Requests for comment/Right changes for global OTRS members by OTRS admins

The following request for comments is closed. During this discussion a consensus was reached to give the OTRS administrators an ability to assign OTRS agents to the respective global group. However the implementation of this proposal shall be postponed because this is now technically impossible to do. Once developers implement necessary functionality a required group for OTRS admins will be created and necessary permissions assigned to it. Ruslik (talk) 08:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked in Phabricator:
Task T183894

Set proposal for discussion closing on 23 December 2017

Introduction[edit]

In Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group it was agreed on in November 2014 that a global user group "OTRS members" is created. This group grants no rights at any wiki but is used to build abuse filters to track that text and file permission tags are only added by members of the volunteer support team (aka OTRS team) dealing with permission. A corresponding local user group at Commons was removed afterwards as obsolete.

Addition and removal of this right is requested by OTRS admins at Steward requests/Global permissions and performed by stewards as requested, usually within a few hours. There is no further individual discussion taking place as the membership in the global group is representing the actual OTRS membership status of the user and uncontroversial as such.

Proposal[edit]

After three years of experience since the introduction of the group, I'd say the approach is successful. There are ongoing changes in the group membership, around a dozen per month at average, as can be seen at the archive of Steward requests/Global permissions.

I propose to allow OTRS admins to change the group membership themselves, in order to complete changes more quickly and save stewards a few clicks. As far as I see there is no reason against, as the OTRS admins are trusted in their role and will unlikely misuse the assignment of global user flags. Besides that, the flag itself contains no users rights, so in fact there is no harm possible at all.

Technically the proposal includes to add another user group, "OTRS admins", containing all current 11 OTRS admins, and granting them only the right to add and remove the global OTRS members group.

Thank you. --Krd 13:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Support per Krd --DCB (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC) (OTRS admin)[reply]
Support Raymond (talk) 13:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This would be helpful over the course of duties as an OTRS Admin (Note: I am an OTRS Admin) ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 04:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support But is it possible to limit the global groups that a global group can add, or will it require a more extensive change in MediaWiki? --Rs chen 7754 05:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not yet sure if the change can be implemented by stewards by clicking the Mediawiki interface of if a small trivial change to LocalSettings.php is needed. In any case no expensive change (programming) will be required. --Krd 05:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's currently no functionality in MediaWiki/CentralAuth to allow for adding/removing specific global groups. But if this RfC passes, I think we can add it in without much trouble. Legoktm (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support to adding the functionality to CentralAuth, and granting OTRS admins the right to add/remove the OTRS global group. That is one rubber-stamping steward duty that I don't think we need to hold on to! This would be best implemented through the creation of an "OTRS Admin" local group on Meta (or a global group with access restricted to a wikiset including only Meta), with the ability to add/remove the global OTRS flag, and autopatrolled. – Ajraddatz (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, so much easier if the OTRS admins can do it by themselves. Stryn (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, the current system means unnecessary bureaucracy and waste of time since it is not the stewards that take the actual decision anyways. So I believe any modifications needed, which won't really be a big trouble, are worthy. --Kostas20142 (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I will admit to having quite a number of negative experiences with OTRS agents and would note that many of them aren't really that knowledgeable of policies and many seem to be very antagonistic (especially on the IRC) there is currently a backlog on Wikimedia Commons for OTRS permissions that takes 3 (three) months, allowing OTRS admins to add people to this group might (hopefully) allow them to recruit more members faster, such a backlog should not be permissible. --Donald Trung (Talk 🤳🏻) (My global lock 🔒) (My global unlock 🔓) 09:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's not the actual OTRS access, nor it has anything to with recruitment. Current group is -more or less- "a badge". --Vituzzu (talk) 21:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. Per above. --Ks-M9 ^[disc.] 00:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Support --Samuele2002 (Talk!) 10:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Technically not doable. 'globalgrouppermissions' can't be assigned locally and even if it could, it would mean full access to the global group permissions interface, as there's no way right now to restrict which user global groups can be added or removed as opposed to what happens on Special:UserRights. Global group permissions is a steward matter and for what is worth, I am not bothered by the fact that we have to do several of these each month. It's our work after all. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it was technically possible to a) grant this locally and that the right worked and b) restrict for adding/removing specific global groups as it happens on Special:UserRights, I'd be more favorable to the change; still I feel this is part of our job and I personally do not feel overwhelmed by those requests. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should correct you: the relevant userright is 'globalgroupmembership'. I do not know if it can be assigned locally. Ruslik (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Here it is not being discussed whether it is technically or not possible. If this RFC is approved, the time will come when the technical aspects can be analyzed. Here is discussing whether OTRS administrators can add OTRS member permission and I agree with that, the way that it will be applied can be seen at any time later and this RFC can be a great support in case it happens. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 20:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems much easier for OTRS admins to add new members themselves. --Eurodyne (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support concept, however this is such a low cycle activity that having developer time spent on this over say anything on the community wish list top 10+ seems wasteful. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the "cost" to implement is reasonably low. --Vituzzu (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this makes sense. The global group may not have rights but it has been immensely useful. As Krd says, the OTRS admins are trusted. Green Giant (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]