mattbisanz wrote:

I believe this is a feature, not a bug. Being able to edit closed wikis permits the remove of libel or the fixing of things that break as the software changes over time. While the wikis are closed, they are still publicly visible.

This is a feature, not a bug. Closed wikis should be editable by stewards for major issues (ie removing copyvios that for some reason are still, there, BLP vios, this kind of stuff).

This is, indeed, a feature; not a bug. And it's used from time to time. I suggest this be closed as INVALID as this is not a bug.

(In reply to comment #1)

I believe this is a feature, not a bug. Being able to edit closed wikis permits
the remove of libel or the fixing of things that break as the software changes
over time. While the wikis are closed, they are still publicly visible.

And where does it stop? It's a wiki. There are always improvements that can be made. Closed means closed. Nobody should be editing these wikis.

(In reply to comment #2)

This is a feature, not a bug. Closed wikis should be editable by stewards for
major issues (ie removing copyvios that for some reason are still, there, BLP
vios, this kind of stuff).

That isn't what's happening. There was no libel being removed or anything of that nature. The wikis are closed. I'm not sure what's ambiguous here.

(In reply to comment #3)

This is, indeed, a feature; not a bug. And it's used from time to time. I
suggest this be closed as INVALID as this is not a bug.

Stewards are required to abide by consensus. The consensus has been to close these wikis. Some of the edits look like they're automated (editing every Wikimedia wiki), which is a bit more forgivable given that the software doesn't currently stop stewards from editing closed wikis. But in some cases, stewards are actively (manually) editing wikis that are closed. This should not be happening. The wikis are closed.

Ideally you would be able to trust the stewards to simply not use this power, but that doesn't seem to be enough here. There's a bug that has changed the meaning from "closed" to "mostly closed." This bug should be fixed.

(In reply to comment #5)

(In reply to comment #3)

This is, indeed, a feature; not a bug. And it's used from time to time. I
suggest this be closed as INVALID as this is not a bug.

Stewards are required to abide by consensus. The consensus has been to close
these wikis. Some of the edits look like they're automated (editing every
Wikimedia wiki), which is a bit more forgivable given that the software doesn't
currently stop stewards from editing closed wikis. But in some cases, stewards
are actively (manually) editing wikis that are closed. This should not be
happening. The wikis are closed.

Ideally you would be able to trust the stewards to simply not use this power,
but that doesn't seem to be enough here. There's a bug that has changed the
meaning from "closed" to "mostly closed." This bug should be fixed.

You will surely agree bugzilla is the place to ask for the implementation of consensus or to notify mediawiki's bugs.

Your objection doesn't involve any mediawiki's bug but it's a decision needing consensus. Nothing prevents you from opening a rfc on meta to ask for the removal of editing rights for stewards on closed wikis.

Actually I think you're simply saying most of edits done by stewards on closed wikis are useless...but that's another matter.

There is no bug, just a matter of userrights. Stewards have the 'edit' right via the CentralAuth groups. If we removed it we wouldn't be able to edit closed wikis but we are not removing it because we *need* to edit closed wikis from time to time and to perform other kind of operations.

FYI stewards are not the only ones that have that right: system administrators and staff members have it too. The right was given to us by Tim Starling because we needed it and we still need it.

There's no bug here, just a personal opinion; and nothing that needs bugzilla at all.

(In reply to comment #7)

There's no bug here, just a personal opinion; and nothing that needs bugzilla
at all.

How do you interpret "closed"? What level of editing is acceptable on closed wikis?

If some kind of critical edit is needed on these closed wikis, have it removed from closed.dblist temporarily. I can't imagine you'd need to do this more than once or twice a year. If there's evidence that this ability is needed more often, please share. The edits I've seen have nothing to do with libel or legal issues, they're simply stewards editing sites that are supposed to not be edited.

(In reply to comment #8)

(In reply to comment #7)

There's no bug here, just a personal opinion; and nothing that needs bugzilla
at all.

How do you interpret "closed"? What level of editing is acceptable on closed
wikis?

So, as I already said, you're mixing two problems, the idea of closed wikis that are still edited and alleged abuses of edit right by stewards.

