Last modified: 2014-01-17 10:00:19 UTC
Please add the following userrights to the bureaucrat usergroup on en.wiki - move-subpages suppressredirect tboverride apihighlimits browsearchive deletedhistory deletedtext They are necessary for the bureaucrat role and should be implicitly included. Thanks. (imho this should be done globally, but this is filed as a site request)
Aren't those already included in the sysop flag?
sysop != 'crat. Some crats want to be able to remove the +sysop without losing key rights to preform the crat actions.
(In reply to comment #0) > Please add the following userrights to the bureaucrat usergroup on en.wiki - > > move-subpages > suppressredirect > tboverride > apihighlimits > browsearchive > deletedhistory > deletedtext > > They are necessary for the bureaucrat role and should be implicitly included. > > Thanks. > > (imho this should be done globally, but this is filed as a site request) Per Betacommand, I don't think this is necessary. There's nothing to fix here.
I don't think Betacommand wrote what you think he did. And there is something to fix: if a bureaucrat did not have sysop rights they would be hamstrung in performing their duties. See https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Archive_65#Copying_userrights_from_sysop_to_bureaucrat_-_arbitrary_break for deconstruction of this. Do note that of the seven userrights being added to the bureaucrat right, only two are presently exclusive to sysop.
Just to clarify, does this have consensus? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29/Archive_65#Copying_userrights_from_sysop_to_bureaucrat_-_arbitrary_break doesn't seem to be overwhelming support for this (although admittedly I skimmed it very quickly).
Most of the objections simply felt the proposal was a solution in search of a problem. For whatever reason, they believed that a bureaucrat would not/should not shed their sysop flag. But I see value in it, and it's a fairly innocuous request that simply adds some redundancy to the userright. Could run an RFC if someone feels the consensus is not strong enough.
I really do not see a clear consensus on this. The fact it is on enwiki makes it even more pressing to have it. Since this is already covered by sysop rights, and 'crats can assign themselves sysop, unless there is a clear consensus, I do not feel comfortable making this change.
Since my new role means I'll be hanging onto +sysop for some time, I'll table this for now, and perhaps revisit this in the future. I still think that, at the very least, "move-subpages" and "suppressredirect" should be in the bureaucrat package because both are strictly necessary for carrying out renames. Surely I am not the first, nor will I be the last, bureaucrat who toyed around with the idea of shuffling off the sysop coil to quietly toil away performing renames. Thanks for your attention to this.
It's been over a week since the RfC was started, and the conversation has petered out. I think it's safe to wrap these up. adding deletedhistory, deletedtext, and browsearchive for 'crats has failed to reach clear consensus, and is at 36-26 right now. adding move-subpages, suppressredirect, and tboverride for 'crats has a consensus, currently at 54-3 Sven.
I think the new RFC hasn't been linked in this bug request, it's at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Make userrights self-sufficient]]. There is consensus for adding move-subpages, suppressredirect, and tboverride rights to the bureaucrat usergroup. There is no consensus for adding any other.
Correct. This bug was linked to from the other bug, bugzilla:28440, which linked to that thread. Cenarium is correct in his assessment, as far as it applies to 'crats. There was consensus involving adding rights to CU and OS, but those are handled in 28440. So in short, yes, what is actionable for this bug is adding move-subpages, suppressredirect, and tboverride rights to the bureaucrat usergroup. Sven.
As was demonstrated in https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Make_userrights_self-sufficient#General_discussion 'renameuser' userright allows bureaucrats to move unlimited number of user subpages. Therefore 'move-subpages' userright is not needed.
Nevertheless, it may be required to cleanup in some rare instances, and consensus exists to add movesubpages.
What's still to be actioned here?
There is a consensus that bureaucrats on enwiki (who choose not to be sysops) should be able to move user pages with subpages and suppress redirects. They also should be exempted from the titleblacklist. As the discussion showed the renameuser extension already allows bureaucrats to move unlimited number of user subpages. Therefore what remains are suppressing redirects and titleblacklist exemption. So, you are asked to add 'supressredirect' and 'tboverride' userrights to the bureaucrat group on enwiki. That's all.
There are rare cases where bureaucrats may need to move subpages via the move interface, and clear consensus to grant them this ability. If you disagree with the consensus result, I suggest you initiate another discussion on wiki.
Re: comment #15 and comment #16, Reedy wants a clear comment that shows what needs to be changed according to the consensus (and a link to the consensus), so that he can figure out what needs to be done and do it. Could someone please provide a list of what needs to be done so that Reedy can easily handle the bug? (This is why you're not supposed to argue or discussion on Bugzilla... it makes things unclear and harder to process, causing them to sit.)
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Make_userrights_self-sufficient#Add_move-related_privileges_to_Bureaucrat "Clear consensus in favour of implementation Happy‑melon 10:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)"
I totally agree with the Happy-Melon's closure. There is a clear consensus to add 'supressredirect', 'tboverride' to the bureaucrat group in enwiki. Happy-Melon was actually one who pointed our attention to the fact that bureaucrats already could move user subpages. (See his comment at the bottom of the https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Make_userrights_self-sufficient#General_discussion). So his "clear consensus" likely meant that only these two userrights should be added. So, the best way to go forward is to add there two userrights now. 'move-subpages', which appears to be superfluous, can be added later if Happy-Melon disagrees with my interpretation of his closure. (He is now on Wikibreak.)
@Casey: I am sorry that Ruslan is making things unclear by arguing a pecuiliar interpretation of a very clear statement by Happy-melon. The close statement, immediately next to the proposal statement was clear: "Clear consensus in favour of implementation". The proposal statement was: "In order to remove the technical limitation that bureaucrats must also be administrators to properly carry out renames, the move-subpages, suppressredirect, and tboverride rights should be added to the bureaucrat permission group." This was supported by 57 editors, and opposed by 3. Ruslan was one of the opposers (signing as Ruslik_Zero), which may help explain his attempt to subvert consensus by continued argument here.
The statement of Happy-Melon was clear: implement the proposal as written. In other words remove the technical limitations that prevent bureaucrats from "properly carrying out renames". There are only two such limitations. The third was shown to be non-existent. This was supported by 57 editors, and opposed by 3. Xenocidic was one of the supporters (signing as xeno), which may help explain his attempt to push an unnecessary configuration change by continued argument here.
As I pointed out at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Make_userrights_self-sufficient#Discussion_4 sometimes moving subpages outside the context of the RenameUser extension is required to properly complete a rename - giving the specific example of when renames hang. You did not rebut this statement and the proposal was closed without other editors specifically objecting to the addition of move-subpages to the bureaucrat toolset. Please take this on-wiki to seek additional opinions if you feel that 'move-subapges' should not be added to the bureaucrat toolset despite the clear consensus to do so. I've emailed Happy-melon requesting s/he clarify their closure.
I did not rebute because your example was not sufficiently specific, but I noted that other userrights may be required in this case: protect,editusercss and edituserjs. Therefore this was not a proper remedy. As to other users, they did not object because they did not know that this technical limitation did not exist - this fact was discovered too late.
The discussion at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Make_userrights_self-sufficient#Add_move-related_privileges_to_Bureaucrat shows a consensus for the addition of all three permissions. In my own personal opinion, the movesubpages permission is superfluous, but that is not the consensus of the community. It is certainly a pretty harmless permission to add.
Done
