410
edits
Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Adoption Discussion: Reply
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
(→Adoption Discussion: Reply) |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
::::Any objections if I set this to disallow? [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Norte'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0a13ad">talk</span>]] 01:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC) | ::::Any objections if I set this to disallow? [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Norte'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="color:#0a13ad">talk</span>]] 01:47, 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) | :::::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) | ||
:::::No, if there's a helpful message. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Crat requirements's [[User:Harvici/Bureaucrat requirements|policy]]== | ==Crat requirements's [[User:Harvici/Bureaucrat requirements|policy]]== | ||
| Line 84: | Line 85: | ||
*What do you guys think about Dmehus suggestion {{talk quote inline|to waive the waiting period requirement, such has having a confirmation edit from a mainstream wiki farm (Wikimedia, Fandom, or Miraheze) and being a known user in good standing there.}}Should we make a change with respect to this? [[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>]]) 02:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | *What do you guys think about Dmehus suggestion {{talk quote inline|to waive the waiting period requirement, such has having a confirmation edit from a mainstream wiki farm (Wikimedia, Fandom, or Miraheze) and being a known user in good standing there.}}Should we make a change with respect to this? [[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>]]) 02:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | ||
*{{comment}} Changed the criteria from ''"must have been a registered user for a minimum of 4 days"'' to ''"must have been an'' '''administrator''''' for a minimum of 4 days"''As any user can ask for crat rights before they even get sysop (the registered criteria is also mentioned on the top) [[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>]]) 13:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | *{{comment}} Changed the criteria from ''"must have been a registered user for a minimum of 4 days"'' to ''"must have been an'' '''administrator''''' for a minimum of 4 days"''As any user can ask for crat rights before they even get sysop (the registered criteria is also mentioned on the top) [[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>]]) 13:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | ||
*:I'd prefer that, [[User:Harvici|Harvici]]. I would've preferred your language originally, but wasn't enough to cause me oppose the proposal. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 23:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
*{{oppose|Strong oppose}} How long has it been since someone has abused their bureaucrat permissions? Months, at least. This simply makes it harder for users to test, and as such, I oppose. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 13:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | *{{oppose|Strong oppose}} How long has it been since someone has abused their bureaucrat permissions? Months, at least. This simply makes it harder for users to test, and as such, I oppose. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 13:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | ||
*:This isn't about adding revocation criteria, [[User:X|X]]. As it stands, if you're an existing bureaucrat, you meet the exception criteria to have the bit re-added without the waiting period requirement. I would, however, potentially suggest adding a requirement that the <code>bureaucrat</code> user group is limited to the user's main account only. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]], thoughts? [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 23:24, 29 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. | <del> 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. | ||
2. Bundle these rights into the Steward group. | 2. Bundle these rights into the Steward group. | ||
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. </del> [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 21:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC) <small>withdrawn, see my comment below [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)</small> | ||
: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) | :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) | ||
| Line 118: | Line 121: | ||
::::::::::{{support|Strong Support }} I added a lot of content to the [[User:Codename Noreste/Abuse filter|policy]]; feel free to add your own suggestion :) [[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>]]) 14:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | ::::::::::{{support|Strong Support }} I added a lot of content to the [[User:Codename Noreste/Abuse filter|policy]]; feel free to add your own suggestion :) [[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>]]) 14:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | ||
:::::::::::{{oppose}} I haven't found any vandalism in the abuse filters so far. It seems unnecessary to make such a change when there is no vandalism. Therefore, I am opposing this proposal. [[User:LisafBia|LisafBia]] ([[User talk:LisafBia|talk]]) 17:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | :::::::::::{{oppose}} I haven't found any vandalism in the abuse filters so far. It seems unnecessary to make such a change when there is no vandalism. Therefore, I am opposing this proposal. [[User:LisafBia|LisafBia]] ([[User talk:LisafBia|talk]]) 17:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | ||
:I now {{oppose|withdraw my proposal and oppose}} | :I now {{oppose|withdraw my proposal and oppose}} the policy proposal upon reading the two rational oppose comments. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 21:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | ||
===Alternate proposal: Restricted group and abusefilter sysop group=== | ===Alternate proposal: Restricted group and abusefilter sysop group=== | ||
Rather than the above: Create a <code>abusefilter-restricted</code> group, grantable and removable only by Stewards at their discretion or upon a community partial ban, with rights related to modification and private filters | Rather than the above: Create a <code>abusefilter-restricted</code> group, grantable and removable only by Stewards at their discretion or upon a community partial ban from the abuse filter, with rights related to modification and private filters actively revoked. This would curb abuse (such as of the guidance filter), whilst making allowance for testing. In addition, I will also propose the AbuseFilter sysop group mentioned above in this proposal too, with the modify-restricted right, grantable upon consensus of at least two stewards or of the community. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 21:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | ||
:{{ping|X|LisafBia|Dmehus|Codename Noreste|Harvici}} as participants in the RfC above. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I'd support that. [[User:X|'''<span style="background:#3383ff;color:white;padding:5px;box-shadow:0 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.2)">X</span>''']] ([[User talk:X|talk]] + [[Special:Contributions/X|contribs]]) 22:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::So what will we name this group? [[User:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0024FF">'''''Codename Noreste'''''</span>]] 🤔 [[User talk:Codename Noreste|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0A16A5">''La Suma''</span>]] 23:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:That could be a good way of doing it. So you're proposing to use [[mw:Manual:$wgRevokePermissions|<code>$wgRevokePermissions</code>]] essentially, to revoke all abuse filter permissions normally granted to the <code>sysop</code> group by way of a new user group, though I'd suggest a friendly amendment, if you're amenable to it, of permitting ''view only'' access to the filter (so such partially blocked/banned users could use it to actually ''learn'' from their mistakes)? You would then propose to give access to the restricted abusefilter permissions as part of a new group? If ''so'', I'm in favour of the former, but a little lukewarm on the latter. Not necessarily ''against'' it, but also not entirely sure the ''need'', given the level of active stewards we have now and being concerned with regard to [[w:WP:HATCOLLECT|hat collecting]]. I'd be ''more'' favourable, if we added some removal criteria (i.e., unused completely in the last 30-60 days), by community revocation with a 75% net support ratio, or by consensus of two or more stewards. [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 23:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Umm....== | ==Umm....== | ||