Wikipedia is committed to open access and open discussion.

A private sysops-only area is contrary to the project's ideals and goals, and would not be acceptable.

jeroen.vanrietpaap wrote:

I disagree with Brion here. This has nothing to do with "open access and
open discussion", but with keeping semsitive data out of the way. We (on
nl:) do that allready with this .zip-file, but like to have a more
secure and professional solution.

So what you (Brion) is saying is that we should publish our e.g.
phonenumbers for the whole world to see. I think you understand that
this not a smart thing to do. You can't push the "open access and open
discussion"-philosophy (that I absolutely support) over the edge. Why
not give the root passwords from the Linux server park to everyone? Off
course we don't do that, because we have a security policy, the same
applies (on a smaller scale) with sensitive moderator/sysop-data.

I think this can easily be done. Right now it is possible to deny
read-access for certain user-groups, wiki wide. It should be easy to
have a few blacklisted pages that only can be read and modified by the
sysops.

Cheers,

Jeroenvrp [[:nl:Gebruiker:Jeroenvrp]]

jeroen.vanrietpaap wrote:

Extra note:

Off course changes on these "sysop"-pages should not be listed for
"normal"-users on recentchanges.

These are not part of the wiki.

Suggestion:

You could install a separate NLSysopWiki somewhere (i.e. not being part of a
Wikipedia spawn) and make the access to that Wiki password protected.
Installation of a fresh wiki is usually less than 30 seconds work.

Wouldn't that solve all you problems ?

Brion, you just say you don't want to do this. But can you give reasoneble
arguments? The argument of "wiki should be open" is just incorrect imho. We deal
here with information whitch can not be shared with normal users, but has to be
accessable in certain situations. If we need the information of de kluis, or if
we have to put extra information into it, it brings now a great risk of loosing
other information. This should not be so. Wiki is for information, and open. But
to let wiki funtion properly, we have to make certain information whitch cannot
be shared with all users open for as mutch users as possible. If we leave it this
situation, we just increase the openness of wiki, because we cannot let everyone
know we save these things, because they can very easely hack a zipfile. I already
understood you are against it, but please clarify your "decision" to give us no
chance to explain our point, to defend our view, and to open information to a
limited group, instead of a even more limited group. Thanks. Effeietsanders

algemeen wrote:

I support this idea. I think it is a good contribution to the project. I know,
we are an open wiki, but sometimes it is necessary to protect some parts to
preserve wikipedia. And i think the Kluis/Safe isn't protected enough from
vandalisme.

I also agree with comment #2 from Jeroenvrp.

Remy Overkempe/Empoor ([[:nl:Gebruiker:Empoor]])

algemeen wrote:

I really don't think this is SO MUCH against wiki, that it isn't even an option.
This idea doesn't mean the whole wiki would be protected, just these files, that
are suppose to be protected. Or else they can be used against the project.

The problem is that you're not just asking for a little place for a few people to
share their phone numbers with each other. You're asking for an entire section
of the wiki which is inaccessible to users who are not members of the "cabal".

That's not what a wiki is, it's not how it works, and it creates and enforces a
stricter user access hierarchy which is contrary to the way this project is
supposed to be organized. There is no particular reason to believe that such a
restricted area, once added, would be used only for sharing private contact
information.

Additionally your secret sysop pages would be accessible to everyone in the
next week's public backup dump, which is probably not something you'd like.

If you want to have private conversations, do it in private as individuals, where
you can maintain your privacy.

robchur wrote:

Reopening to correct the resolution.