do they understand they implications of SUL? Do they know not to create disruptive/promotional/ISU account names? Pol430 talk to me 20:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think this is the right direction to go in. I'm not even old enough to do ACC, but am fond of editnotices (see Template:Editnotices/Page/2012 Delhi gang rape case, e.g.), and would love to be able to work in them more extensively someday. As a sidenote, if there were consensus to go down this road (which I acknowledge would be something of a departure from the bit's original purpose), a renaming of the flag might be in order. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support as the status quo. I've seen users such as Headbomb (talk · contribs) need this flag for various things unrelated to ACC, which was not in my eyes a power-seeking behavior but rather a genuine desire to help Wikipedia. —Soap— 03:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The user group is relatively small, the admin vetting process is selective in bestowing this right, and any member of the group in breech of trust or similarly found incompetent to carry the flag can see it removed without the need for procedural wrangling.--My76Strat (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Wikipedia:Editnotice clearly says account creators can create and edit them, and has for at least three years [1] so it shouldn't be a surprise that account creators have been doing so. NE Ent 01:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says the contrary, or at least a different version at Wikipedia:Account creator.

Users who are no longer involved in the ACC process (meaning their ACC account has been suspended), or with the Education Program may have the user right removed at any time. Furthermore, administrators automatically inherit all the individual user rights of this user group.
— Wikipedia:Account creator

-- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 02:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It does not say a thing contrary to Wikipedia:Editnotice and where it says the flag may be removed does not imply that it should be removed. Also consider WP:Account creators where it is again asserted as a proper function of users in the group. There it says, "Additionally, the accountcreator flag allows users to edit or create editnotices."--My76Strat (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, what is the rationale for account creators to be able to edit editnotices? (Not saying it's a bad idea, just wondering.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's more of a quirky MediaWiki program issue, than a bit added to the ACC toolkit. Mlpearc (powwow) 03:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editnotices are protected by a messy hack - using the title blacklist. Account creators need the ability to override that title blacklist. Thus account creators are given the technical ability to edit editnotices cos nobody thought (or could be bothered - idk, the result is the same) to actually implement the editnotice protection properly in the first place, which if they had done, we wouldn't have this mess with editnotices and +accountcreator. [stwalkerster|talk] 05:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that's a bit strong, I apologise. I'm running on no sleep for at least 24 hours and am just taking a quick break from writing my dissertation which is due in about 6 hours. But that is how I feel about it. I may tone it down when when I next get chance to look at it. [stwalkerster|talk] 05:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and there's also been zero community consensus (AFAIK) about using +accountcreator for editnotices. People just started doing it. [stwalkerster|talk] 05:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically, long before I became an admin I applied for and was granted ACC because I needed to create/edit edit notices for various project pages I was working on. I never fully understood - and still don't - why ACC and edit notices are bundled together, but unbundling them will almost certainly be another boon for hat collectors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just noting that, as I understand it, any technical unbundling of editnotice-editing (as proposed to a moratorium on it) would require alterations to the user rights on a software level, as opposed to simply moving around a few lines of code on a .php file. Or reconfiguring the editnotice system to something properly in the MediaWiki: namespace, since tboverride doesn't extend there. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any actual abuse? Problems? Or are we trying to fix a problem that isn't actually problem? Can we see difs or other evidence of problems? I'd like to know more before I support or reject any of the above. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 21:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that we need to separate the creation of editnotices from the account creator right. I don't get how those tasks are related.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think option two has caused confusion. It is easy to construe "Active account creators" as meaning "Active users with the account creator flag" and it seems that some participants may have. The several comments that have echoed "I don't see a need to change it", or the variations of "As long as [they're] not causing problems" and "[Are] Account Creators actually abusing the tools" seem content leaving the matter as it currently is. However option two does not leave things like they currently are but instead requires "active tool access". I want to poll supporters of option two (Technical 13, DeltaQuad, Riley Huntley, Mlpearc, NTox, Gwickwire, Stwalkerster, Nyttend, The Illusive Man, Callanecc, It Is Me Here, Doctree, and ItsZippy) to ensure they fully understand that some members of the account creator group will lose their competent abilities if option two passes and that it definitely does not keep things as they have been and are.