AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

Guillaume Paumier-3
Greetings,

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/2011/08/24/filter-preventing-abusive-edits-all-wikis/

--
Guillaume Paumier
Technical Communications Manager — Wikimedia Foundation
http://donate.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-ambassadors] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

Federico Leva (Nemo)
Guillaume Paumier, 24/08/2011 16:36:
> 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/2011/08/24/filter-preventing-abusive-edits-all-wikis/

I know I can look at noc.wikimedia.org, but could you please add some
info about the default configuration so that at least sysops know what
to expect. Or is it supposed to be used only by [global sysops and]
stewards (as it happened on some small wikis recently)?
Thank you,
        Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikitech-l] [Wikitech-ambassadors] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

Guillaume Paumier-3
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 4:57 PM, James Forrester <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 24 August 2011 15:55, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I know I can look at noc.wikimedia.org, but could you please add some
>> info about the default configuration so that at least sysops know what
>> to expect. Or is it supposed to be used only by [global sysops and]
>> stewards (as it happened on some small wikis recently)?
>
> It says in the blog post to which Guillaume linked that the default
> set up is blank, and that any sysop can set one up as they see fit,
> with a link to the documentation on how we've used in on enwiki (given
> that it's been active there for two years).

This is correct. Admins will be the ones able to create and manage
filters, and there will be no default filters.

The full configuration file is at
http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=abusefilter.php

--
Guillaume Paumier
Technical Communications Manager — Wikimedia Foundation
http://donate.wikimedia.org

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Guillaume Paumier-3
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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

Guillaume Paumier-3
Hi,

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 5:17 PM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

WJhonson
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2

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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

WJhonson

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 <[hidden email]>
To: foundation-l <[hidden email]>
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
[hidden email]
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

Victor Vasiliev
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Wjhonson <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

WJhonson

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 <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

Thomas Morton
In reply to this post by WJhonson
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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

WJhonson

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 <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <[hidden email]>
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
[hidden email]
nsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

Thomas Morton
On 24 August 2011 18:12, Wjhonson <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

Philippe Beaudette-3
In reply to this post by WJhonson
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Wjhonson <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

Alhen
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
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Wjhonson <[hidden email]> 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
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Guillaume Paumier-3
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
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l