Last modified: 2014-11-19 15:14:24 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T44105, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 42105 - Restore normal bureaucrat permissions where changed without consensus
Restore normal bureaucrat permissions where changed without consensus
Status: REOPENED
Product: Wikimedia
Classification: Unclassified
Site requests (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Low normal (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.ph...
: community-consensus-needed
Depends on: 42113 42114 42459
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2012-11-14 17:58 UTC by Nemo
Modified: 2014-11-19 15:14 UTC (History)
13 users (show)

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


Attachments

Description Nemo 2012-11-14 17:58:08 UTC
See URL: on some wikis the permissions given to bureaucrat group have been changed against consensus (by mistake, without it being requested) or no request (with associated consensus) has been found with all due diligence by several users who dug the archives.
On those wikis the default configuration should be restored.
Comment 1 Nemo 2012-11-14 18:05:28 UTC
Gerrit change #33390
Comment 2 Snowolf 2012-11-14 18:17:35 UTC
Configuration changes, especially important ones, should be left to the communities pursuant to their policies and global policies. These changes indeed were not made with community agreement and hence should be reverted as Nemo asked.
Comment 3 Alex Monk 2012-11-14 20:51:29 UTC
Have the communities (enwiktionary, fiwiki, nowikibooks, ruwikisource, sewikimedia) been asked whether or not they actually want the bureaucrats to keep these permission? They at least need to be notified about this first.
Sewikimedia is completely out of the question here, based on bug 14665.

Also, the shell user considering this request should take into account the bug creator's ideas on these rights (bureaucrat being able to remove bureaucrat/sysop) specifically - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Limits_to_configuration_changes#Disconnection_from_stewards_overseeing
Comment 5 Nemo 2012-11-14 21:04:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> Have the communities (enwiktionary, fiwiki, nowikibooks, ruwikisource,
> sewikimedia) been asked whether or not they actually want the bureaucrats to
> keep these permission? They at least need to be notified about this first.

Notifications are good (thanks Dereckson). Please open separate bugs for each request to keep the non-default configuration, to reduce mess.

> Sewikimedia is completely out of the question here, based on bug 14665.

I re-read the bug entirely and I don't see any request to change bureaucrat config. As it's a chapter wiki, anyway, it will be trivial for the board or president to confirm the need for it with another bug of course.

> Also, the shell user considering this request should take into account the bug
> creator's ideas 

????
Comment 6 Alex Monk 2012-11-14 21:39:49 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Sewikimedia is completely out of the question here, based on bug 14665.
> 
> I re-read the bug entirely and I don't see any request to change bureaucrat
> config. As it's a chapter wiki, anyway, it will be trivial for the board or
> president to confirm the need for it with another bug of course.

Okay you're probably right, let's treat it like the others.

> > Also, the shell user considering this request should take into account the bug
> > creator's ideas 
> 
> ????

Basically I think that because you disagree with any bureaucrats being able to remove sysop/bureaucrat (not just on wikis which don't have consensus for it), this should be taken into consideration before deploying the change.

That's not to say it shouldn't be done, because it probably should (once the communities have been notified and the relevant bugs - bug 13853, bug 14568, bug 14665 commented on).
Comment 7 Dereckson 2012-11-14 22:28:12 UTC
[ -shell +shellpolicy following en.wiktionary objection ]
Comment 8 Nemo 2012-11-14 22:35:02 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> That's not to say it shouldn't be done, because it probably should [...]

(In reply to comment #7)
> [ -shell +shellpolicy following en.wiktionary objection ]

Dereckson, please open separate bugs for each wiki if they are able to link proper consensus on the matter.
Comment 9 Dereckson 2012-11-14 22:48:12 UTC
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > [ -shell +shellpolicy following en.wiktionary objection ]
> 
> Dereckson, please open separate bugs for each wiki if they are able to link
> proper consensus on the matter.