Most of your thoughts are reasonable, but this is not a matter of bugzilla. Actually stewards themselves can remove edit right on closed wikis.

I'm closing this bug, feel free to propose a policy, on meta, about editing on closed wikis.

mattbisanz wrote:

(In reply to comment #9)

(In reply to comment #8)

(In reply to comment #7)

There's no bug here, just a personal opinion; and nothing that needs bugzilla
at all.

How do you interpret "closed"? What level of editing is acceptable on closed
wikis?

So, as I already said, you're mixing two problems, the idea of closed wikis
that are still edited and alleged abuses of edit right by stewards.

Most of your thoughts are reasonable, but this is not a matter of bugzilla.
Actually stewards themselves can remove edit right on closed wikis.

I'm closing this bug, feel free to propose a policy, on meta, about editing on
closed wikis.

I agree the most recent edits I made to fulfill a request on Meta weren't necessary and have declined to do the remainder of them after consulting with other stewards. But, given that closed wikis are still being updated to the newest version of the software, there will be other kinds of cleanup edits needed to maintain the presentation of historical materials.

wikimedia wrote:

Actually, stewards should make themselves administrators to edit closed wikis. They need to make themselves check users or oversighters to perform queries and to hide revisions. On the one hand this should be the same for closed wikis, on the other hand I think it's the Wikimedia Staff's decision. If they say stewards often need to edit closed wikis and it's okay for them if they can't see everything stewards do, then it's okay if stewards can keep their edit permission.

(In reply to comment #8)

(In reply to comment #7)

There's no bug here, just a personal opinion; and nothing that needs bugzilla
at all.

How do you interpret "closed"? What level of editing is acceptable on closed
wikis?

Interpretation of a word may be different from person to person, but policy tells me that your interpretation is wrong.

[[m:Closing projects policy]] defines closing a wiki as 'locking its database so that it cannot be edited by anyone except stewards'. As Vito says feel free to open a discussion on Meta.

And seems the issue you picked out is whether the edits themselves were appropriate, not the ability to edit itself.

(In reply to comment #12)

Interpretation of a word may be different from person to person, but policy
tells me that your interpretation is wrong.

[[m:Closing projects policy]] defines closing a wiki as 'locking its database
so that it cannot be edited by anyone except stewards'. As Vito says feel free
to open a discussion on Meta.

On a technical level, closed really ought to mean closed. I don't understand why allowing a user with the "edit" right overrides the wiki being listed in closed.dblist. That seems like simply wrong behavior.

I don't disagree with the idea that sometimes you might have to edit the closed wikis, I just feel that doing so should require the wiki being temporarily being removed from closed.dblist and then edited and then re-added to closed.dblist. Sometimes a little bureaucracy is an effective rate limiter.

You're absolutely right that some of this is more at a wiki policy (non-technical) level, though. Maybe I'll start a discussion at Meta-Wiki, but it's going to me discussing with active Meta-Wiki users (which is primarily... the stewards), so I'm not sure how much it's worth my time. :-)

(In reply to comment #13)

On a technical level, closed really ought to mean closed. I don't understand
why allowing a user with the "edit" right overrides the wiki being listed in
closed.dblist. That seems like simply wrong behavior.

Afaik wikis are closed just removing the edit rights from all local usergroups, as stewards we have these rights embedded into our global group. Btw this "hack" seems to be the easiest way to close a WMF wiki.

You're absolutely right that some of this is more at a wiki policy
(non-technical) level, though. Maybe I'll start a discussion at Meta-Wiki, but
it's going to me discussing with active Meta-Wiki users (which is primarily...
the stewards), so I'm not sure how much it's worth my time. :-)

But that's not a good reason to circumvent consensus with a blitz on bugzilla...finally you know how to create dozen of puppets to support your point of view :p

Just as I have nowhere else to really note it, I'll leave a comment here.

One of the quirks of the current system is apparently that stewards have to find someone to create a local account for them on the closed wikis if the steward never made one before the wiki was closed.

There are a lot of aspects of this situation at both a technical and policy level that are unclear or wrong. Oh well.