Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Just for the sake of paranoia, would probably be good to check all wikis before doing this, Just In Case.

Still a few wikis with users in these groups:

Internalwiki, metawiki, officewiki, testwiki, otrs_wikiwiki


Are they safe to just delete?

I think the group should not be deleted. It is still useful in some situations.

The local steward group is actually used. First, it's used by stewards when they need to add or remove rights locally on wikis as it has full userright access to all wikis. Second, it's used on meta to grant userrights crosswiki. As I understand it, the local group on meta is what allows us to grant userrights on other wikis, not the global group.

This request seem rather bizarre, and I strongly believe it should not be fulfilled. I also note that no notification of this proposed change was ever given to us affected users.

Per discussion with other stewards, I've taken the liberty of closing this bug, as no notification was given to us and it impact on our functions rather drastically. It is not redundant and is routinely used.

Just to add a note that this usergroup may be useful so that stewards can access the [[Special:UserRights]] interface on wikis where there are custom user groups enabled and which it is not possible to be configured using the Special:UserRights interface on Meta.

One would think that the appropriate means to address an issue that affects all wikis is via a request for comment on meta, not straight to bugzilla.

Yes, it is right, that this group is needed on meta, because the userrights-interwiki user rights is set at the meta local group "steward". But there is no reason to keep this group in all wikis, because in the other wikis it is unused and superceeded by the global group "steward". If a user right is missing on local wiki, the stewards has a way to give it themself.

For closed wikis this is also not necessary, because the global group has the user rights, which is grant to the local group on closed wikis.

I am not sure, why stewards has explict rights to grant the OTRS-member group on commons, but that is also possible by bureaucrats or the global group.

FYI, it's *not* redundant/unused/superceeded on other projects either. As Snowolf explained, we need the local stewards user group to add/remove rights we can't as a steward directly.

By the way: This request was only to remove the local group on all wmf wikis (except meta, ok that was not clear) which does not have any members and that is the reason why it is useless to keep it.

For documentation:

To remove this group, there a some things to do:

In CentralAuth.php the stewards gets permission on each wiki:
$wgGroupPermissions['steward']['centralauth-unmerge'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['steward']['centralauth-lock'] = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['steward']['centralauth-oversight'] = true;

Setting this only for meta should be enough, because stewards always use meta to unmerge or lock global accounts. After setting this to meta, the lines can be removed from CentralAuth extension.

 'metawiki' => array(
...
  'steward' => array(
   'userrights-interwiki' => true, // new steward stuff, yay 2007-12-27
   'centralauth-unmerge' => true,
   'centralauth-lock' => true,
   'centralauth-oversight' => true,
   'noratelimit' => true,
  ),
...
 ),


In InitialiseSettings.php the group get a explict "noratelimit", move it to the same place as above, because it is only needed for the local steward group on meta.

Remove addGroups/removeGroups of "OTRS-member" for commonswiki.

Remove explict edit/move/upload/delete for closed wikis. Closed wikis are part of the CentralAuth and the global userrights should be working.

CommonSettings.php has 
$wgGroupPermissions['steward'   ]['userrights'] = true;
I am not sure, if it works without this permission, if yes, remove it, when not, try to fix it.

(In reply to comment #9)
> FYI, it's *not* redundant/unused/superceeded on other projects either. As
> Snowolf explained, we need the local stewards user group to add/remove rights
> we can't as a steward directly.

Which user group you cannot remove/add with your "userrights-interwiki" rights from the meta:Special:Userrights by using @wiki behind the username? That sounds like a bug or very uncommon user groups.

Did you add you to the local stewards group and than perform the grant on the local Special:Userrights. After all is done you removed yourself from the local user stewards group?

(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > FYI, it's *not* redundant/unused/superceeded on other projects either. As
> > Snowolf explained, we need the local stewards user group to add/remove rights
> > we can't as a steward directly.
> 
> Which user group you cannot remove/add with your "userrights-interwiki" rights
> from the meta:Special:Userrights by using @wiki behind the username? That
> sounds like a bug or very uncommon user groups.
> 
> Did you add you to the local stewards group and than perform the grant on the
> local Special:Userrights. After all is done you removed yourself from the local
> user stewards group?

I guess I wasn't clear. Of course we don't have "permanent" users in those local user groups, but they are certainly used. And btw, we're not able to add and/or remove rights that doesn't exist locally on metawiki. Sometimes we need to use that user group to remove them (or add them in emergencies). I haven't used it myself as I'm still quite new as a steward (since Oct 2011), but I know it's been used in the past. For example on testwiki.

