Talk:User Rights Requests and Suggestions

Temporal talks related with the wiki staff restructuring

I made a small list of some user rights that needs to be reviewed, sorry if i forgot someone. Im considering the contribution scores as something orientative because there is people with low scores that published some unique info (it was one of the few persons in this whole able to do it, we was lucky they did it), i gave them the category of "epic edits" (whatever that means, lol is not related with wiki dedication but with the quality of his edits), there is other people (maybe not in this list) with high score because they was doing wiki manteainance/organization tasks additionally to research and/or decvelopement (btw we could make a new "R&D" user group). Im not sure if my understanding of the "VIP" group matches with yours, to me it looks like it could be used as a fallback for the users with either a higher contribution scrore or labeled as "epic editor" that became inactive (most from the list below)

nick             | score  | epic | active | trusted | others
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flatz            | low    | yes  | no     | yes     | 
Glevand          | high   | yes  | no     | yes     |
Kakaroto         | low    | yes  | no     | yes     | 
Kozarovv         | high   | -    | yes    | yes     | 
M4j0r            | high   | yes  | yes    | yes     | 
MikeM64          | high   | -    | yes    | yes     | 
Mrjaredbeta      | high   | -    | yes    | yes     | 
Mysis            | high   | yes  | no     | yes     | 
Naehrwert        | medium | yes  | no     | yes     | 
Nas plugi        | medium | -    | no     | yes     | 
PsiCoLeO         | medium | -    | no     | yes     | 
Zer0Tolerance    | high   | -    | yes    | yes     | 
Graf chokolo     | low    | yes  | no     | yes     | 
Mathieulh        | high   | -    | no     | yes     | 
Nikitis          | medium | -    | no     | yes     | 
CrashSerious     | medium | -    | no     | yes     |

Sandungas (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2023 (CET)

---

I will make a new list for everyone available to share my suggestions and everyone is welcome for their feedback. My main goals are:

• Remove both inactive users from higher roles together with active users having higher roles but not using them at all (because they have a "big name" or because of a broken CAPTCHA issue on the wiki)
• Every role must have at least two people sharing the same power to avoid vandalism or other bad stuff disturbing the integrity of the wiki and its content.
• New roles:
  • "VIP" for former Team members not active anymore for several years
  • "automoderated" doesn't need to get moderated within their changes
  • "interface-admin" editing the structure within the wikis
  • "moderator" can confirm or reject edits from all other users without having higher roles ("users" / "autoconfirmed users" and "all" [unregistered users])
  • "suppress" oversighting all internal actions within the wikis from all user groups
  • "trusted" for well-known people from the scene so you can be sure that reading his/her edits are legit

If everything will work, the wiki will have the following higher roles in particular order from the least power to the most:

• "all" (unregistered users)
• "users" / "autoconfirmed users"
• ---------------------------------
• "automoderated" NEW
• "trusted" / "VIP" NEW
• "moderators" NEW if you have higher roles right now and you feel you can "moderate" the wiki, feel free to ask for access
• "administrators"
• "checkuser"
• "bot" / "interface-admin" NEW
• "suppress" NEW
• "bureaucrats"

Roxanne

---

I'll leave it up to you two to decide who gets what permissions since I don't have the historical context. But I would suggest that we remove the following roles and just wrap up all higher permissions into "trusted", "moderator", and "administrator". Moderators and Administrators are both trusted, and Administrators are also moderators.

• "checkuser" - Not really needed since all edits go to the moderation queue first anyway and unregistered users can make edits
• "Interface-Admin" - This was automatically created when updating MediaWiki. We should just give those rights to Administrators.
• "suppress" - Can just give those rights to moderators.
• "bureaucrats" - Can just give those rights to Administrators.
• "automoderated" - I created the Trusted users group to fill this role. Not sure if this one was auto-created.

Derf (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2023 (CET)

---

Sorry but I have to disagree to this one.

• I use "checkuser" from time to time, especially when to combat spam (see logs).
• "Interface-Admin" I was planned to reserve this only to you and CrunchBite.
• "suppress", we need something higher than "Moderator" since Moderators can make mistakes and need control as well
• "bureaucrats" actually the most important one and this must stay (!) because it can give roles (this is why I mentioned it in my list as the highest one of all).
• "automoderated" I like it because I see it as a step in between for getting "trusted".

