Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Alternate proposal: Restricted group and abusefilter sysop group: Reply
| (17 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| 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) | ||
:::::No, if there's a helpful message. [[User:Justarandomamerican|Justarandomamerican]] ([[User talk:Justarandomamerican|talk]]) 22:10, 29 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 85: | Line 86: | ||
*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) | |||
*::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== | ||
| Line 126: | Line 130: | ||
::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) | ::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) | :::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....== | ||