Talk:Abuse filter helpers/Archives/2015
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in 2015, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Assignment of rights to frWP selected admins
As part of an RfC process at frWP (w:fr:Wikipédia:Sondage/Activation des filtres anti-erreur globaux Oct 2015) to adopt the global filters, there was a concern that admins would not be able to see the filters or the hits. It was suggested within the stewards group that it should be possible to assign this right to a selected group of admins at the wiki, so they are able to review the global filters acting on their wiki, and offer suggestions on filters, and to report back to their community that the filters are within the agreed restrictions of use by the community. As part of the RfC process the frWP community will determine how they wish to appoint "abuse filter helpers" and inform stewards. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Looks like it substracts from Meta our voice in choosing who will be granted those rights, with a decision that comes already made. Global rights like this should be discussed at Meta. This is not a lack of trust in frwiki however. Best regards. —MarcoAurelio 11:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Meta is a partial voice for an existing right that has to this point been awarded by stewards, primarily based on stewards' opinions. Meta has not lost any voice in nominating and appointing abuse filter helpers appointed, what is gained is the ability for a community to know that as they look to adopt global filters that their interests are protected, that false positives can be specifically addressed, and make suggestions on improvements. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would be fine with allowing a select group of frwiki admins to be granted this right. Maybe not all of them, but a small group that works on filters so they can audit the global ones. In this case, I don't think they should need to go through a meta process. The right is benign enough that I am not overly concerned with a meta veto over it. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Meta is a partial voice for an existing right that has to this point been awarded by stewards, primarily based on stewards' opinions. Meta has not lost any voice in nominating and appointing abuse filter helpers appointed, what is gained is the ability for a community to know that as they look to adopt global filters that their interests are protected, that false positives can be specifically addressed, and make suggestions on improvements. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)