Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Alternate proposal: Restricted group and abusefilter sysop group: Reply
mNo edit summary |
|||
| (45 intermediate revisions by 7 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) | |||
::::::{{done}}. [[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>]] 02:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Crat requirements's [[User:Harvici/Bureaucrat requirements|policy]]== | ==Crat requirements's [[User:Harvici/Bureaucrat requirements|policy]]== | ||
| Line 83: | Line 85: | ||
*{{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) | ||
*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) | |||
*: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) | |||
*: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) | |||
*::I do suppose that ''could'' be added, but how would we handle legitimate test (such as testing the bureaucrat right on its own, without sysop) or cratbot accounts? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:33, 30 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 96: | Line 103: | ||
::::I don't have strong feelings about that. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 03:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | ::::I don't have strong feelings about that. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 03:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | ||
:::::Should the abusefilter-edit group have the restricted action modifcation right, community consensus or similar is mandatory. [[User:Codename Noreste|Codename Noreste]] ([[User talk:Codename Noreste|talk]]) 03:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | :::::Should the abusefilter-edit group have the restricted action modifcation right, community consensus or similar is mandatory. [[User:Codename Noreste|Codename Noreste]] ([[User talk:Codename Noreste|talk]]) 03:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | ||
:::::The <code>abusefilter-modify-restricted</code> user right is currently restricted to [[Test Wiki:Stewards|Stewards]] for mainly security and abuse reasons. I ''suppose'' we could sub-delegate this user right, but I'd rather see it be a ''separate'' user group, like <code>abusefilter-sysop</code> or something, that would also require a community vote (like non-Steward suppressors) (since it requires an extra degree of trust and also has some real, non-test administrator responsibilities). [[User:Dmehus|Dmehus]] ([[User talk:Dmehus|talk]]) 16:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::I would propose all of the following in addition: | |||
::::::*All admins should keep the abusefilter-log-detail right. | |||
::::::*The <code>abusefilter-helper</code> group should only have the abusefilter-view-private and abusefilter-log-private permissions. | |||
::::::*The <code>abusefilter-edit</code> group should just simply have the name <code>abusefilter</code>, and have the following rights (in addition to having a community vote requirement): | |||
::::::1) Create or modify abuse filters (abusefilter-modify) [this may or may not need the two rights listed on the abusefilter-helper permission since this permission allows you to view the filters and their logs, whether public or private] | |||
::::::2) Create or modify what external domains are blocked from being linked (abusefilter-modify-blocked-external-domains) | |||
::::::3) Modify abuse filters with restricted actions (abusefilter-modify-restricted) | |||
::::::4) Revert all changes by a given abuse filter (abusefilter-revert) | |||
::::::*Stewards do not need to assign the abusefilter or abusefilter-helper permission to themselves, but they can assign and remove either of the two to trusted users following a community vote. | |||
::::::[[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>]] 17:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::A community vote and/or Steward discretion (for helper, or granting edit to those who have worked on abuse filters before) or consensus (for neither of those cases), I presume? Appointment by community vote only would be a higher bar than we set for our [[Test Wiki: Suppressors|non-steward suppressors]]. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 18:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::{{S|Conditional support}} per my comment above. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 18:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::I am writing a proposed policy about the abuse filter and their proposed user rights; anyone can help. [[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>]] 01:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::{{S|Strong Support}} I support this proposal. ~~ <span style="background-color:magenta; padding: 2px 5px 1px 5px">[[User:Aviram7|<span style="color:white">αvírαm</span>]]<nowiki>|</nowiki>[[User talk:Aviram7|(tαlk)]]</span> 09:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::How long has it been since someone has abused abuse filter access? Months, years? I don't ever recall this being an issue. Like the above proposal, this simply makes it harder for users to test and I will always {{oppose|Strongly oppose}} 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]]) 13:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::This also makes it extremely difficult to make small changes to abusefilters, or fix bugs. This is a solution looking for a problem, in addition to being extremely bureaucratic. Must I remind everyone that this is a testwiki, where people test tools like abusefilter? [[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]]) 17:09, 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) | |||
: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=== | |||
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) | |||
::::In terms of human readable language, something along the lines of "Users restricted from editing the edit filter" (or a shortened version that conveys the same information) would be the first choice for a name (to me). [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::How about "Users blocked from the abuse filter" for the <code>abusefilter-restricted</code> right, and "Abuse filter administrators" for <code>abusefilter-sysop</code>? The former would be useful for say, Piccadilly if they have one more chance (which I doubt) while they may not edit any filter or view any private filters, including one that restricts their disruptive actions. [[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>]] 01:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::Both of those sound good. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Abuse filter administrators have the additional ability to modify filters with blocking abilities in the same fashion as stewards do, while users blocked from the abuse filter may not edit any filter or view private filters; however, they can still see said public filters and the abuse log. I will update my proposed policy on the abuse filter. [[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>]] 01:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::It is also possible that users blocked from the abuse filter will be able to view private filters to learn from their mistakes/abuse, seeing my discussion with [[User:Dmehus|Doug]] below. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Couldn't we simply revoke the <code>abusefilter-view-private</code> and <code>abusefilter-log-private</code> in the abusefilter-restricted right, and that trusted users experienced with abuse filters should take care not to discuss private filters in public? [[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>]] 01:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::That is one of three possibilities. I would be more supportive of a separate group restricting view access or of not doing so and simply restricting edit access, due to the rational possibility of a restricted user looking at a filter to learn from their mistakes. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 01:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::{{support}} [[User:LisafBia|LisafBia]] ([[User talk:LisafBia|talk]]) 08:59, 30 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) | |||
::I would support the removal criteria for the modify restricted right (or abusefilter sysop). Though I am definitely amenable to view only access for the group restricted from modification, I am also thinking of how that could be abused by a user with a certain level of knowledge. Perhaps that could be left out for now, to avoid creating 2 separate groups? [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 00:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I propose that we create three seperate rights <code>abusefilter-sysop</code>, <code>abusefliter-restricted</code> ,<code>abusefilter-view-restricted</code> .If the crat [[User:Harvici/Bureaucrat requirements|policy]] passes then we could remove all the abusefilter rights from the sysop and bundle them into <code>abusefilter-sysop</code> which would only be granted if the user is a crat (since to become a crat they have to prove us that they are trustworthy). <code>abusefilter-restricted</code> only let the user only view the abuse filters (steward will only place this right if a user has misused the abusefilter or the user just wants to view and not edit) and <code>abusefilter-view-restricted</code> will not allow the users to even view any abuse filter (this would only be placed if the user has caused serious disruption ) [[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>]]) 01:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Sorry, but I'm gonna have to disagree. I would NOT suggest removing the abuse filter modification rights from the sysop toolset, and if an admin only wants to view abuse filters, including private filters, then they should not edit said filters at all. As for the revocation of viewing abuse filters, I think you meant the revocation of viewing private filters and editing all filters, which should probably be merged to the abusefilter-restricted right. [[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>]] 02:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Well, then we can create one right: <code>abusefilter-sysop</code>.We would remove all the abusefilter filter-related rights (except the ability to view) from sysop toolset.All the users don't have experience with abuse filters (they can also cause disruption even in good faith), and there is no need to give them until they request <code>abusefilter-sysop</code>which would have the ability to edit the filters and it would be granted by stewards [[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>]]) 13:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
==Umm....== | ==Umm....== | ||