Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today
Guillaume Paumier wrote: The AbuseFilter extension for MediaWiki, which helps prevent vandalism on wikis, will be globally enabled on all Wikimedia projects later today. More information is available at http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=6106 From http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter: AbuseFilter allows privileged users to set specific controls on actions by users, such as edits, and create automated reactions for certain behaviors. Was there any discussion about giving every Wikimedia user an abuse log? I don't really have any objection to the AbuseFilter (beyond the performance implications, particularly with poorly written filters), but there are very legitimate issues with giving every user a publicly accessible abuse log. The English Wikipedia basically renamed the entire extension to EditFilter. Subsequently messages such as abuse log were changed to filter log. (The whole extension should be renamed to ActionFilter in my opinion.) Was there any discussion about the possible mischievous uses of this extension and how to curb them? Small wikis are particularly susceptible to abuse if a few local admins want every article to not include a particular viewpoint or particular phrases. Is there any plan to monitor this? MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today
Hi, On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:17 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Was there any discussion about giving every Wikimedia user an abuse log? I don't really have any objection to the AbuseFilter (beyond the performance implications, particularly with poorly written filters), but there are very legitimate issues with giving every user a publicly accessible abuse log. The English Wikipedia basically renamed the entire extension to EditFilter. Subsequently messages such as abuse log were changed to filter log. (The whole extension should be renamed to ActionFilter in my opinion.) Was there any discussion about the possible mischievous uses of this extension and how to curb them? Small wikis are particularly susceptible to abuse if a few local admins want every article to not include a particular viewpoint or particular phrases. Is there any plan to monitor this? Both concerns you raise are valid, and I agree with you, but globally enabling the extension by default is no different in that sense from enabling it one wiki at a time. Mischievous admins could be abusing AbuseFilter already on any small wiki where the extension was enabled following a request in bugzilla, and we wouldn't know about it if no one brought it up to the larger community. Similarly, a group of POV-pushing could be blocking users, deleting pages or protecting POV versions on a small wiki, and we wouldn't know about it either unless someone reported it. Yet, this is not a reason for not giving all admins block, delete and protect rights by default. Globally enabling the extension is merely more convenient for users (who don't have to wait until their shell request is processed) and shell users (who can spend time fulfilling other requests). HTH, -- Guillaume Paumier Technical Communications Manager — Wikimedia Foundation http://donate.wikimedia.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today
Admins are once again given even more extensive content powers ? And that's a good thing right Captain Kirk? It's a good thing right? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today
Let me rephrase in a slightly less trollish manner. Admins should never be given powers over content. Not now, not then, not ever. Admins have no business being involved in content of any type ever :) In every possible universe. Will -Original Message- From: Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com To: foundation-l foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2011 9:17 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today dmins are once again given even more extensive content powers ? nd that's a good thing right Captain Kirk? t's a good thing right? __ oundation-l mailing list oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Admins should never be given powers over content. Not now, not then, not ever. Admins have no business being involved in content of any type ever :) In every possible universe. Oh, sure. Especially when the content is HELLO I CAN EDIT THIS PAGE YOU ARE PEDOPHILES. --vvv ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today
Extreme cases can be used to justify any action Victor. Why live in a country where every month new powers are being given to the police to control the population? Who wants to live in that country? -Original Message- From: Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2011 9:44 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Admins should never be given powers over content. Not now, not then, not ver. Admins have no business being involved in content of any type ever :) In every possible universe. Oh, sure. Especially when the content is HELLO I CAN EDIT THIS PAGE OU ARE PEDOPHILES. --vvv ___ oundation-l mailing list oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today
Let me rephrase in a slightly less trollish manner. Admins should never be given powers over content. Perhaps fittingly, the abuse filter has been active on English Wikipedia for some time. And even better, it is not a sysop group right. Instead it has its own group. If you are volunteering to head up the abuse filter team and work to implement filters to filter out the mass of junk and long term abusers, please let me know and I will be happy to give you the permission! Otherwise.. perhaps get off the high horse? ;) Not now, not then, not ever. Admins have no business being involved in content of any type ever :) In every possible universe. That sucks, I was trying to sort out the dire lack of coverage of my local history, but I guess you are right. Sorry - you won't find me near content ever again. Sorry! ;) Tom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today
