-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
notes
1792 lines (1273 loc) · 165 KB
/
notes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
# Wichtige Fragen
* Wie funktionieren sie?
* technisch
* governance/community level
* Sind sie wirksam (aus wessen Perspektive)
* Was für Wirkmechanismen stecken dahinter?
* Wie komplex sind die?
* Wie sichtbar sind sie für normalsterbliche Nutzer*innen
* Wer macht sie? Wie viele Menschen sind das?
* Was sind das für Filter
* Wie sind sie entstanden?
* Aus was für eine Debatte sind sie entstanden?
* Wie haben sie sich über die Jahre entwickelt?
* Wie ist es organisiert?
* Was sind die Auswirkungen auf die Nutzer*innen?
* Wie viele False Positives erzeugen die Filter? Wie wird damit umgegangen?
# Weitere Gedanken
* "*Can* prevent *potentially* harmful behaviour" <--- wo kommt das her?
* general context: upload filter
* check toollab (stats + graphs)
* was gibts dazu bereits für Forschung?
* was wird eigentlich als Vandalismus definiert? (falls Vandalismus der Hauptanlass für die Filter is) (auch historisch)
========================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Edit_filter&oldid=877829572
"The edit filter is a tool that allows editors in the edit filter manager group to set controls mainly[1] to address common patterns of harmful editing."
Current filters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter
DEF:
"A filter automatically compares every edit made to Wikipedia against a defined set of conditions. If an edit matches the conditions of a filter, that filter will respond by logging the edit. It may also tag the edit summary, warn the editor, revoke his/her autoconfirmed status, and/or disallow the edit entirely.[2]"
Footnote 2: "The extension also allows for temporary blocking, but these features are disabled on the English Wikipedia." <-- TODO: Is there wikipedia on which it isn't disallowed?
Software: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter
---> enabled on English Wikipedia 2009
On the name:
"The term "edit filter" rather than "abuse filter" is currently used for user-facing elements of the filter as some of the edits it flags are not harmful;[1] the terms are otherwise synonymous."
"Because even the smallest mistake in editing a filter can disrupt the encyclopedia, only editors who have the required good judgment and technical proficiency are permitted to configure filters."
--> Who are these editors? Who decides they are qualified enough?
"Filters are created and configured by edit filter managers, but they can be requested by any editor."
"all administrators can view private filters"
"This group is assignable by administrators, who may also assign the right to themselves"
"The assignment of the edit filter manager user right to non-admins is highly restricted. It should only be requested by and given to highly trusted users, when there is a clear and demonstrated need for it."
"demonstrated knowledge of the extension's syntax and in understanding and crafting regular expressions is absolutely essential"
"Editors who are not edit filter managers should consider helping out at requested edit filters and troubleshooting at false positives to help gain experience and demonstrate these skills"
"Requests for assignment of the group to non-admins can be made at the edit filter noticeboard, where a discussion will be held before a decision is made;discussions are normally held open for 7 days."
"If an edit filter manager is misusing the user right, the concern should first be raised with them directly. If discussion does not resolve the issue, a request for discussion or removal of the user right may be made at the edit filter noticeboard. "
"If you have the edit filter manager user right, please ensure you follow the Password strength requirements and appropriate personal security practices. Two-factor authentication enrollment is available for edit filter managers. Because edit filters affect every edit made, a compromised account will be blocked and its privileges removed on grounds of site security. In the unlikely event that your account is compromised, notify an administrator or bureaucrat (for administrators) immediately so they can block your account and remove any sensitive privileges to prevent damage. "
//interessanterweise is 2factor-auth auch nur für diese speziellen Benutzer*innen erlaubt; sonst kann man die Seite nicht ansehen
List of current edit filter managers
EN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/abusefilter (currently: 155)
CAT: https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Usuaris/abusefilter (currently: 4 users)
-- auf Spanisch/Deutsch/Russisch existiert die Rolle nicht; interessant zu wissen, ob sie iwo subsumiert wurde
-- auf Bulgarisch übrigens auch nicht, aber da existiert auch die gesamte EditFilter seite nicht
What do filters do?/What actions they trigger (vgl DEF) in order of graveness:
- disallow -- editor is informed, if their edit is being disallowed and offered the option to report a false positive;
"It is also possible to have a user's autoconfirmed status revoked if a user trips the filter."
caution to use it seldomly and after a thorough discussion on what is a undesirable edit
- warn -- editor is informed that their edit may be problematic and given the option to save or abort the edit (and in report the false positive trigerred by the filter)
- add a tag - "edit is tagged for review by patrollers." -- TODO who are patrollers? are there some in lang versions other than EN?
