Last modified: 2014-01-17 16:06:33 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 18390 - Set $wgRemoveGroups['bureaucrat'][] = 'sysop' on enwiki
Set $wgRemoveGroups['bureaucrat'][] = 'sysop' on enwiki
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: Wikimedia
Classification: Unclassified
Site requests (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal enhancement with 2 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedi...
: shell
: 30250 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2009-04-07 16:43 UTC by Happy-melon
Modified: 2014-01-17 16:06 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

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


Attachments

Description Happy-melon 2009-04-07 16:43:02 UTC
The poll linked above shows two-to-one support for granting this permission to enwiki bureaucrats. Marking as easy because I don't think there are any maintenance scripts to run to complete this change; just a one-line change in InitialiseSettings.php:

    'enwiki' => array(
-        'bureaucrat' => array( 'bot', 'ipblock-exempt', 'accountcreator' ),
+        'bureaucrat' => array( 'sysop', 'bot', 'ipblock-exempt', 'accountcreator' ),
        'sysop' => array( 'rollbacker', 'ipblock-exempt', 'accountcreator', 'abusefilter' ),
    ),
Comment 1 Chad H. 2009-04-07 16:45:19 UTC
-easy, we don't use that keyword for shell bugs.
Comment 2 Kotra C. DeNies 2009-04-07 19:05:02 UTC
Changed priority to "low" since consensus indicates there is no pressing need for this.
Comment 3 Prodego 2009-04-07 19:12:20 UTC
The poll linked above does not meet the traditional 75-80% 'consensus' definition, it is 82/40, which is a mere 67%. Additionally only 122 people commented on a poll that would be a large change, whereas there are many hundreds of active enwikians. I do not believe this bug has consensus.
Comment 4 Ruslan 2009-04-07 19:26:41 UTC
Actually the result was 82 in favor, and 40+11 (counting those who opposed premature polling) against, or 61.6%. FLR were not implemented with such support. ~~~~
Comment 5 Mike.lifeguard 2009-04-07 19:44:29 UTC
You should probably get a clear consensus on this issue before filing a bug. Once you have done so, re-open with a link showing community discussion and consensus.
Comment 6 Happy-melon 2009-04-08 09:21:35 UTC
@Ruslan: how do you justify lumping all the "poll later" votes in with "oppose"? There is a clear spectrum of *opinions* amongst those who chose that option; it's not appropriate to unilaterally decide en masse which camp they should boil down into.  The only justifiable position is to include them with "neutral", which we customarily ignore for the purposes of determining percentage support.  

@Mike: This is another of those situations where we are bitten by the unanswered question "what constitutes consensus?" More specifically, what do the devs consider a proper consensus.  This proposal has over two to one support; is that a sufficient consensus? If so, then we can go ahead, if not, then as you say we need to come back later.  But without knowing how the devs would react to a consensus like this one, we/I can't know how to proceed. Hence the bug: let's get a senior dev's conclusion on what's adequate in situations like these. Closing it without that input wasn't particularly helpful. 
Comment 7 Mike.lifeguard 2009-04-08 19:26:37 UTC
If you don't know what consensus is go talk to your local enwiki bureaucrat. This isn't good enough.
Comment 8 Happy-melon 2009-04-08 19:57:27 UTC
Ask an enwiki bureaucrat to close a poll on giving enwiki bureaucrats extra permissions? Don't get me wrong, **I'd** be quite happy to accept such a decision, but I expect I'd be one of the few.  You can't deny the conflict of interest.  ArbCom doesn't do consensus-finding; stewards don't get involved.  Who's left but the devs? And who better *than* the devs?  
Comment 9 Alex Z. 2009-04-11 16:10:16 UTC
Note that at least 1 enwiki bureaucrat has said that there is no consensus in the poll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABureaucrats%27_noticeboard&diff=283191695&oldid=283190997
Comment 10 Happy-melon 2011-07-28 17:34:27 UTC
Worth noting that the currently-ongoing poll on enwiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Granting_bureaucrats_the_technical_ability_to_remove_the_admin_flag) is currently running 305 to 32 in favour of implementation, and should close in ten days or so.  I'd be surprised if a consensus for implementation was not found there.
Comment 11 xenocidic 2011-08-07 03:22:27 UTC
*** Bug 30250 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 13 Sam Reed (reedy) 2011-08-11 13:40:34 UTC
Done

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


Navigation
Links