Talk:Abuse filter helpers/Archives/2021

Appointment & Removal

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)

Discussion

•  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.