Talk:Permissions Policy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(re) |
HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) (r) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Thanks for your work on this, [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard]], it's useful to have some documentation around these things (and this strikes a good balance between the need for ''some'' documentation and the need to avoid excessive documentation and procedure). I'm curious, what are the "privacy issues" encountered by bureaucrats that volunteers with admin rights don't encounter? As I understand it, bureaucrats don't actually ''do'' an awful lot, except for meta functions like making people administrators. [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 18:40, 22 April 2014 (BST) | Thanks for your work on this, [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard]], it's useful to have some documentation around these things (and this strikes a good balance between the need for ''some'' documentation and the need to avoid excessive documentation and procedure). I'm curious, what are the "privacy issues" encountered by bureaucrats that volunteers with admin rights don't encounter? As I understand it, bureaucrats don't actually ''do'' an awful lot, except for meta functions like making people administrators. [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 18:40, 22 April 2014 (BST) | ||
:Good question! It's sort of an inherited right - because they can make themselves checkusers/oversighters without a 'stop-check' built in to the software, you have to consider them as advanced user rights. For example: If I made User X a bureaucrat, there'd be nothing stopping her from making herself a checkuser/oversighter while we're all asleep, then downloading all of our IP addresses and selling them to the Times. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 01:03, 23 April 2014 (BST) | :Good question! It's sort of an inherited right - because they can make themselves checkusers/oversighters without a 'stop-check' built in to the software, you have to consider them as advanced user rights. For example: If I made User X a bureaucrat, there'd be nothing stopping her from making herself a checkuser/oversighter while we're all asleep, then downloading all of our IP addresses and selling them to the Times. [[User:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|Richard Symonds (WMUK)]] ([[User talk:Richard Symonds (WMUK)|talk]]) 01:03, 23 April 2014 (BST) | ||
::I didn't know that. Though I doubt the Times would be interested in my IP address! ;) [[User:HJ Mitchell|Harry Mitchell]] ([[User talk:HJ Mitchell|talk]]) 16:46, 23 April 2014 (BST) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:46, 23 April 2014
Thanks for your work on this, Richard, it's useful to have some documentation around these things (and this strikes a good balance between the need for some documentation and the need to avoid excessive documentation and procedure). I'm curious, what are the "privacy issues" encountered by bureaucrats that volunteers with admin rights don't encounter? As I understand it, bureaucrats don't actually do an awful lot, except for meta functions like making people administrators. Harry Mitchell (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2014 (BST)
- Good question! It's sort of an inherited right - because they can make themselves checkusers/oversighters without a 'stop-check' built in to the software, you have to consider them as advanced user rights. For example: If I made User X a bureaucrat, there'd be nothing stopping her from making herself a checkuser/oversighter while we're all asleep, then downloading all of our IP addresses and selling them to the Times. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2014 (BST)
- I didn't know that. Though I doubt the Times would be interested in my IP address! ;) Harry Mitchell (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2014 (BST)