Last modified: 2013-09-20 19:04:57 UTC
Is it possible to add right of granting and revoking bot group to administrators per local consensus? Thank you.
*** Bug 51495 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Is there a link to local consensus?
To answer the question from comment 0: sure, it's possible, but you'll need a lot of local consensus to do that. Preferably including all bureaucrats and a lot of other community members, since a decision like that will influence all administrators and bureaucrats to come.
(In reply to comment #3) > To answer the question from comment 0: sure, it's possible, but you'll need a > lot of local consensus to do that. Preferably including all bureaucrats and a > lot of other community members, since a decision like that will influence all > administrators and bureaucrats to come. Such a wide consensus was not needed for the only other similar request that I can find (bug 45233).
(In reply to comment #4) > Such a wide consensus was not needed for the only other similar request that > I can find (bug 45233). Which does not mean that not requiring it was right. Taking away rights that have always been assigned to bureaucrats and giving it to administrators /is/ a big deal, and it's only natural (I think) to have all bureaucrats agree with such change. In any case, that's only a matter of theory, because there are no local bureaucrats on ckb.wikipedia (just checked that), and only around 7 active users, ie. with > 45 edits in the past month. Taking that into consideration, why would you want to assign this right to administrators? Can't you elect a local bureaucrats or let stewards deal with this for the time being? There aren't any super-active bots on ckb.wikipedia as far as I can see... <https://ckb.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ActiveUsersoffset=&limit=500>
Why it is possible for pt.wikivoyage but not for ckb.wikipedia whereas ckb.wikipedia is very older and bigger than pt.wikivoyage? We don't need to local bureaucrats, only bot flag is enough. We want to become independent from meta and stewards because it is a slow process and very troublesome. For example see here: http://ckb.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=لێدوانی_بەکارھێنەر:Calak/ئەرشیڤی_٣&diff=188379&oldid=187990 I have a bot (Calakbot) with 37,000 edits and it has flag on 25 projects, I am aware about bot and bot policy. Yes, we don't have active bots on our wikipedia but I want to introduce active users to the bot and expand our project via bots. Our wikipedia future depends on bots and this flag is very important for us. We perform local discussin about this and I will raport the result here. Thank you.
Solving every single issue of ckb.wikipedia is pointless; just elect a local bureaucrat (or more than one).
"Solving every single issue of ckb.wikipedia via shell requests is pointless" is what I meant, sorry.
We don't want local bureaucrat, nobody wants become bureaucrat (even me with 19,000 edits) and it is our community decision. Now what are we suppose to do?
*In case* this becomes a generic debate on "we don't want bureaucrats", that might be better suited at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum
We don't want local bureaucrat 'now', whenever we elect a local bureaucrat, we revoke this right from administrators.
Why was this marked as resolved fixed?
Because it is not possible.
If this wasn't possible it'd be RESOLVED INVALID. It's certainly possible, but can't happen without discussion of users on ckbwiki.
There is no problem on ckbwiki with this request, only it needs simple local discussion.
Hello again. Per local consensus (URL) administrators should be able to grant or revoke bot right during bureaucrats absence. This right should be revoked from administrators if bureaucrat be elected. Thank you.
If this bug is not doable, please close it.
It's a policy grey area. I would prefer to see some global discussion on meta before fulfilling this request. I was going to close this bug as LATER, but that resolution is no longer available. I'll close it as WONTFIX, but please don't take it personally: feel free to reopen this if progress is made on the policy concerns.
Ooh, magic.
I want to remove this bug from 'My bugs', because it is nervewracking to me. Now everything is OK. Thank you TTO for your helping.
(In reply to comment #18) > It's a policy grey area. I would prefer to see some global discussion on meta > before fulfilling this request. No, that is not okay.
(In reply to comment #21) > No, that is not okay. Could you please explain this comment? Alex, if you want to go ahead and take this bug, you're welcome. I'm not going to do it, though.
(In reply to comment #22) > (In reply to comment #21) > > No, that is not okay. > > Could you please explain this comment? Alex, if you want to go ahead and take > this bug, you're welcome. I'm not going to do it, though. You can't just decide to override community consensus because you think "it's a policy grey area" and you would prefer to see it approved by the global community on meta first. As far as I'm aware there is no global policy preventing this change.
To accept or deny bots is mainly a matter of trust. On a small wiki, this trust level seems to belong to administrators. I so would be incline to accept such requests (and that's why I were fine with the bug 45233 request from pt.wikivoyage). But now, something casts a doubt: if nobody wants to be bureaucrat on ckb., is there really a correct level of trust in this wiki?
Dereckson, I speak about "now", I can't guarantee tomorrow. Perhaps one user nominate himself for bureaucrat on future, I don't know. I can't decide for our posterity.
Krenair you reopen this big twice but you don't take any action withal. I prefer somebody close this bug if nobody takes any action.
Please refrain yourself to close the bug before we reach a consensus. There isn't any emergency to see a bug open. I would suggest you summarize to your community this discussion, the fact we raised the fact someone could devote himself to become a bureaucrat if there is a need to promote bots, and ask again what they prefer. Meanwhile, This, that and the other, if you wish to let the global community discuss such requests, please open a discussion on meta. We can't refuse a configuration explaining we would like before community input, but meanwhile not act to open such a discussion.
We have two sysop there, me and another semi-inactive sysop. (See here: https://toolserver.org/~vvv/adminstats.php?wiki=ckbwiki_p&tlimit=31536000) There is no candidate for bureaucrat really. Even nobody nominates himself for administration. If we have someone for this, we don't report this bug.
I closed this bug because nobody has the backbone to do it. Thank you.
