Last modified: 2008-07-06 19:13:35 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 14461 - Disallow Meta bureaucrats to administer global accounts
Disallow Meta bureaucrats to administer global accounts
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: Wikimedia
Classification: Unclassified
Site requests (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal normal with 10 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_b...
: shell
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-06-07 12:29 UTC by Effeietsanders
Modified: 2008-07-06 19:13 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Effeietsanders 2008-06-07 12:29:17 UTC
In Bug https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13810 the meta bureaucrats were given after a very short discussion in the meta Babel the rights to administer wikimedia wide the global accounts. After some discussion on the stewards-l, this seems not appropriate, not desirable since:
* Bureaucrats on meta have no special election besides the one for admin.
* Meta admins are elected to perform *local* duties, not crosswiki duties. 
* The unmerging of accounts is not appropriately logged

Until there is real community consensus (not only Babel community) this change should probably be undone.
Comment 1 spacebirdy 2008-06-07 12:34:59 UTC
P.S. there already have been incidents when crats deleted global accounts although there had been a warning on the request page not to do so until bug 14330 is solved (and the affected users _had_ automatic created accounts).
Account deletions (in contrary to article deletions) can't be undone but can cause real trouble for the affected users. Thanks.
Comment 2 Victor Vasiliev 2008-06-07 12:58:50 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> P.S. there already have been incidents when crats deleted global accounts
> although there had been a warning on the request page not to do so until bug
> 14330 is solved (and the affected users _had_ automatic created accounts).
> Account deletions (in contrary to article deletions) can't be undone but can
> cause real trouble for the affected users. Thanks.
> 

It can be undone by users. It couldn't because of software bugs, and that wasn't fault of bureaucrats. Some stewards also ignored a red notice and deleted global accounts affected by bug 14330. So that doesn't make a difference between bureaucrats and stewards
Comment 3 Victor Vasiliev 2008-06-07 13:01:06 UTC
I'd suggest people to move discussion back to meta pages and don't bring our flame to Bugzilla.
Comment 4 Larry Pieniazek 2008-06-07 13:27:29 UTC
Meta admins do in fact administer things that are global... the interwiki map (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map) and the global blacklist, just to name two.

Nevertheless, although I hold local meta 'cratship, (gotten by election, prior to the policy change granting it to all admins on request after a waiting period) I agree that this change has not worked out for the best and ought to be undone.  I believe per common practice, voting here won't convince the devs, a consensus will need to be shown. However it's not clear to me whether it is a local (meta) community consensus, or a consensus among stewards, or some other consensus, that is needed. Many stewards, including myself, feel this does need undoing.

VasilievVV, perhaps you could include a pointer to where you think discussion should be carried out.
Comment 5 Victor Vasiliev 2008-06-07 13:45:39 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> VasilievVV, perhaps you could include a pointer to where you think discussion
> should be carried out.
> 

I opened discussion at the babel. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel#Promoting_Meta_bureaucrats_access_to_Special:CentralAuth . I'll prmote it using mailing lists and site notice 
Comment 6 Effeietsanders 2008-06-10 11:37:17 UTC
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel#Promoting_Meta_bureaucrats_access_to_Special:CentralAuth -- consensus seems to be clearly to remove this access again. Thanks. 
Comment 7 Effeietsanders 2008-07-06 11:49:09 UTC
It has almost been a month since there is very clear community consensus. Could the change please be reverted to comply with the clear community consensus? Thanks a lot! 
Comment 8 Larry Pieniazek 2008-07-06 12:25:29 UTC
Consensus does seem quite clear. Is there anything that some developer is waiting on to flip this off again? Presumably it's a very simple change (guess, so maybe not)... the consensus is overwhelming, in my view, and a large number of people have participated (by meta standards) so I'm assuming there is a technical reason, or it just hasn't been gotten to? I think I speak for many (the bug has 17 votes as well) when I say I'd appreciate it if this were addressed as soon as is practical and convenient.
Comment 9 Brion Vibber 2008-07-06 19:13:35 UTC
Presumably nobody got around to it, as there doesn't seem to be any functional utility to restricting administration of something that requires a fair amount of administration.

Done.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links