Requests for comment/Local group of abusefilter helpers

The following request for comments is closed. Inactive, no consensus for change. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the issue edit

In my request to be added to the abusefilter-helper group, two users (User:Vogone and User:Jo-Jo Eumerus) commented that the permissions given were broader than what I needed: being in this group gives the right to view all private filters on all wikis.

For abusefilter editors who want to view global filters in order to understand the actions of those filters on their home wiki, it would be enough to be able to view private global filters on Meta-Wiki (I am the third one from frwiki).

Should a local group be created (e.g. meta-abusefilter-helper) so that users can get the abusefilter-view-private right on Meta-Wiki, and no other project?

Comments edit

  • Thanks for initiiating this discussion. I personally would even be open to a meta-only group which grants active global abusefilter rights to trusted abusefilter editors. It makes more sense to me to have some skilled AF editors rather than just stewards who weren't even specifically elected for their abusefilter management skills. --Vogone (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Vogone. Perhaps "global filter editors"? As is done with filter editor rights on various projects, the flag could be granted with the understanding that it is "read-only" in some cases as well. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not, but wouldn't it lead to the same kind of comments? Being able to edit global filters definitively requires a high level of trust, since this technically includes the rights of blocking users and protecting pages on any wiki. As far as I am concerned, being able to read global filters is fine. I may suggest improvements from time to time if I see a common pattern of false positives, but I don't expect this to happen often. Orlodrim (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It would still be a local group, just one that could edit the global filters. Should allow read access as needed, in addition to allowing trusted users to edit the filters. Stewards aren't necessarily the go-to group of technical experts for maintaining them anyway. – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, no more user rights hierarchy and decentralization. We already have the global group, if they abuse the right they will loose it globally. —MarcoAurelio 11:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? We have a group for WMF staff, which is global, i.e. for all wikis, including enwiki etc. There's no way we could add "ordinary" users to such a group since it would circumvent local procedures on at least a dozen wikis. --Vogone (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    What has to do staff and enwiki with this? Abuse filter helpers global group is fully global too, and allows you to view the filters, which is what is being requested here. —MarcoAurelio 07:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    At least two commenters have referred to a group which allows editing of the global filters here on meta. And a fully global group is exactly not what is being proposed. --Vogone (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    A group to edit global abusefilters? Needless to say that I totally oppose the idea, but that might not even happen. Taking into account the GS precedent, where the global-related options, such as global blocking, had to be removed for the proposal to pass. AF gives you far more power than global blocking, even if GAF does not affect all the wikis. If someone whishes to manage global abusefilters they should run for steward. Seriously, I'm tired of these continued attempts to chop our competencies in subgroups without serious reasons and only because it is technically possible to do so. —MarcoAurelio 10:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the scope of this RFC is very clear to me: Should a local group be created (e.g. meta-abusefilter-helper) so that users can get the abusefilter-view-private right on Meta-Wiki, and no other project? -Everything unrelated to that question looks off-topic for me. If you wish to propose another idea, feel free to do so, but in another RFC please. Thank you. —MarcoAurelio 10:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Global abusefilters should not be used for user blocking and are — just like GS — wiki set-restricted, which makes your point invalid. Rather "concerning" than this is that people indeed get user rights on all wikis, if we keep granting this truly global permission to all people who in fact request it for just one wiki, namely metawiki. We have similar local groups with global effect already which grant parts of the metawiki admin set (yes, viewing GAFs is not even restricted to stewards) as well, namely CN admin (quite comparable to this) and massmessage. So no matter if with or without the "active" editing part, this proposal is nothing revolutionary. Also, the current GAF policy proposal mentions "another group" besides the steward group. --Vogone (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It also doesn't make sense to start a separate discussion for creating an edit group, unless the proposal would be that a second group to this be created. This is a request for comment, and my comment lends support for either this group or one with expanded access to include editing. Adding to the proposal, or suggesting related additions, is hardly off topic here. Add: I can see how Vogone's reply would be a bit confusing though, and perhaps unrelated to what you are considering. – Ajraddatz (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry for writting what you don't like to read, but I stand my position that this is a bad move. And the GAF policy proposal is just that, a proposal; not a policy, nothing binding. This also sets bad precedent of distrust towards current abusefilter helpers. Are we really going to create classes and a hierarchy of who can see filters at more wikis? Ain't people to that group trusted not to abuse this? WRT local groups with global impact, they were created because there was a need, and there's no need for this one. Or is there a backlog of requested AF changes I'm not aware of? So far, it's being me who receive 4/5 requests a year to update the filters. Compare with the number of requests to rename users or manage banners and you might see why the creations of those groups could be justified. I also stand that this RFC has a clear scope, and that if you both want to create further groups with further abilities, a new section or a new RFC should be opened. —MarcoAurelio 18:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's absolutely your right to oppose this and I can live with that. But on a last note, the "distrust" issue doesn't really exist since the global group has an entirely different scope. It's been created for users who wish to assist small and mid-sized wiki communities with AF filter issues they may have. The recent 2-3 requests though were of a totally different kind. These users only asked for access to global AFs which do directly affect their own wiki. They (probably) have neither an interest nor a need to observe any filters outside their homewiki + metawiki. It's a very odd thing to grant a global permission to users who request a local permission, we don't assign global autopatrolled rights either if users request it for just metawiki. --Vogone (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    And what do we do with the global abusefilter helper permission? We delete it? What do we do with users currently in that group? —MarcoAurelio 10:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we delete it/remove users from the group? At least 4 requested and were granted the permission under the initial scope (help globally with local filters). --Vogone (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the creation of such a group. --MF-W 19:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support this is very needed for wikis that single-wiki abusing happened more than global, just add it to the extension. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Comment To avoid confusing people, I'm drafting a separate RfC to see if there's consensus to let other users other than stewards to create and modify instead of just view global abuse filters. You can find it at Requests for comment/Local group of global abusefilter users. —MarcoAurelio 10:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. --Vogone (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this. Matiia (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support I support a local group for abuse filter helpers though I would have no objections if we just granted the global group instead. No opinion about global filter editors. Ruslik (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]