(In reply to comment #12)
> (In reply to comment #11)
> > (In reply to comment #9)
> > > FYI, it's *not* redundant/unused/superceeded on other projects either. As
> > > Snowolf explained, we need the local stewards user group to add/remove rights
> > > we can't as a steward directly.
> > 
> > Which user group you cannot remove/add with your "userrights-interwiki" rights
> > from the meta:Special:Userrights by using @wiki behind the username? That
> > sounds like a bug or very uncommon user groups.
> > 
> > Did you add you to the local stewards group and than perform the grant on the
> > local Special:Userrights. After all is done you removed yourself from the local
> > user stewards group?
> I guess I wasn't clear. Of course we don't have "permanent" users in those
> local user groups, but they are certainly used. And btw, we're not able to add
> and/or remove rights that doesn't exist locally on metawiki. Sometimes we need
> to use that user group to remove them (or add them in emergencies). I haven't
> used it myself as I'm still quite new as a steward (since Oct 2011), but I know
> it's been used in the past. For example on testwiki.

Ok, that is a legal usecase.

As a steward -and I am one from some time now- I've found various instances where local steward flag was needed to perform the task requested because we couldn't set the permissions via meta. The comment #3 from Ruslan -another steward- is completly right as is Trinjstel's. It is true that we do not use it often but we still use it. Therefore the deletion of that usergroup will potentially hinder our work & tasks. There is absolutelly no reason for this change. I wonder why we were not asked before taking this straightforward to bugzilla...

(In reply to comment #12)
> And btw, we're not able to add and/or remove rights that doesn't exist locally on metawiki.
Hm. Sounds like there's some room for improvement there.

(In reply to comment #5)
> no notification was given to us
(In reply to comment #14)
> I wonder why we were not asked before taking this straightforward to bugzilla...
As far as I'm aware, you don't need to be.

(In reply to comment #15)
> As far as I'm aware, you don't need to be.

Goooood idea! See [[bugzilla:26159]]

(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > As far as I'm aware, you don't need to be.
> 
> Goooood idea! See [[bugzilla:26159]]

How does b26159 have anything to do with this?
Or are you implying that because someone came along and asked for a bad change, no one should be allowed to post any sort of permissions request to bugzilla without telling with the stewards first?

(In reply to comment #17)

> How does b26159 have anything to do with this?
> Or are you implying that because someone came along and asked for a bad change,
> no one should be allowed to post any sort of permissions request to bugzilla
> without telling with the stewards first?

No one should be allowed to change things he clearly doesn't how they work.
As you can see that request has been fulfilled and this one would had been probably done too.

(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #17)
> 
> > How does b26159 have anything to do with this?
> > Or are you implying that because someone came along and asked for a bad change,
> > no one should be allowed to post any sort of permissions request to bugzilla
> > without telling with the stewards first?
> 
> No one should be allowed to change things he clearly doesn't how they work.
> As you can see that request has been fulfilled and this one would had been
> probably done too.

In that case your problem is with the people approving such requests.

(In reply to comment #19)

> In that case your problem is with the people approving such requests.

Having people well-aware of Wiki everywhere is an utopia but a requirement, for this kind of requests, of a comment from people *directly involved* should be a common sense practice.

(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #19)
> 
> > In that case your problem is with the people approving such requests.
> 
> Having people well-aware of Wiki everywhere is an utopia but a requirement, for
> this kind of requests, of a comment from people *directly involved* should be a
> common sense practice.

I maintain what I said in comment #19. Take it up with the people approving such requests to make sure that stewards get a chance to comment before approval.

(In reply to comment #21)
> (In reply to comment #20)
> > (In reply to comment #19)
> > 
> > > In that case your problem is with the people approving such requests.
> > 
> > Having people well-aware of Wiki everywhere is an utopia but a requirement, for
> > this kind of requests, of a comment from people *directly involved* should be a
> > common sense practice.
> 
> I maintain what I said in comment #19. Take it up with the people approving
> such requests to make sure that stewards get a chance to comment before
> approval.

Bovine faeces!

Oh, the opinion of the Wikimedia community has been sought for these changes?
You are asking bugzilla staff to make a decision on the wish of the community?
I wasn't aware that they had been given the imprimatur by the WMF community to
do so.  The consequences and issues surrounding such changes have been
identified and resolved?

The debate and comment in bugzilla pretty well demonstrates that this is not
the wish of the community.  People having "brilliant" ideas and bringing them
here without the review of the community is problematic, and treating the
community with disdain.

Simple fact is that Bugzilla is not the place for a debate about the effects of
the changes to these rights, nor their removal. The appropriate place is meta,
and the results of any discussion that requires implementation would flow
through to bugzilla.  What is the concern for having that discussion in the
full view of the community and acting in an informed means?

