Last modified: 2008-08-04 03:10:00 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 14556 - Global groups defined for certain sets of wikis
Global groups defined for certain sets of wikis
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: MediaWiki extensions
Classification: Unclassified
CentralAuth (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal enhancement with 3 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-06-16 12:14 UTC by Milos Rancic
Modified: 2008-08-04 03:10 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

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


Attachments

Description Milos Rancic 2008-06-16 12:14:34 UTC
So, according to requests of significant number of contributors, technical opt-out for global groups is needed for the implementation of global groups. See [1].

[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metapub#Global_sysops_.28poll.29
Comment 1 Andrew Garrett 2008-06-16 13:31:57 UTC
I have made my thoughts on this known. I utterly oppose any total opt-out mechanism for global groups. It rather defeats the purpose of a global group, not existing on a few wikis.

That said, I am open to the possibility of groups applying on "sets" of wikis, for instance, "small wikis", and so on.
Comment 2 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2008-06-16 13:36:13 UTC
Any opt-out, of course, needs to be per-group.  If stewards are a global group, nobody will be allowed to opt out of them, obviously; but wikis may legitimately want to opt out of global sysops; and an entirely different set of wikis may want to opt out of global bots.
Comment 3 Milos Rancic 2008-06-16 13:39:18 UTC
I think that it would be good to allow such possibility to particular projects.
They would need to make the policy for opting-out, which means that they will
have to pass through the process at their wikis. I think that the majority of
projects which may opt-out wouldn't opt-out. Even en.wp made a supportive
policy for global sysops.

However, other option would be good enough for solving problems, too.

And, yes, I agree with Simetrical's position.
Comment 4 Marcin Cieślak 2008-06-16 16:30:51 UTC
This needs much more thought than that. An opt-in could be one of the options. After SUL settles down, one might think about cross-project permissions, may be in form of groups of wikis. Why aren't small wikis inviting people to sysop there?

I know that global groups are easy to implement, but this does not necessary mean we have to do it "because we can".
Comment 5 Chad H. 2008-06-16 17:06:48 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> ...Why aren't small wikis inviting people to sysop
> there?

Arguably, the small wikis don't even know global sysops exist.

Comment 6 Milos Rancic 2008-06-16 22:42:28 UTC
So, to be more precise, the option should be implemented in the next way:
* Stewards should be able to grant to local bureaucrats a new menu for a particular group. Such option will be given only to the large wikis. (see [1]).
* At the menu local bureaucrats will be able to check and uncheck global rights for their own wiki (like stewards now may do globally). While it will be unchecking at the most of the times, it is possible to suppose that some projects would willing to give some more rights to global sysops (or any other group).
* Of course, policy related to granting this option to the local bureaucrats will assume that they will need to have the policy toward those roles and permissions (written in English) before they get it.

[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_sysops/Small_and_large_wikis
Comment 7 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2008-06-16 23:05:17 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> So, to be more precise, the option should be implemented in the next way:
> * Stewards should be able to grant to local bureaucrats a new menu for a
> particular group. Such option will be given only to the large wikis. (see [1]).
> * At the menu local bureaucrats will be able to check and uncheck global rights
> for their own wiki (like stewards now may do globally). While it will be
> unchecking at the most of the times, it is possible to suppose that some
> projects would willing to give some more rights to global sysops (or any other
> group).

Adding rights is potentially a little scary, depending on what rights are made available.  For instance, clearly bureaucrats should never be able to give any group the 'userrights' right.  Subtracting rights makes more sense.
Comment 8 Andrew Garrett 2008-06-17 07:15:25 UTC
My intention is to allow stewards to define groups of wikis as including or excluding specific wikis. Stewards will then specify which groups of wikis a global group will apply to. This seems to be the most sensible option.
Comment 9 Milos Rancic 2008-06-17 10:09:28 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> My intention is to allow stewards to define groups of wikis as including or
> excluding specific wikis. Stewards will then specify which groups of wikis a
> global group will apply to. This seems to be the most sensible option.
> 

This seems fine to me.

BTW, sorry if it seems like a pressure, but I would like to know what amount of time you need for doing that? (If you need 6 months, it's OK, I would just like to know an approximation.)
Comment 10 Milos Rancic 2008-06-17 10:16:38 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> My intention is to allow stewards to define groups of wikis as including or
> excluding specific wikis. Stewards will then specify which groups of wikis a
> global group will apply to. This seems to be the most sensible option.
> 

BTW, may you allow to stewards to adapt permissions per project? For example, en.wp community thinks that rollback is fine for global sysops, which means that global sysops should keep that permission there. Other may think that blocking proxies are OK, too; etc.
Comment 11 Aryeh Gregor (not reading bugmail, please e-mail directly) 2008-06-17 16:00:22 UTC
(In reply to comment #8)
> My intention is to allow stewards to define groups of wikis as including or
> excluding specific wikis. Stewards will then specify which groups of wikis a
> global group will apply to. This seems to be the most sensible option.

It might be unnecessarily roundabout.  I suspect you'd have one group of wikis defined per global group, in which case you may as well get rid of the idea of specifying the group of wikis in a separate step and just have a list per global group.
Comment 12 Cometstyles 2008-06-25 23:05:01 UTC
Any update on this ? ...
Comment 13 Victor Vasiliev 2008-07-23 20:24:48 UTC
Fixed in r37975.
Comment 14 Milos Rancic 2008-07-24 23:34:41 UTC
Thanks Vasilev! :)
Comment 15 Brion Vibber 2008-07-28 22:17:28 UTC
Note this was reverted pending some post-review fixes.
Comment 16 Jesse (Pathoschild) 2008-08-04 02:51:36 UTC
Thanks, it seems to be live again (marked as fixed).
Comment 17 Brion Vibber 2008-08-04 03:10:00 UTC
Yep, current version should be live since a few days ago. Report if any further problems.

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


Navigation
Links