User details special page

Proposal: a special page, perhaps Special:Userdetails for manipulating user accounts.

  • Show a user:
    Username: Foobar
    Account created: 1234-07-08
    • (this info not available yet; can be added for future accounts; internal user id number would give a general ordering/age data point)
    Last logged in / updated prefs: 1234-08-09
    1234 edits total, 123 in last month; last edit: 1234-09-10 (contributions)
    [User name is blocked]
    Has / doesn't have an e-mail address specified.
    • (This info is already available if you click "e-mail this user" and get told they don't have an address)
    Is / is not sysop
    [Is developer]
    • (info already available on users list)
    • (but convenient to have it here too)
  • "Positive feedback": A sysop may have options to 'modify' the user account:
    Enable sysop functions
    • "Nomination" systems have been proposed whereby some number of people would have to vote to make someone a sysop before it took effect. Alternatively, it might take only one, but anyone else could cancel the nomination before it takes effect; cf MeatBall:DelayAction
    • You should also expire the votes after a certain time. cf MeatBall:DynamicValue
    Unban account if banned

More controversially, one might also want these available for sysops:

  • "Negative feedback" options:
    Disable sysop functions
    Ban account from logins
    Disable/"delete" account (???)
    • This would entail hiding the account from the list of users and disabling the 'e-mail this user' link. Should only be done for junk accounts -- the never used, the only used by vandals.
    • For all these again, it might be desirable to have a minimum number of votes, or a timeout whereby other users could cancel the action prior to it taking effect. Cf MeatBall:DelayAction
    • You should also expire the votes after a certain time. cf MeatBall:DynamicValue

Manipulations (bans, unbans, sysop in, sysop out) should be logged in a publicly visible log file like deletions and uploads are. Call it Wikipedia:Sysop action log and it's a good palce to note protection and unprotection of pages as well, no?

Other thoughts on bans, blocks, see bans, bans and blocks

Other thoughts: The general info might well be good to put directly onto user pages, rather than making yet another hidden special page to look for.

Would any sysop be able to ban another sysop on sight then ?

Well, why not? It would be extremely public, and any other sysop could unban them, and any other sysop could ban them for abusing the privelege.
let's dream a bit...and what if a sysop decided to unsysop all sysops...and then you, Brion, would come to ban the last sysop for abusing his privilege... And then a new world could start anew...with no sysop to upgrade user to sysophood...
That would be rather silly. Wouldn't you rather make everyone a sysop by default, as is the wiki way?
It would be a simple matter to put some throttle limits on number of deletions per day, status changes per day, etc. And, all abuses can be restored...

Of course, I take it a sysop is a user...because if a sysop is not a user, a sysop should just stop editing, right ?

By definition, anyone who uses Wikipedia is a user. If they weren't users, they wouldn't be here at all, much less be sysops.
Not so!!! On installation, MediaWiki automatically creates what it calls a user, as sysop and Bureaucrat. But it is not a real user at all, and should at least be deletable or renamable.

So... you propose that the information listed above be available to absolutely all users ?

It would make sense; how could it be harmful? - LittleDan

What is the interest of having info such as date of creation of the account, last log in, total contributions, date of last edit to your opinion ? I don't see it clearly. Also, what is the interest of writing there is a valid email account ?

To see which contributors are active. If an account hasn't been used in over a year, that may influence your decision to drop a message on their talk page to ask about their contributions. If you know they have an e-mail address assigned, then you at least have a chance of contacting them via 'send this user an e-mail' if it's urgent.

What do you mean by a sysop could delete someone account ? Do you think it very wise to give so much power to a sysop ? I don't think so. (but it might be interesting to clean up the list of current users, some of which have not edited anything for months)

Maybe sysops can delete an account, but it can be restored. - LittleDan

How do you plan a deleted user to complain, and prove he is the one complaining for his lost account, since he doesnot exist any more ?

The only difference between banning an account and disabling it is that it wouldn't show up in the general "list of users". This is intended for junk accounts that were created once, used to scribble on a couple pages, and then never again used. It would be a simple matter to restore them, flipping a couple bits. Nor does it matter whether the person who complains is the owner of that account or not; if the account is legit, it's legit, and should be restored whoever notices it.

Why not instead of focusing on users, focusing on status...and have a list of banned users, a list of downgraded sysop, a list of users asking to be sysop, a list of banned sysop (let's dream again), a list of fictionnal cats...

These aren't mutually exclusive.
You mean you can be a banned sysop and a fictional cat? ;) -- sannse

I don't see a reason for deleting accounts. Why not just leave them on the list? But it's no big issue for me either way - as long as it is only used for 'junk' accounts. And other than that, all of this sounds good to me. I particularly like the idea of a 'sysop action log', all these actions should be clearly visible to all. I also agree that there should be more than one person involved in any of these actions - whether that is done by seconding or having the ability to cancel. -- sannse 11:47 9 Apr 2003 (UTC)

I don't see the need for deleting accounts either -- I understand the idea but doubt that it's worth the complication (KISS). That said, I like the idea in general. And the sysop action log is just what we need! -- Toby 02:06 13 Apr 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to request that "date of last log in" have an opt-out available - I'd personally consider that a slight invasion of my privacy, though I know that most people wouldn't. I'm not fussed about date of last contribution, since you can get that through user contributions anyway (and for good reason). Thanks :) MyRedDice
Howzabout "has logged in during last 30 days: yes/no"? The main purpose is just to identify accounts that may not be editing, but haven't been abandoned and are used for reading. --Brion VIBBER 23:39 10 May 2003 (UTC)
I second that Ant.
I could cope with that Brion. MyRedDice

The mechanism you proposed on the list for making so a sysop (2 people agreeing to make the person sysop with a certain delay) suits me. However, it is unclear to me whether only sysops can approve sysophood or also users. I think users should also have the opportunity to speak up and against so. Some like kq are old hands enough and trusted enough to have their opinion on the matter taken into account. Now, I am aware making so sysop only on the opinion of a non-sysop will not be acceptable to some sysops, by fear of abuse from "vandals". Could it maybe that 2 people are necessary (if there is no "against") at least one of these 2 being a sysop ?

The negative feedback options are still very undecided. I am against banning registered names made possible by sysop, against making visible ip of registered users.User:anthere