Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:05:24 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 9710 - Allow sysops to sacrifice their status to take down other sysops
Allow sysops to sacrifice their status to take down other sysops
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
General/Unknown (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Lowest enhancement (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-04-26 16:17 UTC by Jesse Viviano
Modified: 2011-03-13 18:05 UTC (History)
0 users

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


Attachments

Description Jesse Viviano 2007-04-26 16:17:43 UTC
By popular demand, I am posting a request to allow administrators to sacrifice 
their sysop bit in order to take away one other administrator's sysop bit. 
There are many reasons for this. First, a few administrators, like Wonderfool 
on Wiktionary and Robdurbar on Wikipedia, become vandals and must be taken down 
ASAP. Second, some public terminals are zombies with keyloggers on them. 
Administrators who uses such terminals could get their accounts compromised by 
a vandal. Third, the steep price of losing one's sysop status will keep most 
administrators from abusing this. Fourth, by pointing the business end of this 
ability at oneself, it makes an easy way to resign without asking for a 
steward's help, which might have prevented Robdurbar from needing to go on a 
vandalism spree. Fifth, someone suggested that this would be a way for wheel 
warriors to stop wheel wars by themselves.

If this ability is implemented, a log for this type of action must be 
implemented. It cannot be a standard log, because stewards must be able to 
process and mark incidents in the log. When the ability is used, a new case is 
generated. These cases must be differentiated from other cases. The possible 
statuses (which should only be changed by stewards for reasons below) should be 
New, Assigned to a steward (which should indicate the steward's name), 
Forwarded to ArbCom (which would apply only to wikis with Arbitration 
Committees), and Closed. If the case is a resignation, it should automatically 
be entered as Closed instead of New in the sacrifice log.

Whenever this ability is used, a log entry must be generated for a steward to 
look at. The reason that only a steward should process this is that stewards 
are trusted enough to make final decisions on who should stay desysoped. If it 
is a resignation, no action needs to be taken. If it is an obvious case like 
the Robdurbar or Wonderfool cases, the steward can simply repromote the hero 
who stopped the rogue administrator. If it is a wheel war, the steward will 
have to investigate the case if it is on a small wiki and decide what to do. If 
it is on a wiki with an ArbCom, the case should be forwarded to the ArbCom for 
investigation. After the appropriate actions have been taken (e.g. the ArbCom 
closes the case or the steward who takes the case makes a decision), the 
steward needs to mark the incident as closed in the log. If it is decided that 
later on that bureaucrats should be able to desysop others, then the ability of 
handling sacrifice log entries should also be granted to them as well.

Of course, attempts to take away a steward's sysop bit should fail and result 
in no action whatsoever besides an error page explaining that stewards are 
immune to this, because stewards are required to be able to promote and demote 
other users.
Comment 1 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-04-26 16:19:59 UTC
Please develop a consensus on a particular wiki for this, and link to the 
discussion that indicates the consensus for enabling it on that wiki.  It 
should not be difficult to write an extension to do what you request, but it's 
not useful if no one wants it.  This will almost certainly not be added as a 
feature in the core software.
Comment 2 Jesse Viviano 2007-04-26 16:27:09 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Please develop a consensus on a particular wiki for this, and link to the 
discussion that indicates the consensus for enabling it on that wiki. It should 
not be difficult to write an extension to do what you request, but it's not 
useful if no one wants it. This will almost certainly not be added as a feature 
in the core software.

This is the first time I have made such a proposal, and I had to go with my 
best guess at where to post this. I am not sure where it should be posted, and 
the guidelines at the English Wikipedia's village pump said that this kind of 
thing should go here, because this requires a software modification. I was 
getting much praise for my idea on my talk page at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jesse_Viviano#Sacrificing_sysop_bits. 
Which section of the Village Pump should I send this to, then?
Comment 3 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2007-04-26 16:32:12 UTC
Such a far-reaching change would probably, according to enwiki convention,
require a few weeks to a few months of discussion followed by a lengthy poll
publicized on the Recentchanges page.  See [[Wikipedia:How to create policy]]. 
This is a major change and the sysadmins will not enable it until there's clear
agreement within the wiki concerned.

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


Navigation
Links