"Patrols are a specialized type of WikiProject used in the English Wikipedia to watch over a class of pages and take any appropriate actions. Most patrol actions are performed by individual Wikipedians, but some are performed by bots—computer programs or preprogrammed scripts that make automated edits without a need for real time human decision-making. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Patrols
- log the edit - "In this case, the edit is merely added to the AbuseLog. When testing new filters, this is the suggested setting to use."
"Except in urgent situations, new edit filters should generally be tested without any actions specified (simply enabled) until a good number of edits have been logged and checked before being implemented in "warn" or "disallow" modes. If the filter is receiving more than a very small percentage of false positives it should usually not be placed in 'disallow' mode."
Alternatives:
"Edit filter managers should be familiar with alternatives that might be more appropriate in a given situation. For example, problems on a single page might be better served with page protection, and problems with page titles or link spam may find the title blacklist and spam blacklist more effective respectively. Because edit filters check every edit in some way, filters that are tripped only rarely are discouraged. "
Exemptions for "urgent situation" -- what/how are these defined?
Discussions may happen postfactum here and filter may be applied before having been thoroughly tested; in this case the corresponding editor is responsible for checking the logs regularly and making sure the filter acts as desired
Hidden filters!
"Non-admins in good standing who wish to review a proposed but hidden filter may message the mailing list for details."
// what is "good standing"?
// what are the arguments for hiding a filter?
// are users still informed if their edit triggers a hidden filter?
"For all filters, including those hidden from public view, a brief description of what the rule targets is displayed in the log, the list of active filters, and in any error messages generated by the filter. "
"Filters should only be hidden where necessary, such as in long-term abuse cases where the targeted user(s) could review a public filter and use that knowledge to circumvent it. Filters should not generally be named after abusive editors, but rather with a simple description of the type of abuse, provided not too much information is given away."
"Be careful not to test sensitive parts of private filters in a public test filter (such as Filter 1): use a private test filter (for example Filter 2) if testing is required."
harassment! mailinglist
"If it would not be desirable to discuss the need for a given edit filter on-wiki, such as where the purpose of the filter is to combat harassment by an abusive banned user who is likely to come across the details of the request, edit filter managers can be emailed directly or on the wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list at [email protected]."
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-en-editfilters
"private mailing list used by English Wikipedia edit filter managers, "
"primarily for discussing hidden filters."
"The mailing list should not be used as a venue for discussions that could reasonably be held on-wiki."
batch testing interface
=================================================================
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bearbeitungsfilter
"Der Bearbeitungsfilter (englisch: edit filter; früher: „Missbrauchsfilter“ oder abuse filter) ist ein vielseitig einsetzbares Werkzeug zur Beobachtung und Verhinderung problematischer Bearbeitungen. Dazu gehört die Bekämpfung von Verstößen gegen die Wikipedia-Richtlinien, insbesondere Wikipedia:Vandalismus."
"Derzeit können alle Administratoren Filter bearbeiten."
--> Unterschied zu EN, ne? Da gibts ne Spezielle Gruppe für? (Aber Admins können da Menschen reinstecken, auch sich selber)
Mögliche Auswirkungen
"
* das Verhindern von Edits, die bestimmte Eigenschaften erfüllen
* das Hinweisen des agierenden Benutzers bei solchen Edits
* das reine Aufspüren solcher Edits"
"Für jede aktive Filterregel gilt, dass sie begründet sein muss und die Verhältnismäßigkeit durch die konkret anzunehmenden potentiell schädigenden Bearbeitungen gewahrt ist."
"Gründe für den Einsatz des Bearbeitungsfilter können sein:
* Vandalismus/Sperrumgehungen durch einen Wikipedianer mit wechselnden Benutzerkonten/IP-Adressen oder auf mehreren Seiten, wobei eine konventionelle Artikel- oder Benutzer-Sperre zu viele Nebenwirkungen hätte
* sonst schwer zu findende (unabsichtliche) Verstöße gegen die Wikipedia-Richtlinien
* Erstellung von Wartungslisten (wobei versucht werden sollte, hier eher Bots zu nutzen)"
=================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard
According to the Edit filter Notice board:
"There are currently 196 enabled filters and 13 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days (Purge). See also the edit filter graphs." (Stand: 24.11.2018)
"There are currently 198 enabled filters and 11 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days (Purge). See also the edit filter graphs." (Stand: 25.11.2018, seems to change frequently!)
