Set $wgRemoveGroups['bureaucrat'][] = 'sysop' on enwiki
Closed, ResolvedPublic



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' ),

Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement


bzimport added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).
bzimport set Reference to bz18390.
bzimport created this task.Apr 7 2009, 4:43 PM
demon added a comment.Apr 7 2009, 4:45 PM

-easy, we don't use that keyword for shell bugs. wrote:

Changed priority to "low" since consensus indicates there is no pressing need for this.

Prodego wrote:

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.

Ruslik00 wrote:

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. ~~~~

mike.lifeguard+bugs wrote:

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. wrote:

@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.

mike.lifeguard+bugs wrote:

If you don't know what consensus is go talk to your local enwiki bureaucrat. This isn't good enough. wrote:

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?

Note that at least 1 enwiki bureaucrat has said that there is no consensus in the poll. wrote:

Worth noting that the currently-ongoing poll on enwiki ( 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.

Xeno added a comment.Aug 7 2011, 3:22 AM

*** Bug 30250 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Add Comment