Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-09/Whitelisted users autopatrol

Whitelisted users autopatrol

  • Voting on: Should the following combination of policy change and technical change be effected? (The vote on the technical changes is to show consensus so the developers can effect the change.)
  • technical request to developers:
    • enable groups "autopatrol", "patrol", and "rollback".
    • enable sysop access to UserRights
    • restrict sysop use of UserRights to add/remove "autopatrol", "patrol", and "rollback".
  • new en.wikt policy:
  • policy not changed:
    • not use the "patrol" and "rollback" groups for now, but having them available for discussion and trial; they can then be used as desired without another technical request to devlopers.
  • Vote ends: 22 October 2008 23:59 UTC
  • Vote started: 22 September 2008 23:59 UTC


  1.   Supportmsh210 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   SupportRuakhTALK 23:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3.   Support Nadando 00:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4.   Support Robert Ullmann 06:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5.   Support Dodde 04:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6.   Support Conrad.Irwin 11:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7.   Support Neskaya kanetsv 15:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8.   Support Ƿidsiþ 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC) I think I understand this...[reply]
  9.   Support although I agree with EP that only 'crats need the privilege. Patrol really only applies to those who turn down nomination for sysop, which isn't a large number. The largest group would be autopatrol for whitelisting. If those designations take up someone's time then it might be better to have an additional 'crat like EP than to grant any sysop the ability. Skipping the whitelist process is an easy mistake for anyone to make, and imagine how difficult it would be to undo that, let alone discover it. Without a wikied master list the record has to be reconstructed from a long history. DAVilla 18:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  1.   Oppose EncycloPetey 06:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC), but only because of "enable sysop access to UserRights". With WF having been made sysop here three times, I can't support granting this power to the sysops...to crats perhaps, but not to sysops. --EncycloPetey 06:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the proposal would also "restrict sysop use of UserRights to add/remove 'autopatrol', 'patrol', and 'rollback'", so admins would not be able to, e.g., make anyone a bot, admin, etc. Since any admin can patrol any edit, having an admin be able to grant patrol or autopatrol rights is not that big a deal security-wise; and having anyone be able to grant rollback rights is not that big a deal security-wise, since rollbacking is just fancy reverting.—msh210 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The current system maintains a list of who has been granted these rights. I see no provision for such a list in this proposal, which means if rights are inappropriately granted, who would know? Without some listing of who has which rights, I stand by my assertion that this creates unacceptable problems. --EncycloPetey 04:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      This enables the groups "patrol", "autopatrol", and "rollback"; these groups appear in Special:ListUsers exactly as "sysop" or "bot", etc. For example, the en.wp uses group "rollback", so see the user list here. Please note that this is a standard MW feature, implemented in core, not some bogus extension! All we are asking for is config variable changes, see talk page for the specifics. Robert Ullmann 11:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2.   Oppose H. (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I follow EP on this.[reply]