- discuss current filter behaviour
- suggest filter for deletion, since it's not particularly helpful: " unnecessary, is preventing good edits, or is otherwise problematic,"
(you can also raise the issue directly with the filter manager who created or enabled the filter)
apart from that: current ongoing discussions on single filters/problems that may require a filter
===============================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested&oldid=871023624
-- gibts nur noch auf Deutsch
- suggest new filters
"This page is for people without the abusefilter-modify permission or people without sufficient knowledge about the coding involved to make requests to enact edit filters."
There's a "Bear the following in mind:" checklist
"Filters are applied to all edits. Therefore, problematic changes that apply to a single page are likely not suitable for an edit filter."
- filter, after adding up, make editing slower
- in depth checks should be done by a separate software that users run on their own machines
- no trivial errors should be catched by filters (ala style guidelines)
- there are Titles Blacklist and Link/Spam Blacklist
===============================================================
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bearbeitungsfilter/Antr%C3%A4ge
DE für https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested
viel mehr kram auf der oberseite als bei der englischen; diskussionen zu jeden einzelnen(?) filter sind direkt verlinkt
"Auf dieser Seite können Vorschläge für neue Regeln des Bearbeitungsfilters eingereicht werden. Diskussionen zu Filterregeln (z.B. wegen irrtümlichen Blockaden), deren Nummer nicht bekannt ist, werden ebenfalls hier geführt. Zusätzlich gibt es für jede bereits bestehende Regel eine eigene Diskussionsseite. Eine Übersicht zu diesen einzelnen Seiten gibt der Abschnitt #Liste der Diskussionen zu einzelnen Regeln. Im Archiv werden Diskussionen gesammelt, für die keine Regeln erstellt wurden."
Ein Bsp:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bearbeitungsfilter/271
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung/Archiv/2018/11/25#Benutzer:Zollwurf_(erl.)
-- ich hab mittlerweile den Eindruck, dass so was evtl auf der Engl. Wikipedia nicht öffentlich wäre?
-- allerdings, ist so ein Problem mit nem Filter zu lösen? Wie kann es sonst gelöst werden?
===============================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse
117 active cases [Stand 24.11.2018]
there's a list available at least for the active cases with detailed abuse reports
There's also an archive page of abuse cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Archive (25 entries [Stand 24.11.2018])
And full list of cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Full
"This page summarises a limited number of long term abusers, to assist members of the community who believe they may have cause to report another incident. Note that this page is not a noticeboard. Names should only be added for the most egregious and well-attested cases. Most users here will have been banned, some on multiple occasions. "
"Don't provide too much info
The text should tread a careful balance between providing useful information and providing enough to obstruct detection. In general such information should only be shared with users of a high level of reputation."
===============================================================
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Vandalismusbek%C3%A4mpfung/Troll-Dokumentationsseiten
DE zu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse
"Hier werden Seiten im Benutzernamensraum gesammelt, auf denen die Aktivitäten unterschiedlicher Wikipediastörer charakterisiert oder dokumentiert werden sollen. "
!!!"Eine Definition von störendem Verhalten, z. B. in Bezug auf Art, Umfang oder Dauer der Projektstörung, die eine Bezeichnung als „Wikipediatroll“ rechtfertigt, ist in der Autorengemeinschaft umstritten."
sonst eben wieder listen mit bekannten Fällen; kein Count der aktuell aktiven Fällen wie bei der Englischen Seite
===============================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/384
bad words in articles and user names filter
===============================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Missbrauchsfilter-Logbuch
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:RegistroAbusos
https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Registre_dels_abusos
https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%B8:%D0%94%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%82%D1%8A%D1%80%D0%B0
can search for all filter triggers in a period of time/by a specific user
auf der Deutschen Seite ist die Filter-Aktion und -Beschreibung aufgelistet, aber die Filternummer ist nicht verlinkt, also kann man nicht direkt den Quellcode ansehen;
Außerdem muss man direkt auf die Seite gehen, um die versuchte Änderungen in der Versionsgeschichte anzugucken
die Spanische Seite ist ähnlich aufgebaut wie die Deutsche.
