An Uprising On Meta!, Sire, the peasants are revolting... Options

[Ottava]

Well, for people who actually want to use a very prominent system for their work instead of having to turn to alternatives that are almost completely ignored, it isn't a good thing.

That's not what Wikipedia is for. If you want a vanity press service, try a vanity press.

Um, what are you babbling about? People actually contribute their content there. Just because you don't know how to write anything to add doesn't mean others aren't trying to build an encyclopedia.

[Somey]

People actually contribute their content there. Just because you don't know how to write anything to add doesn't mean others aren't trying to build an encyclopedia.

So, just as a suggestion, if we were to develop a kind of shorthand for people to say "F*** you, Ottava" without having to tediously type it out each time, is the preferred form of the abbreviation "FYO," or "FUO"? Because "FYO" is also the acronym for "Find Your Own," which could be confusing in his case, since it could easily be taken as meaning "Find Your Own website to impress the Old Guard with how loyal you are to their cause even in the face of near-universal rebuke."

"FUO" is also the acronym for "Fever of Unknown Origin," which may be what Ottava is suffering from, but thankfully we're in no position to make a formal medical diagnosis...?

[Kelly Martin]

Can you (or someone) translate what that change means? Is "the power to grant himself all the power he wants" something hard coded, or is there a specific permission for it?

Jimbo used his power to define the user rights granted to specific user groups to remove most of the user rights from the "founder" group, of which he is the sole member. He did not, however, remove the right to define the user rights granted to specific user groups, which means he can undo that change at any time. Basically what he did was throw a dust cover over his rights, to make it appear as if he didn't have them, but he didn't take away his ability to give them back to himself. I assume he expected people to not notice that he retained the power to set group rights.

His power is not hard-coded; it's a consequence of the groups he's a member of. He could use that power to revoke his own rights such that restoring them would require someone else to act. It's pretty clear that the community wants Jimbo to have to ask for his will to be done, instead of being able to enforce his will on his own, and this action on his part clearly does not effect that result.

So, just as a suggestion, if we were to develop a kind of shorthand for people to say "F*** you, Ottava" without having to tediously type it out each time, is the preferred form of the abbreviation "FYO," or "FUO"? Because "FYO" is also the acronym for "Find Your Own," which could be confusing in his case, since it could easily be taken as meaning "Find Your Own website to impress the Old Guard with how loyal you are to their cause even in the face of near-universal rebuke."

Could you add a special button that appears only on Ottava's posts that lets us add this to his posts without the trouble of making a separate post for it? It would save time and screen real estate.

[anthony]

Can you (or someone) translate what that change means? Is "the power to grant himself all the power he wants" something hard coded, or is there a specific permission for it?

Jimbo used his power to define the user rights granted to specific user groups to remove most of the user rights from the "founder" group, of which he is the sole member. He did not, however, remove the right to define the user rights granted to specific user groups, which means he can undo that change at any time. Basically what he did was throw a dust cover over his rights, to make it appear as if he didn't have them, but he didn't take away his ability to give them back to himself. I assume he expected people to not notice that he retained the power to set group rights.

His power is not hard-coded; it's a consequence of the groups he's a member of. He could use that power to revoke his own rights such that restoring them would require someone else to act. It's pretty clear that the community wants Jimbo to have to ask for his will to be done, instead of being able to enforce his will on his own, and this action on his part clearly does not effect that result.

Thanks Kelly. I see the current list of permissions is here. The two key ones would be globalgroupmembership (he can add himself as a member of any group, e.g. he could make himself a steward) and globalgrouppermissions (he can change the permissions of any group, e.g. he can add any permissions back to "founder").

Is there any way he can still *directly* block or desysop someone? Or would he have to go through multiple steps to do so?

[Kelly Martin]

Is there any way he can still *directly* block or desysop someone? Or would he have to go through multiple steps to do so?

He has to go through a two-step process to do so. This creates a slight impediment to rash action, I suppose, but not much of one. It reminds me of Jack Swigert taping a card over the LEM jettison actuators on Apollo 13.

[anthony]

Is there any way he can still *directly* block or desysop someone? Or would he have to go through multiple steps to do so?

He has to go through a two-step process to do so. This creates a slight impediment to rash action, I suppose, but not much of one. It reminds me of Jack Swigert taping a card over the LEM jettison actuators on Apollo 13.