I beg to differ. Grandfathering should apply here. The correct configuration request workflow didn't impose especially a bug in the past. This is the current best practice, not the older one.
Comment 10 Nemo 2012-11-14 22:51:45 UTC
As noted by others, this bug is correct; I split each wiki to its bug as of course we need local consensus URL for such rights to be assigned to user groups.
-shellpolicy +dependencies
Comment 11 Andre Klapper 2012-11-15 08:50:00 UTC
(In reply to comment #10)
> I split each wiki to its bug as of course we need local consensus URL

I don't see how the latter requires the first. :)
Comment 12 Nemo 2012-11-15 09:05:19 UTC
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > I split each wiki to its bug as of course we need local consensus URL
> 
> I don't see how the latter requires the first. :)

Because we have only one URL field. ;-)
It's way clearer to track this way and how shell requests are usually handled, that's it.
Comment 13 kimmo.virtanen 2012-11-15 10:46:18 UTC
So far in fiwiki. 

Discussion is ongoing in village pump of policy and should go least two weeks or so to get proper opinion of the community. However there was already short discussion in the village pump of policy about the bureaucrat rights in April 2012. 

Summary of that discussion was that we got right to remove users from sysop and bureaucrat groups by a chance without any notification or request for it. However the right of remove users from sysop and bureaucrat groups has been useful and there hasn't been any problems with it. Nobody in that discussion (or so far in the current discussion either) wanted to remove those rights. 

- http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kahvihuone_%28k%C3%A4yt%C3%A4nn%C3%B6t%29#Muutos_byrokraattien_ja_yll.C3.A4pit.C3.A4jien_oikeuksien_asetuksiin
- http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kahvihuone_%28k%C3%A4yt%C3%A4nn%C3%B6t%29/Arkisto_83#Superk.C3.A4ytt.C3.A4j.C3.A4t
Comment 14 Jan Ainali 2012-11-26 21:24:50 UTC
The Swedish chapter would like to keep the rights. Reasons are mentioned in https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42459 (which might be closed as duplicate to this?).
Comment 15 Alex Monk 2012-11-26 21:26:18 UTC
See bug 42459 - someone on the Swedish Wikimedia chapter board says that they want to keep the ability for bureaucrats to remove admins. They didn't mention bureaucrats removing bureaucrats though...
Comment 16 Nemo 2012-11-26 21:49:10 UTC
Update: fi.wiki and se.wikimedia told us our will but en.wikt is still waiting for a link; no.books didn't react/bother (they'll have to request it afterwards if they change their mind); ru.source is being notified now because they don't like people talking to them ;) (village pump semiprotected etc.).
Comment 18 Nemo 2013-01-03 11:38:53 UTC
No objections from ru.source and no.books, en.wikt held a vote: patch updated.
Comment 19 Dereckson 2013-01-04 18:35:49 UTC
(In reply to comment #18)
> No objections from ru.source and no.books, en.wikt held a vote: patch
> updated.
Please raise again the issue on ru.source (especially there: their village pump is active), maybe directly in Russian (we have a lot of Russians users involved in Wikipedia) and no.books.

Or let the situation as it's currently for these two wikis.

And finally, ask se.wikimedia if they want or not to be able to debureaucrat.

[ Bug assigned to change submitter. +shellpolicy ]
Comment 20 Andre Klapper 2013-02-06 14:31:11 UTC
(In reply to comment #19)
> Please raise again the issue on ru.source (especially there: their village
> pump is active), maybe directly in Russian (we have a lot of Russians 
> users involved in Wikipedia) and no.books.
> 
> Or let the situation as it's currently for these two wikis.
> 
> And finally, ask se.wikimedia if they want or not to be able to debureaucrat.

Has anybody had the time to do this?
Comment 21 Tomasz W. Kozlowski 2013-05-14 20:58:07 UTC
[Removed the 'patch-in-gerrit' keyword since the patch was abandoned, changed status from 'ASSIGNED' to 'NEW' due to the lack of an assignee.]
Comment 22 Alex Monk 2013-07-24 01:09:59 UTC
(In reply to comment #19)
> Please raise again the issue on ru.source (especially there: their village
> pump
> is active), maybe directly in Russian (we have a lot of Russians users
> involved
> in Wikipedia) and no.books.
> 
> Or let the situation as it's currently for these two wikis.
> 
> And finally, ask se.wikimedia if they want or not to be able to debureaucrat.

Has this been done yet?
Comment 23 Alex Monk 2013-07-24 01:13:47 UTC
Also what's going to happen about nowikibooks? Doesn't look like there was any reply...
Comment 24 This, that and the other (TTO) 2014-01-09 08:35:20 UTC
(In reply to comment #23)
> Also what's going to happen about nowikibooks? Doesn't look like there was
> any
> reply...

