Last modified: 2011-02-08 21:55:58 UTC
Per http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Usergroup_for_OTRS_at_Commons we'd love to create two new groups: 1.OTRS-member. Actual rights would be autopatroll, assignable only by stewards 2.Image-reviewer. Actual right would be autopatroll as well. Assignable by admins
Hrm, there doesn't seem to be much consensus for such a site-wide request. Three support votes, in less than two days, in a very short section? Perhaps this should be placed on hold until decent discussion has taken place.
This seems hugely to be a 'tagging' role to assist the OTRS volunteers to better accomplish their tasks. As such, I am not going to wait for a ton of folks to chime in, in particular when no one is opposed. I will follow back up on this after its about a week old or so, if no one is opposed by then, I will go ahead and move forward to the changes requested.
@Rob if you need additional weight, I can see no foreseeable problems with this. OTRS users should already be capable of autopatrolling images anyway.
Well when Cary and I agree it must be a great idea ^_^ The change is pushed live, gotta support those OTRS folks and the thankless tasks they do.
Apparently, stewards have to grant themselves the steward right on Commons so they can grant themselves the right to grant OTRS-member rights. This is less than ideal, but I'm not sure how it gets fixed.
Creating the group on metawiki would mean that stewards can assign the right from meta, which is the prefered way of assigning rights for stewards.
I know I am late but I have not seen this bug before. If not too much work I suggest to rename the group 'image-reviwer' to 'file-reviewer' for consistency with the file namespace and the existing 'filemover' usergroup.
Lars, So now you want the same group also on meta? Why? You can use the meta group assigner to add groups to users that dont exist on meta...(afaik) Cary, We can change it so a different group can add it instead, which do you suggest? If you guys want the rename, then it has to have agreement atleast in this bug...
'the same group' on Meta ? I understood Lars' commons as a proposal for a global group. Not sure if that's what he meant though. But if so, I'd do it this way: A global group "OTRS-volunteers" and global group "OTRS-admins". A steward could assign a few "OTRS-admins" as a one-time thing. From then on "OTRS-admins" can assign both the "OTRS-admins" and "OTRS-volunteers" group to users. Then there is no middle man who needs to cross check (with middle man I mean a steward who comes to Commons after checking with OTRS and asigning a group). Just an idea :-)
That's not what I meant. Stewards can't assign groups via userrights-interwiki (that we use on meta), if the group that we are trying to assign on a remote wiki doesn't exist on meta (the group has to exists in metas LocalSettings.php). If stewards are to assign this group if it doesn't exist locally on meta, then we'd have to assign ourself steward-rights on commons, and then assign that right locally on commons, then removing or steward-rights from commons again on meta, which is *alot* of work, especially since there would probably be a lot of assigning...
I'm not sure I follow. How is this done for groups like global rollback and steward and the like ? Is it possible with the existing functionality to have a global group "OTRS-admins". Users member of it can Add/Remove their own group and the "OTRS-member" group to users. Probably managed via Meta. I can imagine if this functionality has been made specifically for Stewards. But if it's not, that'd be nice. I'll post this at COM:VP aswell, since this is different then the original proposal.
In retrospect, I'm going to suggest that this userright be granted by local bureaucrats on request by OTRS admins (especially given that no small number of the Commons bureaucrats are stewards anyway). The Commons bureaucrats can certainly put a section on bureaucrat requests and easily follow through with granting access. Can we agree that it's okay for local bureaucrats to grant this? Cary
(In reply to comment #8) > You can use the meta group assigner to add groups to users that dont exist on meta...(afaik) No, it is not possible but it has been requested on bug 12518 FWIW
I agree with cary, steward is probably a bit over the top & our local 'crats should be trustworthy enough.
Could we get that changed ( local bureaucrats as assignees). If you really want I'll get formal consensus, but I think it would be pretty uncontroversial
Done. =================================================================== Index: InitialiseSettings.php =================================================================== --- InitialiseSettings.php (revision 989) +++ InitialiseSettings.php (working copy) @@ -5782,7 +5782,7 @@ 'sysop' => array( 'patroller', 'autopatrolled' ), ), '+commonswiki' => array( - 'bureaucrat' => array( 'ipblock-exempt', 'bot', 'sysop', 'bureaucrat'), + 'bureaucrat' => array( 'ipblock-exempt', 'bot', 'sysop', 'bureaucrat', 'OTRS-member' ), 'checkuser' => array( 'ipblock-exempt' ), 'sysop' => array( 'rollbacker', 'confirmed', 'patroller', 'autopatrolled', 'filemover', 'Image-reviewer' ), 'steward' => array( 'OTRS-member' ), @@ -6028,7 +6028,7 @@ 'sysop' => array( 'rollbacker' ), ), '+commonswiki' => array( - 'bureaucrat' => array( 'bot', 'ipblock-exempt' ), + 'bureaucrat' => array( 'bot', 'ipblock-exempt', 'OTRS-member' ), 'checkuser' => array( 'ipblock-exempt' ), 'sysop' => array( 'rollbacker', 'confirmed', 'patroller', 'autopatrolled', 'filemover', 'Image-reviewer' ), 'steward' => array( 'OTRS-member' ),
