Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blocker

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep blocker, delete blockreason. charlotte ^👸♥ 04:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blocker

Abuse filter blocking is disabled on English Wikipedia. Thus this message is pointless. There is only one log entry attributed to User:Edit filter: Special:Log/Edit filter. Awesome Aasim 19:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blockreason per nom. Unfortunately we have to keep blocker, since deleting it will just make things worse (change to fake admin account to User:Abuse filter rather than User:Edit filter, and require the crats to desysop the former, and otherwise cause more trouble than it's worth). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Can someone explain what the function or purpose of these two read-only files is, and what would be the effect of deleting them, and so why they should be deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blockreason is the edit summary that would be used for blocks by the abuse filter if we had abuse filters configured to block accounts. Since we don't have that configuration, haven't had it in years, and have no plans to enable it, it's a useless leftover and can be deleted.
MediaWiki:Abusefilter-blocker is the username that would be used to carry out such blocks. Aasim thinks that it should be deleted for the same reason as my previous paragraph, and in an idea world I would agree. But unfortunately the AbuseFilter extension also forces that username to be an admin, even there are no blocks being issued and no technical reason it needs to be one. If we were to delete it, then it would revert to the upstream default of "Abuse filter", thereby causing that username to be an admin. A crat would then need to manually desysop "edit filter", and we would have caused a lot of churn and ended up in a much worse situation than we started in. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blockreason and keep blocker per Pppery, without prejudice against renominating if T212268 is ever resolved. (Would putting a different user's name on blocker really make them a sysop instantly?) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And also make the account unable to be logged into, so the (mis)feature is harmless. Stewards have removed redundant admin rights created by this feature on non-English wikis dozens, probably hundreds of times.
I used to think T212268 was a bad idea (at least on wikis that did have abusefilter blocks enabled), but I've become convinced over the years that practicality beats semantic purity here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.