Give me permission. I am volunteering to head up the abuse filter team. Thomas don't mistake my point for some other point. I am not suggesting that admins AS EDITORS should veer away from content creation, but rather that admins using their clubs should not be given more clubs with which to club. -Original Message- From: Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2011 10:10 am Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today Let me rephrase in a slightly less trollish manner. Admins should never be given powers over content. erhaps fittingly, the abuse filter has been active on English Wikipedia for ome time. And even better, it is not a sysop group right. Instead it has ts own group. If you are volunteering to head up the abuse filter team and work to mplement filters to filter out the mass of junk and long term abusers, lease let me know and I will be happy to give you the permission! Otherwise.. perhaps get off the high horse? ;) Not now, not then, not ever. Admins have no business being involved in content of any type ever :) In every possible universe. That sucks, I was trying to sort out the dire lack of coverage of my local istory, but I guess you are right. Sorry - you won't find me near content ver again. Sorry! ;) Tom __ oundation-l mailing list oundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today
On 24 August 2011 18:12, Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Give me permission. I am volunteering to head up the abuse filter team. Thomas don't mistake my point for some other point. I am not suggesting that admins AS EDITORS should veer away from content creation, but rather that admins using their clubs should not be given more clubs with which to club. Doesn't that make the admin tools, well, defunct as pretty much everything involves content somewhere along the line.. Wait, no, this is not an argument worth having; I think the lack of research in your original comment says it all. Just sayin. Tom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Extreme cases can be used to justify any action Victor. Why live in a country where every month new powers are being given to the police to control the population? Who wants to live in that country? I'm amused. The first sentence is condemning Victor for using an extreme case. The second is an extreme case comparing the abuse filter to a police state. pb ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today
The filter works. On es@wiki we don't have a group. We just have a group of people that add some rules when asked. The admins who know how to add rules do it, the others, ask the ones that know about it, period. I'm really happy people don't have to worry about certain types of vandalism. I just hope all wikis can have access to a good tutorial that can show them how to use it. Alhen @alhen_ alhen at wikipedia, wikihow, wikispaces, and most places. Promotor de Wikimedia Bolivia 00-591-79592235 On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote: On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Extreme cases can be used to justify any action Victor. Why live in a country where every month new powers are being given to the police to control the population? Who wants to live in that country? I'm amused. The first sentence is condemning Victor for using an extreme case. The second is an extreme case comparing the abuse filter to a police state. pb ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today
Guillaume Paumier, 24/08/2011 17:39: Both concerns you raise are valid, and I agree with you, but globally enabling the extension by default is no different in that sense from enabling it one wiki at a time. Mischievous admins could be abusing AbuseFilter already on any small wiki where the extension was enabled following a request in bugzilla, and we wouldn't know about it if no one brought it up to the larger community. The difference is that to request it on bugzilla you need community consensus, which means that the local community agrees, is aware of the existence and functioning of the extension at least at a basic level and can monitor it. Similarly, a group of POV-pushing could be blocking users, deleting pages or protecting POV versions on a small wiki, and we wouldn't know about it either unless someone reported it. Yet, this is not a reason for not giving all admins block, delete and protect rights by default. Block, delete and protext are very simple actions; the AbuseFilter is harder to understand and often even the sysops using it don't know the effects of their filters. It's not a tragedy, but there must be some local control: compare the requirement for wikis to have at least two CheckUsers and not only one. Globally enabling the extension is merely more convenient for users (who don't have to wait until their shell request is processed) and shell users (who can spend time fulfilling other requests). I'm not saying we should (I don't know), but we could by default restrict the abusefilter-modify right to an abusefilter group (as in en.wiki) which could be assigned only by stewards, who would then be in charge of actually enabling the AbuseFilter locally without shell requests. This wouldn't create an instruction creep, it could just require a local consensus to give all sysops that right, or stewards could just decide to assign the flag to all sysops who request it notifying the community. Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
