- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Clear consensus to ammend the text. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I propose to sightly modify the wording of the page as follows.
(underlying is mine to highlight the changes)
|The Abuse filter helpers global group was created to allow its users global access to view private data in the abuse log in the abuse filters on projects with it enabled. Additionally, it allows viewing of the spam blacklist log.
||The Abuse filter helpers global group was created to allow its users global access to view the contents of abuse filters marked as private and their corresponding abuse log entries. |Additionally, it allows viewing of the spam blacklist log.
- ↑ remove second sentence as ubiquitous right Special:ListGroupRights, see "abusefilter-log" and "abusefilter-log", c.f. "abusefilter-log-private" suitably covered in first sentence
- AbuseFilter is now enabled on every Wikimedia project so "on projects with it enabled" is no longer very accurate.
- "Private data" may lead to think about private information covered by the ANIP policy. The proposed text clarifies that the access is limited to viewing the syntax of abuse filters marked as private, and their corresponding log entries. This does not mean that such content should not be kept private by the rightsholders though.
Thank you, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support OK. Leaderboard (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think this should be uncontroversial. --MF-W 18:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support though wonder whether we should add word "detailed", so ...
Additionally, it allows detailed viewing of the spam blacklist log as everyone can view the log, they just cannot see the details of those marked prviate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billinghurst (talk)
- Hello Billinghurst: spamblacklistlog is assigned to all registered users by default (thanks Majavah for pointing it out to me), so I'm not sure which further details are they granted. Do you mean the AbuseLog? —MarcoAurelio (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- MarcoAurelio , I was meaning the private log, though that is possibly covered in the first sentence. I have removed second sentence if we are saying that it is ubiquitous. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe and their corresponding —and detailed— abuse log entries? They indeed have abusefilter-log-private. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support Esteban16 (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 23:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support, good change. -- CptViraj (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. The group was also created to enable detailed view of the abuse log. (See
abusefilter-log-detail userright.) Ruslik (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support * Pppery * it has begun 20:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support --mirinano (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support. Sgd. —Hasley 14:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support --Novak Watchmen (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support --Ivi104 (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support Syman51 (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.