Roxanne

---

Derf there is some plan to update the mediawiki software we are currently using (v1.35.2 EOL september 2023) to the latest stable (v1.39.2 EOL november 2025) ?. It looks we are at a good timing to update it
Im asking because the default user groups in v1.35.2 (line 5543) and v1.39.2 (line 7609) are way different, is actually a different file (DefaultSettings.php has been deprecated). In the documentation is mentioned to dont add any custom edit in it because the edits will be deleted everytime you update mediawiki software, so im wondering if there is some custom edit in the DefaultSettings.php we are currently using, in that case this is a problem to consider now because soon or later it will be needed to update the mediawiki software and (if needed) that custom edits needs to be taken to the new version, can you make a comparison in between the file i linked and the file in our server and tell me if there is some custom edit in it added along the years ?. In theory all the custom edits should be made in LocalSettings.php
Overall im in a similar oppinion than derf, is better to simplify it and make some groups inherit the rights from other groups as most as possible (ie: group A have the rights of group B + C + some rights specific for A). If we design this hierarchy considering there is going to be always someone active in every group is not going to work, because the most probable thing that will happen is there are going to be only a few people active (ie: if we enable a right specifically for a group but nobody from that group is active then nobody will do it), the inherited rights is the best way to prevent this with the syntax explained here, by ab/using of the array_merge in the $wgGroupPermissions sections of LocalSettings.php
Im trying to figure how is generated the content of the Special:ListGroupRights page (i guess dinamically by reading both DefaultSettings.php and LocalSettings.php but the way how is displayed in the public page is very confusing, there are lot of repetitions
Im used to change the page protection levels because i had to do it several times before, but for me the setting related with the "Autoconfirmed users" was always a mistery, i never used it and i dont remember any of you using it either, and the name itself when displayed next to the nick in the "recent changes" log was an unneeded annoyance, but now that i was learning how it works im starting liking it because the fact that is given based on a edit counter is a feature, and is pretty much the same roxanne was trying to do with the new custom "auto-moderated" group, so im wondering if we really need the "auto-moderated" group, dont you think is better to stick to the defaut settings ?, we just need to configure the counter (lets say 25 edits) and configure all the wiki pages with the "allow only autoconfirmed users" by default. There is some way to change the protection level of all wiki pages in a hit ? (doing it individually page by page is overkill, lol)

Sandungas (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2023 (CEST)