!!!Da es aber auf Spanisch anscheinend keine "Saved Revisions" (oder wie hieß das nochma) gibt, kann man eigenltich die abusiven Änderungen gar nicht mehr sichten und noch kann man den Filter angucken, der eigentlich getriggered wurde
Katalanisch ist das selbe wie Spanisch, mit dem Unterschied, dass aus irgendeinem Grund (keine Regelmäßigkeit festgestellt), manchmal die Summaries auf Englisch sind, da wird auch ein Diff mit den offending Changes angezeigt.
the Bulgarian page uses the same form as the English one, so source code of the filter as well as diff of the changes can be viewed
===============================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Filtro_de_ediciones/Portal/Archivo/Reporte_de_falsos_positivos/Actual
https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:Filtre_d%27edicions/Falsos_positius
a detailed page with ongoing/recently reported cases
there seems to be no such page for BG and DE --> no possibility to report false positives?
================================================================
Current status (29.11.2018)
EN: There are currently 201 enabled filters, and 12 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days (Purge).
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter
DE: 170 enabled, disabled, privat, öffentlich https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Missbrauchsfilter/?deletedfilters=hide&limit=250&title=Spezial%3AMissbrauchsfilter%2F
ES: 92 https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:FiltroAntiAbusos/?deletedfilters=hide&limit=100&title=Especial%3AFiltroAntiAbusos%2F
CA: 24 https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Especial:Filtre_d%27abuses (spannend: man muss sich anmelden um das angucken zu können!)
BG: 24 https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%B8:%D0%A4%D0%B8%D0%BB%D1%82%D1%8A%D1%80_%D1%81%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%89%D1%83_%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B8
=================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter
"There are currently 203 enabled filters, and 11 stale filters with no hits in the past 30 days (Purge)."
that's the management interface!
"Welcome to the Edit Filter management interface. Using the Edit Filter, authorized users can configure a wide range of tests, which may help identify and prevent potentially harmful edits and other activities before they are added to the wiki, and the automatic actions to be taken."
"PLEASE be careful. This is potent stuff. Unless it's urgent, always test your filters with no actions enabled first."
weird? the test interface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/test
says: "For security reasons, only users with the right to view private abuse filters or modify filters may use this interface."
shouldn't all filter editors be able to test??
Collaboration with bots:
"There is a bot reporting users tripping certain filters at WP:AIV and WP:UAA; you can specify the filters here."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DatBot/filters
Sortable table of all filters with following columns:
Filter ID Public description Actions Status Last modified Visibility Hit count
links to single filters, e.g. --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/1 (see bellow for detailed filter page)
"Actions" is one of: warn | tag | disallow | throttle | ?? (possibly more, not directly visible)
"Status" is: enabled | disabled
"Last modified" provides a link to diff between versions and the user who did the modification
"Visibility" is: private | public
"Hit count": which period is counted? total number of hits since the filter was enabled? (for all enabled periods, in case it was enabled/disabled multiple times?)
Filter with most hits:
Filter ID Public description Actions Status Last modified Visibility Hit count
61 New user removing references Tag Enabled 12:43, 14 May 2017 by Zzuuzz (talk | contribs) Public 1,593,851 hits
=====================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/1
where following information can be viewed:
Filter id; public description; filter hits; statistics; code (conditions); notes (left by filter editors to log changes;); flags ("Hide details of this filter from public view", "enable this filter", "mark as deleted");
links to: last modified (with diff and user who modified it), edit filter's history; "export this filter to another wiki" tool;
Actions to take when matched:
Trigger actions only if the user trips a rate limit
Trigger these actions after giving the user a warning
Prevent the user from performing the action in question
Revoke the user's autoconfirmed status
Tag the edit in contributions lists and page histories
and the filter can be modified if the viewing editor has the right permissions
statistics are info such as "Of the last 1,728 actions, this filter has matched 10 (0.58%). On average, its run time is 0.34 ms, and it consumes 3 conditions of the condition limit." (that's filter id 61) // not sure what the condition limit is
"Of the last 5,616 actions, this filter has matched 0 (0.00%). On average, its run time is 0 ms, and it consumes 0 conditions of the condition limit." (that's filter id 1)
=========================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/history/1
Time User Public filter description Flags Actions Changes
the link with the timestamp links back to the filter editor (see previous page)
user links to the user
changes links to a diff of the current revision with the previous one
=========================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-03-23/Abuse_Filter
"The AbuseFilter extension, developed by User:Werdna, is now enabled on English Wikipedia. The extension allows all edits to be checked against automatic filters and heuristics, which can be set up to look for patterns of vandalism including page move vandalism and juvenile-type vandalism, as well as common newbie mistakes. When a match is found, the extension can take specified actions, ranging from logging the edit to be checked, giving a warning (e.g. "did you really intend to blank a page?"), to more serious actions such as blocking users."
