Meta:Requests for comment/Allow non-admin stewards to create or modify abuse filters

The following request for comments is closed. Withdrawn by author.🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 13:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

---

Statement of the issue

I would like to propose amending (to formally modify) the Meta–steward relationship policy (MSR) to also allow stewards to create or modify (local or global) abuse filters without being local Meta administrators, in addition to performing countervandalism tasks and editing the spam and title blacklists. Per the latter point, the stewards can modify the blacklists that are truly global, so by extension, they can be trusted to modify local and global filters, so long as they have modified abuse filters before (without causing errors) on their home wiki.

Please note that this is not related to the failed overhaul RFC; this proposal is to allow the non-admin stewards to perform another uncontroversial task, if successful.

Thank you for considering this proposal. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 15:17, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Comments

•  Support Seems OK. --نوفاك اتشمان (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
•  Support Per nomination, and also to better reflect the state of affairs, as several non-admin stewards have been editing abuse filters without letting that be a problem. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 16:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  On a slightly irrelevant note, I would prefer for this RfC to have a better name. Amend the MSR policy is too generic-sounding compared to the actual proposal. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 16:56, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

  I expanded the proposal title. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

• Seems like deja vue, and not needed. If a steward wants to manage local project stuff they can easily run for adminship. Notably the call out in the summary above is about the global blacklists, not the local blacklist as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:15, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

   Oppose for the vote count. Regarding this and the similar recent failed RFC, if we stewards find we are having a problem being effective without some permission I'm sure we'd start a discussion, similarly if we thought a project (including meta-wiki) was incapable of managing their configuration themselves and we needed to step in. I don't see either of those conditions present currently. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Support - this is not controversal and as I've said before, expecting stewards to run for adminship for things like these is ridiculous. Leaderboard (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

  I wouldn't describe this as uncontroversial. The RfC has already drawn differing views, and the arguments raised in opposition are just as substantive as those in support. Given that, it clearly isn't as straightforward as suggested. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:48, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Oppose Stewards should definitely be allowed to modify global abuse filters. If they want to modify local filters they should apply for adminship; likewise with the local MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. There's an argument to be made that all stewards are trusted to be local admins, but if that's the case, the way to express that is to amend MSR to say "any steward may self-grant meta adminship provided it hasn't been removed in the past for a reason other than inactivity" (which I might support), rather than gradually increasing the scope of stewardship with repeated RfCs. lp0 on fire () 13:07, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

  "any steward may self-grant meta adminship provided it hasn't been removed in the past for a reason other than inactivity" - "self-granting" is a problem because it creates the impression that stewards can choose to be Meta admins if they want and is a bit of a nightmare in my opinion. One option is to automatically make stewards meta-admins, which I'm not opposed to, though I doubt the community would see it the same way. Also: global filters affect Meta... Leaderboard (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

•  Oppose I appreciate Codename Noreste for taking the time to propose this, but I agree with the points raised by xaosflux and lp0 on fire. If a steward wants to manage local abuse filters, running for local adminship is a straightforward option. Stewards already have broad global access, and expanding that into local permissions through incremental changes like this doesn't seem appropriate. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I especially agree with xaosflux above. Has someone from the current stewards complaint about the situation? Is there actually need for stewards taking over more such stuff? I'd only support, that stewards can edit global filters within their scope as stewards. Everything else should be handled by local folks. I also see problems with the wording so long as they have modified abuse filters before (without causing errors) on their home wiki. We'd need to check every non-admin steward if they fulfil this. It doesn't really make things simpler, imo. -Barras talk 17:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
• Considering the objections above, I hereby withdraw my proposal. Codename Noreste (talk • contribs) 20:09, 25 February 2026 (UTC)