Welp, it looks like he's now removed them. He'd have to go through a sysadmin now, right? (That's not to say that this wouldn't be easy, but we've moved from a two-step process to a two-person process, a la How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb, err, WarGames, err, The Hunt for Red October or something.)

This post has been edited by anthony: Sun 9th May 2010, 6:06pm

[Ottava]

People actually contribute their content there. Just because you don't know how to write anything to add doesn't mean others aren't trying to build an encyclopedia.

So, just as a suggestion, if we were to develop a kind of shorthand for people to say "F*** you, Ottava" without having to tediously type it out each time, is the preferred form of the abbreviation "FYO," or "FUO"? Because "FYO" is also the acronym for "Find Your Own," which could be confusing in his case, since it could easily be taken as meaning "Find Your Own website to impress the Old Guard with how loyal you are to their cause even in the face of near-universal rebuke."

"FUO" is also the acronym for "Fever of Unknown Origin," which may be what Ottava is suffering from, but thankfully we're in no position to make a formal medical diagnosis...?

Unlike a moderator, I can put Kelly on ignore. What do you say, Somey? Does she have anything worth me bothering to look at, because all of her posts seem exactly the same.

[Kelly Martin]

Welp, it looks like he's now removed them. He'd have to go through a sysadmin now, right?

Unless there's some other secret backdoor that he has access to that I'm not aware of, yes, he can no longer exercise admin rights on any project where they have not been granted locally.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

What is the final score ... and are they really, really, really going to expect him to de-flower himself, or whatever it is called?

This post has been edited by Cock-up-over-conspiracy: Sun 9th May 2010, 7:20pm

[Somey]

What do you say, Somey? Does she have anything worth me bothering to look at, because all of her posts seem exactly the same.

I thought her explanation of Jimbo's reassignment of access rights, particularly with regard to the group permissions flag, was quite useful indeed?

I mean, let's face it, Ottava - you won't want to hear this, particularly from me, but lately you've been turning into precisely that thing you yourself most despise: Everyking.

Look up the article on Stockholm Syndrome (T-H-L-K-D) - it's all there, except for the physical kidnapping aspect.

[Milton Roe]

What is the final score ... and are they really, really, really going to expect him to de-flower himself, or whatever it is called?

Headline: Nine years after creation, website turns on both parents on the same day.

Mother's Day.

Larry, Jimbo, WP will be sending you virtual flowers later. Right now they just had some ... issues they had to address. It'a not that they don't love you both. But they need space, okay? They're not babies any more, and they feel like they're not being treated as young men.

Who need pron. But this is a phase, and they'll get though it.

In about 15 years.

But they think about you. They really want your respect; you know they do. They'll call you later. Promise.


All the best! xxxxoooooxxxx

[trenton]

Is Founder the same as founder? Even the software seems confused:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...h=-1&tagfilter=

and

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?titl...h=-1&tagfilter=

Jimbeau changed his rights on english wikipedia; does this carry over to everywhere else?

edit: it appears that Founder was renamed to founder some time back...

This post has been edited by trenton: Sun 9th May 2010, 9:24pm

[EricBarbour]

Unless there's some other secret backdoor that he has access to that I'm not aware of

I would bet you good money that a backdoor exists, that Jimbo asked for it to be installed years ago, and that possibly, no one else except the MediaWiki developer responsible is aware of it.

Jimbo has had NINE YEARS to add such things, and given his paranoid and egotistical behaviour in the past, I feel it is a reasonable assumption that a backdoor is available to him.

[Moulton]

There's only one way to tell. Ottava has to unban me and Greg on Wikiversity and restored all the stuff there that Jimbo deleted from the first day he set foot there.

If Jimbo just goes, "Harrumph," and says, "Curse you, Ottava Rima!" we'll know he's really and truly castrated himself.

But if...

Never mind, it's too gory to even think about.

[Ottava]

What do you say, Somey? Does she have anything worth me bothering to look at, because all of her posts seem exactly the same.

I thought her explanation of Jimbo's reassignment of access rights, particularly with regard to the group permissions flag, was quite useful indeed?

I mean, let's face it, Ottava - you won't want to hear this, particularly from me, but lately you've been turning into precisely that thing you yourself most despise: Everyking.

Look up the article on Stockholm Syndrome (T-H-L-K-D) - it's all there, except for the physical kidnapping aspect.

Really? I don't remember whining about no longer having adminship.