--My76Strat (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally understand that and wouldn't have supported that option if it wasn't the case. They should be active in the community and still actively have a need to have the bit (for example educational purposes) should be allowed to do these extra things. My thinking is that if they have a need to create a number of accounts for educational purposes, then it would be useful for them to be able to create sandboxes and what not and create/modify edit notices and what not for those sandboxes to aid the students in the tasks set before them. Technical 13 (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks to me as if many who voted for #2 (including me) interpreted it as meaning "people with ACC rights who are active with Wikipedia". It would be disingenuous for a closer to interpret our comments as reason to remove ACC rights from people who are currently qualified for them. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't confuse my statement. I interpret it as meaning "people active with ACC and people at educational institutions creating multiple accounts who need the rights". Technical 13 (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Earlier you gave a good rationale for why people in the education outreach program had a valid need. Are you now moving away from that position?--My76Strat (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope... Added that to be clearer. Sorry if it caused more confusion. I was trying to add to and not replace my previous comment... Technical 13 (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what concerns me about that:When you say "people at educational institutions" you are excluding the entire group of online ambassadors who arguably are the ones who would know how to create an account in accordance with policy and best practice. The people "at [the] educational institution", who ironically do the majority of the account creations, are very often no more qualified as a Wikipedia editor than any other freshly autoconfirmed account. With a plan like that, I am curious of who wouldn't anticipate problems. The rest of why I find this whole direction completely asinine considers this cause and effect. As an account creator I've surely created at least 7 or 8 hundred good accounts, and was the first wikipedian to welcome most of them. I believe I was around the forth or fifth wikipedian to join the ambassador program and although my participation has waned, I have remained an active member and given of my volunteer hours in supporting it. I did identify to the WMF as a reluctant requirement so I could continue volunteering my efforts. And now I find that I will very likely see this permission removed, mostly because of verbiage that is trying to fix where no problem exists, while it favors on campus account creations from undergraduates and course instructors with very limited clue about editing Wikipedia. I'll spare you the rest of the sad story since my opinion hardly matters around this place anywho. Cheers--My76Strat (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that Option Two is indeed the system we are supposed to be following now, whether or not it actually is. See Wikipedia:Account creator, where it says that any user with the flag who no longer needs it for ACC/Education/Outreach may have it removed. The intent is that you are in fact supposed to be active, and many users who are not have had the right removed. NTox · talk 22:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think where it currently says the flag "may be removed" will become "should be removed" under the stipulations of option two. Tools are granted based upon need, they are retained based upon competence and trust. Consider arbitrators for example; they are granted checkuser upon being properly vetted and appointed as arbs; they retain the bit as former arbitrators after serving. And of course the permission may be removed, like all permissions, but this is generally for some instance of cause. Therefore I disagree that implementing option two will be a continuation of current practices but rather a decisive step in a new direction. Nowhere has it been asserted that a problem exists that this proposal intends to fix; although the question has been asked several times.--My76Strat (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was pretty clear that proposal 2 meant only those active with "ACC[ers] and people at educational institutions creating multiple accounts", that's certainly what I intended. And the rest per NTox. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. My76Strat: yes, that's fine, I think the tool should be limited to those who actively need/use it. It Is Me Here t / c 08:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. My76Strat: Aye for those who need/use the flag. Nay to 1; why limit if there's no problem? Nay to 3; flag implies/should show capability and action, shouldn't just be a hat to decorate a userpage. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 16:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you. Here's where I diverge. I would rather depend on the administrator who assigns the permission to have vetted that need, which option 3 depends upon. The other two attempt to "legislate" a vetting criteria with prose as if an admin isn't capable of determining qualification and need. And by such prose you see created the cause and effect I outlined above. Pretty cool, huh.--My76Strat (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to My76Strat, my view is that I can see no obvious problem with the current system, so don't see any need to change it. OF the three proposals I guess I'm probably closer to #3, though I would like to abstain from fully backing any option. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 13:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_permissions&oldid=561688816"