Requests for comment/2018 Allow meta admins access to global abuse filter

The following request for comments is closed. General consensus here is to allow meta sysops to have edit access to global abusefilters. While ‘global business to steward and local business to local admin’ argument is valid, in reality, Spam blacklist, Title blacklist, and Email blacklist, which also affects all Wikimedia wikis, are all editable by Meta sysops. If you want this (filter) to be stewards-only, there should be modification to the rest of stuff as well. — regards, Revi 14:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tracked in phab:T192722. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This request is to allow meta:administrators access to the (abusefilter-modify-global) permission. This access is currently restricted to stewards.

This will allow meta administrators to move/add/change/delete edit global edit filters hosted on meta that are applied (section: wmgUseGlobalAbuseFilters) primarily to small and medium WMF projects, and those larger wikis that have requested inclusion.

This access is similar to other global access meta administrators have to the global title blacklist, and global spam blacklists applied to all projects.

The existing meta:limited administrator process may be used for volunteers that only will assist in this area.

See also pre-rfc discussion: Babel discussion.

Note: This is a local change, but with global impact.

Votes/Comments

Support As proposer. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sensible proposal. --Green Giant (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - TNT^❤ 16:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Defender (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Make sense, though it doesn't help my use case as a non-admin — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal: you could apply under the limited admin criteria above. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support it being something that I have brought up a number of times previously; as a writer of filters as a steward, and a repeated requester of updates, and found the existing process for changes thoroughly frustrating. @MusikAnimal: simply apply to be a meta admin, you qualify and, irrespective of limited scope of action, your qualfiications should be sufficient, we are just a central coordinating wiki and each tends to have a particular focus. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. RadiX ∞ 01:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -FASTILY 10:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO Global filter --> Global staff (stewards) | Local filter --> Local staff (admins). Alan ^(talk) 18:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I agree that the proposal is more than sensible. Regarding the oppose comment above, meta-admins are a local group with cross-wiki impact (and is defined as such at the user groups template if recall correctly), and already have permissions that affect Wikimedia globally as mentioned above, without seeing any harm from that. --Kostas20142 (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support why not? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alan.--*Youngjin (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to create a new user group for users who want to help out with global filters (looks like there are around 4 non-stewards who volunteering with this so far, so it doesn't make sense to add this to all metawiki admins). A user right like this should be granted by global community, not by metawiki community. The use of global filters can cause lots of issues, so its use/access should be limited. Matiia (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the two communities are one and the same. Meta is a wiki for coordination of the Wikimedia network, there shouldn't be a specific community here beyond people here for that reason. I can understand your desire to restrict access to only those that need it, but I would also like to use existing permissions wherever possible. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support the global abusefilter is in-line with existing permissions given to Meta admins, such as the spam and title blacklists. I am not in favour of creating more infrastructure (a new user group and related policy/request pages) when we have a group that would work as-is. I am also in favour of devolving a bunch of steward permissions that aren't related to user rights management, since the group has accumulated a bunch of responsibilities that it was never intended to have in the first place. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Ajraddatz. --Eurodyne (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the above. Nihlus 03:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although local group, they already have access to rights with global effect, it is sensible to allow them modify global abuse filters too. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alan. Esteban16 (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support in line with other rights that they already have. Braveheart (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would make sense for them to have as other global rights (like editing title and spam blacklist (which both act globally already)) are already given by promoting users to admin. Furthermore when someone wants to be admin here they have to demonstrate they have cross-wiki experience. I also see no point in creating yet another global group, especially when individuals which are trusted to be admin here already can do stuff on a global level (as I mentioned above). --Wiki13 talk 13:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with a note for admins to be super careful. There is little need for an adhoc usergroup, which is a little too bureaucratic. Plus, it fits the scope of limited adminship. --Artix Kreiger (Message Wall) 15:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alan. Zoranzoki21 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. –SJ talk 17:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Ajraddatz -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support No concern. SA 13 Bro (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes sense to do so. Mahir256 (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Common sense. --Cameron11598 (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support sure, per ajr. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. I am also inclined to create a new user group for this instead, though I realize that it's probably not a huge deal and that I'm wading against the tide here. As a compromise solution, Meta Wiki administrators could be given the ability to add themselves to the new user group without the need to ask for permission (this is current practice on en.wiki). Edit filters are potent stuff (more so, in my view, than the spam/title blacklists) and require a higher level of technical knowledge than most administrators have (looking at the history of the global spam/title blacklists, it appears to be a small subset of Meta Wiki admins that handle issues there). Creating a new user group would ensure that only users who are technically qualified with the tools have access to the tools. As for more infrastructure, I don't see this as being too expensive; it'll simply align global practice with how it's done locally on large projects like en.wiki. Mz7 (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't make a decision pro/con for this subject. Don't know what's best here. Trijnstel_talk 00:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I agree that perfectly Meta adminship should be about Meta only, but it is utopical. Currently as a Meta admin I have an access to global blacklists, anyone's global css/js, stewards' local and global css/js, very global CN banners, global massmessage spam, Meta bans often affecting ability to use Toolforge tools and so forth. It won't be really worse with giving us another global access and there are volunteers to use it so I am genereally pro. I guess I would need to change my password to even more complex and that'd be it. On the other hand, there are really few active admins, some areas CN administration for one are almost completely abandoned, a lot of other stuff runs on a couple of people. More rights means more areas to cover and more difficult to get access for new candidates, thus I cannot be celebrating this. --Base (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My hope is that the standard for local adminship here is reasonably low for trusted users who are active here, and that adding this right to the sysop group won't increase that standard. But I suppose we'll need to figure that out as a community at RFA moving forward. – Ajraddatz (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alaa :)..! 13:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, IMO Meta-admins are usually not technically worser than stewards and are trusted also. Stryn (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]