And Everyking attacked people in a nasty way. Remember, I had a problem with him and LessHeard for their comments about Durova and others. I don't like nastiness. People can be heated in discussion but just attacking someone for no reason like they did for Durova and others was just cruel.

And Everyking was very anti Catholic, don't forget about that.

And I've always been adamant that Jimbo should desysop people. After all, he is the only one with the real power and at least he is under media scrutiny. Tyranny comes in the shadows.

[SB_Johnny]

What do you say, Somey? Does she have anything worth me bothering to look at, because all of her posts seem exactly the same.

I thought her explanation of Jimbo's reassignment of access rights, particularly with regard to the group permissions flag, was quite useful indeed?

I mean, let's face it, Ottava - you won't want to hear this, particularly from me, but lately you've been turning into precisely that thing you yourself most despise: Everyking.

Look up the article on Stockholm Syndrome (T-H-L-K-D) - it's all there, except for the physical kidnapping aspect.

Really? I don't remember whining about no longer having adminship.

And Everyking attacked people in a nasty way. Remember, I had a problem with him and LessHeard for their comments about Durova and others. I don't like nastiness. People can be heated in discussion but just attacking someone for no reason like they did for Durova and others was just cruel.

And Everyking was very anti Catholic, don't forget about that.

And I've always been adamant that Jimbo should desysop people. After all, he is the only one with the real power and at least he is under media scrutiny. Tyranny comes in the shadows.

Wow, it's amazing how deftly you let that go in one ear and out the other. Did you get surgery to help you do that, or is it just a natural endowment?

[NuclearWarfare]

Jimbo is still in the founder global group (1, 2), and therefore has access to the following permissions of importance:

suppressrevision, suppressionlog, oversight, deletedtext and deletedhistory, checkuser-log, browsearchive, autopatrol, all abusefilter permissions

So interestingly, he can suppress information the way oversighters do it now, but he cannot delete it normally. He also cannot undelete material, but he can view all logs and undeleted pages. In addition to checkuser, oversight, and sysop on enwiki, those are all the permissions he has across Wikimedia.

This post has been edited by NuclearWarfare: Sun 9th May 2010, 11:17pm

[Ottava]

Wow, it's amazing how deftly you let that go in one ear and out the other. Did you get surgery to help you do that, or is it just a natural endowment?

I explained what attributes about Everyking I despise. They don't apply to me. So, I don't really care about any comparison.

[anthony]

Unless there's some other secret backdoor that he has access to that I'm not aware of

I would bet you good money that a backdoor exists, that Jimbo asked for it to be installed years ago, and that possibly, no one else except the MediaWiki developer responsible is aware of it.

Jimbo has had NINE YEARS to add such things, and given his paranoid and egotistical behaviour in the past, I feel it is a reasonable assumption that a backdoor is available to him.

Eh, whatever. Anyone with root shell access (10 people) or anyone with steward access (33 people) could give him the powers back.

If none of those 43 people are willing to support him on an issue, what good would it be to have a backdoor?

By the way, it seems like a terrible idea to give so many people so much access. And likely access that they can exercise from anywhere in the world. One compromised password, one disgruntled roommate, one trojan on a home desktop machine...

I guess there are backups for most of the things that could be deleted. An attack from someone looking for information, on the other hand...

This post has been edited by anthony: Mon 10th May 2010, 1:17am

[Abd]

Jimbo is still in the founder global group (1, 2), and therefore has access to the following permissions of importance:

suppressrevision, suppressionlog, oversight, deletedtext and deletedhistory, checkuser-log, browsearchive, autopatrol, all abusefilter permissions

So interestingly, he can suppress information the way oversighters do it now, but he cannot delete it normally. He also cannot undelete material, but he can view all logs and undeleted pages. In addition to checkuser, oversight, and sysop on enwiki, those are all the permissions he has across Wikimedia.

The intention seems to have been to allow Jimbo continued full read access to the database; but in the case of suppressrevision, the right to suppress was not separable from the right to read, so apparently he was left with that permission, and it was mentioned that there is a bug report in on this, to make the read and write permissions separate, which makes sense.

This was a stunning reversal of the position Jimbo took just a short time ago. He blinked. He has my warm congratulations for that. It takes maturity to back down after making so many strong statements. I've suggested that Larry Sanger might now be given the founder bit as well, I assume he would be willing to be bound by the appropriate restrictions about disclosure.