410
edits
Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Omnibus RfC: Unbundling abusefilter permissions from Administrators: Reply
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
:::::LGTM. I'm not sure the likelihood of LTAs and blocked users trying to use variations of known usernames, but it can't hurt, either. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC) | :::::LGTM. I'm not sure the likelihood of LTAs and blocked users trying to use variations of known usernames, but it can't hurt, either. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 02:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC) | ||
== Crat requirements's [[User:Harvici/Bureaucrat requirements|policy]] == | ==Crat requirements's [[User:Harvici/Bureaucrat requirements|policy]]== | ||
As in the above discussion, I have established [[User:Harvici/Bureaucrat requirements|policy]]-related criteria for the CRT position, as previously stated by Dmehus, " {{tq|It's not [...] require an extra degree of trust as it includes extra permissions like nuke and import which can cause vandalism [...]}}. [[User:Harvici|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:Harvici|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 18:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC) | As in the above discussion, I have established [[User:Harvici/Bureaucrat requirements|policy]]-related criteria for the CRT position, as previously stated by Dmehus, " {{tq|It's not [...] require an extra degree of trust as it includes extra permissions like nuke and import which can cause vandalism [...]}}. [[User:Harvici|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C ; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Harvici</span>]] ([[User talk:Harvici|<span style="color:#228B22">''talk''</span>]]) 18:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC) | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
*{{Support|Conditional support}} The draft policy isn't ''exactly'' as I would've liked, but it's reasonable. Justarandomamerican's reason for additional, [[w:WP:COMMONSENSE|common sense]] exceptions by Stewards is also reasonable, and so I support that. It arguably goes without saying Stewards are able to do this anyway, but I support making this a conditional requirement for my support. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 19:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC) | *{{Support|Conditional support}} The draft policy isn't ''exactly'' as I would've liked, but it's reasonable. Justarandomamerican's reason for additional, [[w:WP:COMMONSENSE|common sense]] exceptions by Stewards is also reasonable, and so I support that. It arguably goes without saying Stewards are able to do this anyway, but I support making this a conditional requirement for my support. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 19:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC) | ||
== Omnibus RfC: Unbundling abusefilter permissions from Administrators == | ==Omnibus RfC: Unbundling abusefilter permissions from Administrators== | ||
I would like to propose all of the following: 1: Unbundle all abusefilter-related (excluding basic rights already included in <code>*</code> or <code>user</code>) from the sysop group. | I would like to propose all of the following: 1: Unbundle all abusefilter-related (excluding basic rights already included in <code>*</code> or <code>user</code>) from the sysop group. | ||
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
3. Create a new <code>abusefilter-edit</code> group with these rights, and a <code>abusefilter-helper</code> group with view-only access, both grantable by a Steward upon request. | 3. Create a new <code>abusefilter-edit</code> group with these rights, and a <code>abusefilter-helper</code> group with view-only access, both grantable by a Steward upon request. | ||
Though this would be taking away a permission used by many, the AbuseFilter extension is a ''very'' powerful tool: There is the potential for evasion of restrictions imposed on specific users by the ability to view private filters, let alone the fact that a vandal that gets access to it could actually block innocent, or even potentially all edits. If this is implemented, I plan to grant the edit right to those who already work with our edit filters. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 21:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC) | Though this would be taking away a permission used by many, the AbuseFilter extension is a ''very'' powerful tool: There is the potential for evasion of restrictions imposed on specific users by the ability to view private filters, let alone the fact that a vandal that gets access to it could actually block innocent, or even potentially all edits. If this is implemented, I plan to grant the edit right to those who already work with our edit filters. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 21:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC) | ||
:This sounds good to me. Thanks for starting the RfC. I'd only suggest a small change, by allowing any <code>sysop</code> to ''view'' the abuse filters; they just wouldn't be able to ''edit'' them unless they have the <code>abusefilter-helper</code> group. I'd also suggest adding both a time-based inactivity requirement (something like 30-90 days) whereby someone not having used the permission in the given time period can lose the permission and also broad Steward discretion to remove the permission where it's either misused or no longer used recently. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 00:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||