There is very little activity on nowikibooks. Dereckson's post of November 2012 is still where he left it, with no replies, and no other human has posted on the community portal since.

Personally, I would just remove the right from nowikibooks. It's clear that they are not going to be needing it for the foreseeable future anyway: the only bureaucrat has not edited since 2007.
Comment 25 p858snake 2014-01-09 08:50:32 UTC
Is there a link to the changeset that changed these rights to begin with?
Comment 26 This, that and the other (TTO) 2014-01-09 10:04:20 UTC
No there isn't. The rights were set up this way when the config files were first checked into Git. That's why we're here...
Comment 27 TeleComNasSprVen 2014-06-13 07:00:51 UTC
All dependent bugs have been resolved; is there anything else left to do here?
Comment 28 This, that and the other (TTO) 2014-06-13 07:37:39 UTC
(In reply to TeleComNasSprVen from comment #27)
> All dependent bugs have been resolved; is there anything else left to do
> here?

Yes, see comment 24 (rights to be removed from nowikibooks). 

Not sure what happened with ruwikisource. Bureaucrats there still have the right to de-bureaucrat others.

I'm inclined to leave sewikimedia alone. They're an active chapter who probably like the ability to add and remove bureaucrat rights on their own wiki without needing to trouble the stewards. I've added Jan Ainali to confirm or deny this.
Comment 29 Jan Ainali 2014-06-13 08:02:41 UTC
Thanks for the notice, and yes you are right, we would like to have that ability.
Comment 30 Gerrit Notification Bot 2014-06-13 17:23:25 UTC
Change 139428 had a related patch set uploaded by Withoutaname:
Restore defaults for nowikibooks bureaucrats

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/139428
Comment 31 Gerrit Notification Bot 2014-07-03 19:40:40 UTC
Change 139428 merged by jenkins-bot:
Restore defaults for nowikibooks bureaucrats

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/139428
Comment 32 Trijnstel 2014-10-18 11:08:01 UTC
(In reply to Nemo from comment #17)
> Links to the mentioned notifications:
> https://ru.wikisource.org/?diff=prev&oldid=942610
> https://en.wiktionary.org/?diff=prev&oldid=18891550
> https://no.wikibooks.org/?oldid=34191#footer

Despite these notifications it has never been done on ruwikisource, while it has been done on enwiktionary (see bug 42113) and nowikibooks eventually (this bug). Can someone please remove the admin/crat from bureaucrats on ruwikisource too?
Comment 33 Glaisher 2014-10-18 11:21:32 UTC
(In reply to Trijnstel from comment #32)
> (In reply to Nemo from comment #17)
> > Links to the mentioned notifications:
> > https://ru.wikisource.org/?diff=prev&oldid=942610
> > https://en.wiktionary.org/?diff=prev&oldid=18891550
> > https://no.wikibooks.org/?oldid=34191#footer
> 
> Despite these notifications it has never been done on ruwikisource, while it
> has been done on enwiktionary (see bug 42113) and nowikibooks eventually
> (this bug). Can someone please remove the admin/crat from bureaucrats on
> ruwikisource too?

That was in 2012 and the post was in English. There is an active community at ruWS now so it might be useful to post about it again.
Comment 34 Trijnstel 2014-11-19 15:14:24 UTC
(In reply to Glaisher from comment #33)
> (In reply to Trijnstel from comment #32)
> > (In reply to Nemo from comment #17)
> > > Links to the mentioned notifications:
> > > https://ru.wikisource.org/?diff=prev&oldid=942610
> > > https://en.wiktionary.org/?diff=prev&oldid=18891550
> > > https://no.wikibooks.org/?oldid=34191#footer
> > 
> > Despite these notifications it has never been done on ruwikisource, while it
> > has been done on enwiktionary (see bug 42113) and nowikibooks eventually
> > (this bug). Can someone please remove the admin/crat from bureaucrats on
> > ruwikisource too?
> 
> That was in 2012 and the post was in English. There is an active community
> at ruWS now so it might be useful to post about it again.

Done: https://ru.wikisource.org/?diff=prev&oldid=1312067

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


Navigation
Links