(In reply to comment #22)
> (In reply to comment #21)
> > (In reply to comment #20)
> > > (In reply to comment #19)
> > > 
> > > > In that case your problem is with the people approving such requests.
> > > 
> > > Having people well-aware of Wiki everywhere is an utopia but a requirement, for
> > > this kind of requests, of a comment from people *directly involved* should be a
> > > common sense practice.
> > 
> > I maintain what I said in comment #19. Take it up with the people approving
> > such requests to make sure that stewards get a chance to comment before
> > approval.
> 
> Bovine faeces!
> 
> Oh, the opinion of the Wikimedia community has been sought for these changes?
> You are asking bugzilla staff to make a decision on the wish of the community?
> I wasn't aware that they had been given the imprimatur by the WMF community to
> do so.  The consequences and issues surrounding such changes have been
> identified and resolved?
> 
> The debate and comment in bugzilla pretty well demonstrates that this is not
> the wish of the community.  People having "brilliant" ideas and bringing them
> here without the review of the community is problematic, and treating the
> community with disdain.
> 
> Simple fact is that Bugzilla is not the place for a debate about the effects of
> the changes to these rights, nor their removal. The appropriate place is meta,
> and the results of any discussion that requires implementation would flow
> through to bugzilla.  What is the concern for having that discussion in the
> full view of the community and acting in an informed means?

I don't think you read comment #21 or comment #19. Whoever approves the request should be checking that community consensus and WMF policies are adhered to. Shell users carry out the changes, not Bugzilla staff. As for people bringing their ideas here, that's not problematic if the shell users actually check with the relevant rules and consensus before carrying out the changes. I just checked with Reedy:
<Krenair> Reedy, obviously consensus is required before it's carried out, but before someone is allowed to post to bugzilla?
<Reedy> No, there's no rule for that
<Reedy> And little way to stop them

I have no problem with the policies or the consensus requirement, but I don't like the idea that people should have to go and notify stewards when in reality you can just sign up to Wikibugs-l to be notified automatically.

In wikis where stewards need to change groups that are not available on Meta, bureaucrats or administrators can usually grant and revoke these memberships so they can make themselves into administrators or bureaucrats. But anyway this group can be added to implicit groups ($wgImplicitGroups) on every non-meta projects so [[Special:ListUsers]] is cleaner (no disadvantages because they can still make themselves into stewards via interwiki on Meta and the group doesn't lose its rights as implicit group).
I would say this group can be removed or it can at least be added to $wgImplicitGroups.
If this group would be removed and there would no way to change a group in another wiki as administrator or bureaucrat, they could add userrights permission to the CentralAuth group temporarily.

Hello.

Let me rephrase what has been already said by several people above. There is no consensus to perform this change.

Moreover, stewards need this group, since local bureaucrats don't have the "userrights" right. Plus it's highly needed at meta (stewards should have some permissions at meta that they should not have globally), and they can't add or remove some bits from meta due to a bug that is waiting to be fixed for months or even years.

I agree with the other stewards that the least that could be done when you propose to remove a group is to inform people who are in this group.

Cordially,

Quentinv57

The supporters of this proposal have still failed to say what problem or problems they are going to solve by removing this group? I see no. Moreover it will create additional problems for stewards. As such this proposal is just a solution in search of a problem. I always oppose such proposals.

It's okay to keep a required group. But nevertheless, the local 'steward' group can be added to implicit groups ($wgImplicitGroups) on non-meta projects. Then, it can still be added and removed from and in Meta wiki as local group. Permissions are unchanged, but [[Special:ListUsers]] looks a bit cleaner.

Yes, I agree with this issue about Special:ListUsers. So why not, but if it's an implicit group, how stewards would be able to grant themselves this group from meta ? I don't think we can add people to implicit groups...

This group should be handled as implicit group on non-meta wikis. On Meta, it needs to be addable (locally for userrights and userrights-interwiki permissions and via interwiki on other wikis). 'steward' membership wouldn't be addable from enwiki on enwiki but from meta on enwiki, and they always grant and revoke steward membership on Meta. Memberships from user_groups table and their rights are always loaded no matter if they are defined as implicit groups or as normal groups.

I don't think there's a major issue to disactivate the steward local group, if technical problems that force stewards to use this local group are solved (I see for example bug #12518).
Except on wikis where it's locally needed, of course. That's not only metawiki, but also testwiki and some private wikis.

The steward group can still be locally used on every wiki if it's a implicit group on non-meta projects (if it would be a implicit group on Meta, yes, it would be problem, but otherwise there would no problem, just a reduce of one group in Special:ListUsers). Stewards can add and remove themselves to/from steward group on every wiki by editing rights on Meta wiki (Username@dbname). The steward group would be unchanged on Meta wiki, it would just be a implicit group on all wikis outside Meta. Steward can be locally given on test wikis et cetera via Meta wiki.

I still disagree with this bugzilla request and I really hope people will listen to the ones who need to handle with the consequences (me and all other stewards). It's not a big problem if Special:ListUsers is a bit longer or not - it will only *cause* problems.

This bug is RESOLVED as WONTFIX. All is good, no change would be performed.

No more discussion over the need of the local group should be done. It is needed and than it is good, that is exist. At the time, I create the bug, I was not aware about the need.

Thanks for your explanation.