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-03-23/Abuse_Filter
("The Signpost is a monthly community-written and -edited online newspaper covering the English Wikipedia, its sister projects, the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Wikimedia movement at large." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/About)
Note: User:Werdna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Werdna
"I'm Andrew Garrett. I started volunteering in 2005, and I worked at the Wikimedia Foundation from 2009 until I left in 2015 because 7 years is a long time. This is my personal account, so while I'll make mistakes, I intend for actions taken with this account to be in my personal capacity only. My work account was Andrew Garrett."
http://www.andrewjgarrett.com/
========================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Edit_filter&oldid=221158142
Edit_filter page first version, created 23.06.2008, where User:Werdna announced the upcoming MediaWiki Extention he was working on.
"I've been developing an extension which allows privileged users to add very specific restrictions on actions going through on the wiki.
This gives us the opportunity to prevent damage from vandals with very specific modi operandi."
"I submit to the community that this gives us an extraordinary opportunity to disallow some of the worst and most annoying types of vandalism which occur on Wikipedia, and to refocus our efforts into doing other, more productive things than cleaning up after page-move vandalism."
There's a list of things that the filters can filter on
"It is noteworthy here that no rights, even to view information, are granted to all users. This is deliberate. Information about the filters active on Wikipedia would be sensitive information, and, if it were to be publically available, release to those who wish to circumvent them would be inevitable. I currently propose that the right to view filters be almost as well-protected as the right to modify them."
"Of course, this issue of the closed nature of the extension is the extension's main problem, and the one which I foresee the most objections on. "
=========================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Instructions
"This section explains how to create a filter with some preliminary testing, so you don't flood the history page."
- read the docs https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules_format
- test with debugging tools https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/tools (visible only for users who are already in the edit filter managers user group)
- test with batch testing interface (dito)
- create logging only filter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/new (needs permissions)
- Post a message at WP:EFN (edit filter notice board), so other edit filter managers have a chance to improve it
- Finally, fully enable your filter, e.g. add warning, prevention, tagging, etc.
tips on controlling efficiency/order of operations
lazy evaluation: when 1st negative condition is met, filter terminates execution
"You should always order your filters so that the condition that will knock out the largest number of edits is first. Usually this is a user groups or a user editcount check; in general, the last condition should be the regex that is actually looking for the sort of vandalism you're targeting. "
===========================================================================
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter
Author(s)
Andrew Garrett, <-- lead dev
River Tarnell
Victor Vasiliev
Marius Hoch
a media wiki extention written in php;
licensed under GPL 2.0
no further dependencies needed
code repo: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/g/mediawiki/extensions/AbuseFilter
issue tracker: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/abusefilter/
"Once the extension has been installed, filters can be created/tested/changed/deleted and the logs can be accessed from the Abuse filter management page Special:AbuseFilter. "
you can import filters from wikipedia
Creates following tables
mysql> describe abuse_filter; (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter/abuse_filter_table)
+--------------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+--------------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| af_id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| af_pattern | blob | NO | | NULL | |
| af_user | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | MUL | NULL | | // user ID of last modifier
| af_user_text | varbinary(255) | NO | | NULL | | // user name of last modifier
| af_timestamp | binary(14) | NO | | NULL | | // last modified
| af_enabled | tinyint(1) | NO | | 1 | |
| af_comments | blob | YES | | NULL | |
| af_public_comments | tinyblob | YES | | NULL | |
| af_hidden | tinyint(1) | NO | | 0 | |
| af_hit_count | bigint(20) | NO | | 0 | |
| af_throttled | tinyint(1) | NO | | 0 | |
| af_deleted | tinyint(1) | NO | | 0 | |
| af_actions | varbinary(255) | NO | | | |
| af_global | tinyint(1) | NO | | 0 | |
| af_group | varbinary(64) | NO | MUL | default | |
+--------------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
mysql> describe abuse_filter_log; https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter/abuse_filter_log_table
+------------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+------------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| afl_id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| afl_filter | varbinary(64) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| afl_user | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | MUL | NULL | | \\User ID of the author of the action.
| afl_user_text | varbinary(255) | NO | | NULL | | \\User name of the author of the action.
| afl_ip | varbinary(255) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| afl_action | varbinary(255) | NO | | NULL | | \\The action which triggered the filter. Values can include the following values: edit, delete, createaccount, move, upload, autocreateaccount, stashupload
| afl_actions | varbinary(255) | NO | | NULL | | \\What the filter made about the action
| afl_var_dump | blob | NO | | NULL | | \\Value of the variables of the filter that matched the edit, stored as a serialized PHP array.
| afl_timestamp | binary(14) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| afl_namespace | tinyint(4) | NO | MUL | NULL | | \\Target Namespace of the filtered action.
| afl_title | varbinary(255) | NO | | NULL | | \\Target title of the filter action.
| afl_wiki | varbinary(64) | YES | MUL | NULL | |
| afl_deleted | tinyint(1) | NO | | 0 | | \\"Whether the AbuseLog entry was suppressed. 1 if suppressed, 0 otherwise.
