https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21895
--- Comment #3 from MZMcBride <b...@mzmcbride.com> 2012-07-28 07:01:24 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > Actions that are not *obviously serious abuse* warrant at least the decency of > the split-second human review that any recent changes patroller can give them, > and with little impact on the content of the wiki. We managed for eight years. > Instead, you try to use this extension to enforce style guidelines, and > somehow > get away with concealing these automated decisions in what is just about the > only piece of closed-source code in the whole Wikimedia setup -- right down to > the routers and the phone system -- further entrenching the "us vs. them" > mentality that has come to define the project's outward attitude towards, > frankly, all but a few thousand people. > > The fact that you're using the extension for things it wasn't designed for, > and, in my opinion, shouldn't be used for at all, doesn't merit a name change. I somehow missed this reply. You mean the general "you," I suppose. I don't do much with the AbuseFilter extension and I never have. Early on in its development, I postulated the various ways in which the extension could be mis-used and abused, much as nearly any feature of MediaWIki has been abused or mis-used. With this extension, there are all kinds of nefarious filters that can be deployed by incompetent or abusive administrators. I also commented about these issues before it was announced (by guillom, as I recall) that the extension would be installed Wikimedia-wide. I worried about smaller projects where abuse or mis-use might go unnoticed (much as we've seen with the Titleblacklist extension, for example). So when you talk about "you," you're not really talking about me. In any case, the exact purpose of the extension isn't as clear as you suggest it is in your reply. It was originally written with a specific goal being to stop obvious and harmful vandalism by persistent bad users. But there were other underlying goals and possible use-cases being addressed as well. On such use-case was about using the filters as a calmer and more casual way of stopping edits such as obvious test edits (inserting "~~~~" into an article, for example). While, yes, it's easy to spot and revert these edits, a few considerations have to be made: * you clutter the page history; * you waste human resources; * it requires two edits for each action (instead of 0 edits); and * aggressive bots and Hugglers leave vague and scary talk page messages to these users (which in addition to being off-putting, adds yet another revision to the database). Compare this with the arguably more gentle approach of disallowing the edit and explaining to the user that there are more appropriate venues to make test edits (such as a sandbox or test.wikipedia.org). This is one particular example of a hole in your logic, but there are many others. The larger point is that the suggestion that the AbuseFilter was only ever intended for abusive edits simply doesn't match with history and reality. What we know for sure is that giving every user an "abuse log" is a poor idea. The terminology causes problems and has led to a number of wikis manually changing system messages in order to mitigate the harsh language of the extension. This is bad. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
