Talk:Abuse filter helpers

Add discussion
Active discussions

Appointment & RemovalEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus to implement the proposal. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I propose to add following in the policy:

  • Appointment: Requests for abuse filter helper rights should be placed on Steward requests/Global permissions#Requests for other global permissions. The request will be approved by a steward if there is a consensus for the user to become an abuse filter helper after a period of discussion of no less than one week.
    × Why? AFH is a sensitive permission, so I believe minimum one week of discussion is justified.
  • Removal:
    Misuse or abuse: This permission can be removed immediately by a steward in the case of abuse or serious misuse, after which a request for comment must be filed. In other cases, a request for comment can be filed, and the rights removed by a steward if it is closed with consensus for that course of action.
    × Why? This is obvious.
    Inactivity: If an abuse filter helper has made no global edits for a year, the permission may be revoked by a steward. They may re-apply through the regular process.
    × Why? This is obvious too. AFH is a sensitive permission, If the user is inactive for a whole year, I don't think AFH should be left. AFM has no global edits for 6 months policy but as AFH is less sensitive than AFM, I think 1 year is fine.
Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support as the proposer. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Don't see the need to add extra bureaucratic layers, I am not of the opinion that it is that sensitive - I think trusting stewards should be enough. Leaderboard (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Leaderboard. --MF-W 18:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose though I see some value in running a yearly check of activity and it being removed from inactive accounts. Alternatively the stewards just allocate it as a long-term right rather than a permanent right. Probably favour the latter as it is less bureaucratic.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support. The proposal looks sensible to me. The appointment process is just codifying what happens already in SRGP thus nothing new [except the requirement of one week of discussion vs. consensus after a short period of time]. The misuse section is nothing new either and a procedure in place for other global permissions. Inactivity is the novel thing. I agree inactive users should probably be removed, and it seems to me one year is sensible, or maybe two as global rollbackers. Once temporary global user groups is a reality, maybe we could assign this as a long-term renewable permission as Billinghurst suggested but for now it is not possible. What I miss, although I feel it's just common sense, is that AFHs should not publicly disclose the contents of private filters. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Nowadays, leaving any user group like this without possible procedures for removal for inactivity or cause is just negligent. --Rschen7754 18:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Per above. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support, per MA. Sgd. —Hasley 14:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per MarcoAurelio. --mirinano (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal to modify the introductionEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Clear consensus to ammend the text. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I propose to sightly modify the wording of the page as follows.

ProposalEdit

(underlying is mine to highlight the changes)

Current text Proposed text
The Abuse filter helpers global group was created to allow its users global access to view private data in the abuse log in the abuse filters on projects with it enabled. Additionally, it allows viewing of the spam blacklist log. The Abuse filter helpers global group was created to allow its users global access to view the contents of abuse filters marked as private and their corresponding abuse log entries. Additionally, it allows viewing of the spam blacklist log.[1]
  1. remove second sentence as ubiquitous right Special:ListGroupRights, see "abusefilter-log" and "abusefilter-log", c.f. "abusefilter-log-private" suitably covered in first sentence

Rationale:

  • AbuseFilter is now enabled on every Wikimedia project so "on projects with it enabled" is no longer very accurate.
  • "Private data" may lead to think about private information covered by the ANIP policy. The proposed text clarifies that the access is limited to viewing the syntax of abuse filters marked as private, and their corresponding log entries. This does not mean that such content should not be kept private by the rightsholders though.

Thank you, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support OK. Leaderboard (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think this should be uncontroversial. --MF-W 18:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support though wonder whether we should add word "detailed", so ... Additionally, it allows detailed viewing of the spam blacklist log as everyone can view the log, they just cannot see the details of those marked prviate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk)
    Hello Billinghurst: spamblacklistlog is assigned to all registered users by default (thanks Majavah for pointing it out to me), so I'm not sure which further details are they granted. Do you mean the AbuseLog? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    MarcoAurelio , I was meaning the private log, though that is possibly covered in the first sentence. I have removed second sentence if we are saying that it is ubiquitous.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Maybe and their corresponding —and detailed— abuse log entries? They indeed have abusefilter-log-private. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Esteban16 (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 23:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support, good change. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. The group was also created to enable detailed view of the abuse log. (See abusefilter-log-detail userright.) Ruslik (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support * Pppery * it has begun 20:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --mirinano (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support. Sgd. —Hasley 14:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ivi104 (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Syman51 (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Return to "Abuse filter helpers" page.