Meta:Requests for limited adminship/Leaderboard

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


Not ending before 2 February 2021 18:42 (UTC)

Hi, I am requesting indefinite limited adminship for the sole purpose of viewing and analysing meta abuse filters. The reason for it have been explained in Meta:Babel, namely that I am getting error messages saying that I do not have the permission to view private meta abuse filters when working on my two admin wikis, en.wb and mediawiki. This is a problem because I routinely analyse abuse filters to figure out whether some local abuse filters are redundant, for instance. I didn't actually want to request adminship here, but I could not get consensus for any other alternative (see Babel), so here we go.

I was given this permission (with somewhat expanded rights back then) in 2019 for one month, and also had EFH (Edit Filter Helper) for Wikipedia for a year.

--Leaderboard (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 questions: Shouldn't the previous 2 request for Limited Adminship be linked for transparency and this should be the 3rd request. In addition, since the last failed extension of LA, what had you learned about meta, especially abuse filters. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Camouflaged Mirage: I had only one request for LA if I recall correctly (the second was full adminship, which did not succeed). And as for what I've learned, that not to edit something without consensus (which was the main problem last time, despite my good intentions back then), and this also extends to filters. I will also note that the permissions I am asking for this time do not extend to editing filters, partially as a result of my last experience. Leaderboard (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me link then Meta:Requests for adminship/Leaderboard (successful for Limited Adminship) and Meta:Requests for adminship/Leaderboard 2 (unsuccessful for full adminship). I will prefer the Babel discussion to conclude, but will you commit not to use any of the toolkit other than viewing of private abuse filter logs. Failing which any crat / steward (if no crats are available) and under MSR can desysop you immediately or any sysop can block you immediately. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's what I had stated as the intention of requesting adminship, and I am aware of the consequences of not following the regulations. If consensus on Babel is to either (3) or (4), I'll be happy to drop my limited adminship. Leaderboard (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support Support with these tight conditions imposed. I am very reluctant to support any more access to the tools given what happened the last round (I supported 1st time, didn't have time to expand my placeholder position before you withdraw). I had very grave concerns of editing important filters like the changing of autopatrol to autoconfirm for 161. However, I think the use case is somewhat valid and with your assurance, let me give you the support once more. Please be careful with the toolkit this time round, thanks for volunteering too. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question, what happened with the first limited adminship which caused the issues in the second one? It's not clear to me, at a skim. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Basically I made changes that unexpectedly caused issues (for instance changing abuse filters which caused many false positives) despite my good intentions. Now it should be noted that I was allowed to make those changes back then, but I should have been more cautious and ideally seeked consensus. This is the concern Camouflaged Mirage points out above. Leaderboard (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a problem with this request; the user is an enwikibooks sysop and thus a trusted person, his plan is legitimate. I do not understand the concerns mentioned above. Obviously someone who requests the rights in order to view filters does not plan to edit filters. --MF-W 11:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also the support rationale in the 1st application, your 1st sentence, for most supporters, what happened next is history but well there are concerns about the editing of filters against consensus, so I have to be sure such don't reoccur by stating the conditions clearly. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose because there is a better means. Apply for Abuse filter helpers which has all the benefits as that is the complete purpose of the global group, and none of the potential downside of adminship access, does not have time limitation, nor requirements to retain rights. Also noting that AFH group applies that access at a person's home wiki, beside all their other filters, without all the other noise of metawikis abuselog.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If I recall correctly, limited adminship don't require activity requirements (for their use case, we cannot see the activity as abuse log viewing isn't logged), we can do like seth to sign on Oct AAR round if we want. They are asking for indefinite, so the time is alright, but to be honest, I would think that your suggestion of AFH seems good too. @Leaderboard: would you want to consider that global group? Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Billinghurst: I had considered applying for AFH (and am still happy to if there is consensus on Babel), but I had actually requested this right back in 2019 (Steward_requests/Global_permissions/2019-02), but was told that LA was better back then. Leaderboard (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading your stated requirements, my advice is unchanged, especially if you are focused on the impact on your local wiki(s), and being able to see the logs at these wikis. None of that requires rights allocation here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose for limited adminship as it will not solve the problem. In your local logs, you will not able to see the global abuse hits with meta adminship so AFH seems better for the situation. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I can; that is, I can see both local and global abuse hits in both wikis? Not sure what you mean, when I click the global abuse filter it goes to meta. Leaderboard (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can, but only on wikis you have right to see, but as you said you are going to analyse global filters and global filters work on many wiki, AFH still make sense because with AFH you will be able to analyse hits in local logs; instead of comming to meta. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how I cannot do that with LA. For reference, when one clicks on a global abuse filter on en.wb, it automatically goes to Meta and currently returns an error message. The main difference this time is that instead of getting the error, it will load up the description of the meta-global abuse filter.
    Now of course, AFH will work just fine in this case, the question is which of the two (AFH or LA) would the community prefer, and I am seeing comments on both sides. Leaderboard (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Since he will just use the rights for viewing filters, I have no concerns. If there would be misuse, the right would be revoked. --Ameisenigel (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose per Billinghurst --Herby talk thyme 12:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Global abuse filter helper grants access to all local filters on wikis, whilst I presume meta adminship does not, so it's far more broad in that respect and so probably limited adminship will be better. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Neutral The user was a temporary admin before although for a little, and there were abusefilter at that time per logs. I read all the comments, but I am undecided unfortunately. --Uncitoyentalk 18:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, no consensus. Matiia (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]