Roxanne's suggestions

User Name	Users	Autoconfirmed Users	Auto-Moderated	Trusted	VIP	Moderators	Administrators	Check Users	Bots	Bureaucrats	Notes
Admin	?	?	No	No	Yes	No	?	No	No	No	Maybe defyboy can handover his credentials (kinda as a backup), otherwise I suggest to remove it and protecting the words "Admin" and "Administrator" for any user creation.
Agrippa	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	Admin role was only giving by Roxanne before because of the non-working CAPTCHA when trying to add http:// Hyperlinks onto the wiki. "Trusted" because he/she is still an active user.
Anon (PS4)	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Last contribution over 9.5 years ago (!!!) so I suggest to remove all higher roles and turning him into "VIP".
Anon Cypher	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Admin role was only giving by Roxanne before because of the non-working CAPTCHA when trying to add http:// Hyperlinks onto the wiki (but being inactive for nearly two years).
CelesteBlue	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	"Trusted" because of his contribution to the scene, especially for PSVita. "Moderator" because he showed activity within the newest Moderation Logfile. "Administrator" because of combating SPAM in the past.
CrashSerious	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Last contribution over 12.5 years ago (!!!) so I suggest to remove all higher roles and turning him into "VIP".
CrunchBite	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	As changed within March 23rd by Derf.
Derf	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	As changed within March 23rd by Derf.
Developer Jeff	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Admin role was only giving by Roxanne before because of the non-working CAPTCHA when trying to add http:// Hyperlinks onto the wiki (but being inactive for nearly two years).
Euss	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	As much as it would hurt my heart but I think we can't expect returning him, so I suggest to remove all higher roles here s well and turning him into "VIP".
Eussbot	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Same as User "Euss" because there is content on its Talk page.
Flatz	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Last contribution over 7.5 years ago (!!!) so I suggest to remove all higher roles and turning him into "VIP".
Glevand	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Last contribution over 9.5 years ago (!!!) so I suggest to remove all higher roles and turning him into "VIP".
Graf chokolo (PS4)	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Has no contribution to the wiki at all, so I suggest to remove all higher roles and turning him into "VIP".
GregoryRasputin	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Special:Permalink/62174
Idc (PS4)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Admin role was only giving by Roxanne before because of the non-working CAPTCHA when trying to add http:// Hyperlinks onto the wiki (but being inactive for nearly two years).
IntelMiner (PS4)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Admin role was only giving by Roxanne before because of the non-working CAPTCHA when trying to add http:// Hyperlinks onto the wiki (but has never contributed to the wiki at all).
Kakaroto	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Last contribution over 7.5 years ago (!!!) so I suggest to remove all higher roles and turning him into "VIP".
Kozarovv	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	"Trusted" because of his contribution to the scene, especially for the PS2. "Moderator" because he showed activity within the newest Moderation Logfile. "Administrator" because of combating SPAM in the past.
M4j0r	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	Admin role was only giving by Roxanne before because of the non-working CAPTCHA when trying to add http:// Hyperlinks onto the wiki. "Trusted" because he/she is still an active user.
MikeM64	?	?	No	No	?	No	No	No	No	No	Admin role was only giving by Roxanne before because of the non-working CAPTCHA when trying to add http:// Hyperlinks onto the wiki, but created another user because the Password Recovery wasn't working.
MikeM6464	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Admin role was only giving by Roxanne before because of the non-working CAPTCHA when trying to add http:// Hyperlinks onto the wiki (but being inactive for nearly two years).
Mrjaredbeta	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	Admin role was only giving by Roxanne before because of the non-working CAPTCHA when trying to add http:// Hyperlinks onto the wiki. "Trusted" because he/she is still an active user.
MrMario2011 (PS4)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Admin role was only giving by Roxanne before because of the non-working CAPTCHA when trying to add http:// Hyperlinks onto the wiki (but being inactive for nearly two years).
Mysis	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	"Administrator" because of combating SPAM in the past.
Naehrwert	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Last contribution over 9.5 years ago (!!!) so I suggest to remove all higher roles and turning him into "VIP".
Nagato (PS4)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Admin role was only giving by Roxanne before because of the non-working CAPTCHA when trying to add http:// Hyperlinks onto the wiki (but being inactive for nearly two years).
Nas plugi	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Last contribution over 9.5 years ago (!!!) so I suggest to remove all higher roles and turning him into "VIP".
Niinono	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Admin role was only giving by Roxanne before because of the non-working CAPTCHA when trying to add http:// Hyperlinks onto the wiki. "Auto-Moderated" only because being a new user.
Octopus	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Last contribution over 9.5 years ago (!!!) so I suggest to remove all higher roles and turning him into "VIP".
Okawayati (PS4)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	"Moderator" because showing activity within the Moderation Logfile on PS4 wiki.
PsiCoLeO	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	Last contribution over 11 years ago (!!!) so I suggest to remove all higher roles and turning him into "VIP".
Roxanne	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	As changed within March 21st by my humble self.
Sampleuser	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	As far as I can remember, this was only created by "Euss" to test some things, so I suggest to remove this user at all (or maybe protecting that name like for "Admin").
Sandungas	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	As far as I understood him correctly, he has no interest into "Moderation".
Stayhye (PS4)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	Admin role was only giving by Roxanne before because of the non-working CAPTCHA when trying to add http:// Hyperlinks onto the wiki. "Trusted" because he/she is still an active user.
XDPx (PS4)	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	No	No	No	Admin role was only giving by Roxanne before because of the non-working CAPTCHA when trying to add http:// Hyperlinks onto the wiki (but being inactive for nearly two years).
Zecoxao	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	No	"Moderator" because showing activity within the Moderation Logfile on PS4 wiki.
Zer0Tolerance	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	"Trusted" because of his contribution to the scene. "Moderator" because he showed activity within the newest Moderation Logfile. "Administrator" because of combating SPAM in the past.

• Notes
  • The user group named '* (asterisk, name only visible in the settings) have a comment saying // Implicit group for all visitors. In other words, this are the rights for wiki readers without a registered acount, and/or registered users while logged-off
  • All the registered accounts are given the "User" rights automatically
  • In mediawiki v1.35.x the "Autoconfirmed users" have a comment saying // Implicit group for accounts that pass $wgAutoConfirmAge. See: AutoConfirmAge and AutoConfirmCount. Is a temporal restriction for new user accounts that have less edits than the value given to the counter. When the counter is reached the user enters automatically into the "autoconfirmed" group and is given the "editsemiprotected" permission that allows to Edit pages protected as "Allow only autoconfirmed users" (you know, is an special page protection mode available in the tab at top-right of most wiki pages: More -> Protect -> Settings), so it seems we dont need it (or we could repurpose/rename it). The problem is... this group is included in the DefaultSettings.php mediawiki installation and the documentation suggest to dont modify that file, but i guess there must be some way to disable or modify it without need to modify the problematic file (blacklisting or overriding it in LocalSettings.php ?)