mwpnl wrote:

One amendment:

WRONG:
all users ('*') should get the following permissions:
abusefilter-view, abusefilter-log, abusefilter-log-detail

GOOD:
all auto-confirmed users should get the following permissions:
abusefilter-view, abusefilter-log, abusefilter-log-detail

Sorry for any inconvenience

Mark

As addition: sysop's can not modify the filter without being in the abusefilter-group (this was not realy clear in my opinion).

All settings given by Mwpnl (including the amendment) are right.

I dispute the fact that sysops don't have all abusefilter rights. This wasn't clear from the vote we took at http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stemlokaal/AbuseFilter2
Please put this bug on hold until the nlwp community is clear about this.

mwpnl wrote:

(In reply to comment #3)

I dispute the fact that sysops don't have all abusefilter rights. This wasn't
clear from the vote we took at
http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stemlokaal/AbuseFilter2
Please put this bug on hold until the nlwp community is clear about this.

I’m terribly sorry if this was unclear to Maarten at any point, but this was part of the Voting Proposal. Non-Dutch speakers may use Google translate to come to the same conclusion as I did. On the voting-page (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stemlokaal/AbuseFilter2), there’s a special heading “Stem voorstel” (=Voting proposal). The third bullet point on the voting-page clearly states that only bureaucrats can add/remove users to the group “abusefilter-modify”.

This controversial decision was challenged during the TWO WEEKS(!) of discussion before the actual vote. One could check this for themselves at: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overleg_Wikipedia:Stemlokaal/AbuseFilter2 (Heading: “En nu tijd voor constructief overleg!”).

I resent Maarten’s comment and am under the strong impression that he did not read the proposal anytime during the 5 weeks the proposal took to prepare, vote and to check/confirm.

I am confident that the vote met all voting-guidelines, was clear to the community and that its outcome represents the opinion of the Dutch community.

I do not want to fight this one-man crusade here – or anywhere else – as there are always people unhappy with any outcome, whatever it might be. Unfortunately it has been brought here.

I do hope that this will in no way interfere in a quick enabling of the Abuse Filter, as we’ve been discussing it for over five weeks with – at last – a satisfying outcome. With any questions concerning this matter, I can be reached via the obvious channels, IRC: [MarkW], e-mail or talk pages. To inquire the opinion of other Dutch users, one might want to visit #wikipedia-nl. (But the comment above of LolSimon also illustrates that others were aware of this “dispute”)

Best regards,

Mark W / Mwpnl

jeroenvrp wrote:

I have to agree with Mark.

oscar.wiki wrote:

regretting the disagreement, i concur with lolsimon, jeroen and mark.

As having worked with Mark to create this proposal I agree with the above comments. Also check the talkpage behind the vote, there has been discussion whether or not the moderators should just have the rights and it should have been clear the rights has been put to a completely separate group.

Currently the sysops can assign the group abusefilter. This should allow them full access to the controls. Is this not working properly then? Also are all other conflicts resolved? (I am really not sure what this bug is lacking.)

mwpnl wrote:

(In reply to comment #8)

Currently the sysops can assign the group abusefilter. This should allow them
full access to the controls. Is this not working properly then? Also are all
other conflicts resolved? (I am really not sure what this bug is lacking.)

Dear Rob, This bug is to request the Abusefilter on nl-Wikipedia, with the settings as requested in the description I wrote. Currently nl-wikipedia does not have the abusefilter.

In the request, we explicitly do not want sysops to be able to assign the the group abusefilters, we want bureaucrats to be able to do that.

There are no other conflicts, this request is a community consensus.

Mark Wesbeek / Mwpnl

I have run the SQL commands to create the database. Also, I changed the permissions so only bureaucrats can assign and unassign the group 'abusefilter'. I have not installed the filters, because that is something that any abusefilter member can add or remove. So I leave that part to you guys.

It should be working now, please advise?

mwpnl wrote:

(In reply to comment #10)

I have run the SQL commands to create the database. Also, I changed the
permissions so only bureaucrats can assign and unassign the group
'abusefilter'. I have not installed the filters, because that is something
that any abusefilter member can add or remove. So I leave that part to you
guys.

It should be working now, please advise?

Are you sure? http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Abusefilter isn't working yet and there's no new group @ http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights ?

Thanks!

I have been advised that this is not currently installed, only configured. I will take another look at it when I can later today.

I am not sure how to get this working at this point in time. I need to review this with Andrew, the developer of the extension, who is currently traveling. When he is not traveling, we can hammer this out. Sorry for the delay.

Ok, this should be working now. I was confused until I realized I stupidly confused this ticket with a similar ticket for nlwikibooks, and thus half enabled abuse filter for each project.

Its all fixed, it should work. I have not enabled any actual filters yet.

oscar.wiki wrote:

thank you very much rob, it seems to work now!