" ohm, that means, that if 1, the rest of the line would be empty?
| afl_patrolled_by | int(10) unsigned | YES | | NULL | | \\unused
| afl_rev_id | int(10) unsigned | YES | MUL | NULL | | \\Foreign key to revision.rev_id, only populated for saved edits in order to show a diff link. I've got the feeling, it is also unused, for filter id 23 it is empty for all log entries
| afl_log_id | int(10) unsigned | YES | MUL | NULL | | \\unused
+------------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
16 rows in set (0.00 sec)
mysql> describe abuse_filter_history; (from https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter/abuse_filter_history_table)
+---------------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+---------------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
| afh_id | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | auto_increment |
| afh_filter | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| afh_user | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| afh_user_text | varbinary(255) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| afh_timestamp | binary(14) | NO | MUL | NULL | |
| afh_pattern | blob | NO | | NULL | |
| afh_comments | blob | NO | | NULL | |
| afh_flags | tinyblob | NO | | NULL | |
| afh_public_comments | tinyblob | YES | | NULL | |
| afh_actions | blob | YES | | NULL | |
| afh_deleted | tinyint(1) | NO | | 0 | |
| afh_changed_fields | varbinary(255) | NO | | | |
| afh_group | varbinary(64) | YES | | NULL | |
+---------------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+----------------+
13 rows in set (0.00 sec)
Note! no public view of table abuse_filter_history at the moment
mysql> describe abuse_filter_action; (from https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter/abuse_filter_action_table)
+-----------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra |
+-----------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
| afa_filter | bigint(20) unsigned | NO | PRI | NULL | |
| afa_consequence | varbinary(255) | NO | PRI | NULL | |
| afa_parameters | tinyblob | NO | | NULL | |
+-----------------+---------------------+------+-----+---------+-------+
3 rows in set (0.00 sec)
Seems to contain data for currently enabled filters only;
Question: how do we find data for disabled filters?
# API calls
## List information about filters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=abusefilters&abfshow=!private&abfprop=id%7Chits
or in the sandbox:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ApiSandbox#action=query&list=abusefilters&abfshow=!private&abfprop=id%7Chits
Parameters
abfstartid: The filter id to start enumerating from
abfendid: The filter id to stop enumerating at
abfdir: The direction in which to enumerate (older, newer)
abfshow: Show only filters which meet these criteria (enabled|!enabled|deleted|!deleted|private|!private)
abflimit: The maximum number of filters to list
abfprop: Which properties to get (id|description|pattern|actions|hits|comments|lasteditor|lastedittime|status|private)
When filters are private, some of the properties specified with abfprop will be missing unless you have the appropriate user rights.
## List instances where actions triggered an abuse filter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=abuselog&afluser=SineBot&aflprop=ids
or in the sandbox:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ApiSandbox#action=query&list=abuselog&afluser=SineBot&aflprop=ids
Parameters
aflstart: The timestamp to start enumerating from
aflend: The timestamp to stop enumerating at
afldir: The direction in which to enumerate (older, newer)
afluser: Show only entries where the action was attempted by a given user or IP address.
afltitle: Show only entries where the action involved a given page.
aflfilter: Show only entries that triggered a given filter ID
afllimit: The maximum number of entries to list
aflprop: Which properties to get (ids|user|title|action|result|timestamp|details)
===========================================================================
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules_format
Manual on writing filter rules;
===========================================================================
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/abusefilter/
keep in mind in case of problems
===========================================================================
Google search for something on the quarry.wmflabs.org page
site:quarry.wmflabs.org all tables
===========================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Namespace
Namespaces
Subject namespaces Talk namespaces
0 (Main/Article) Talk 1
2 User User talk 3
4 Wikipedia Wikipedia talk 5
6 File File talk 7
8 MediaWiki MediaWiki talk 9
10 Template Template talk 11
12 Help Help talk 13
14 Category Category talk 15
100 Portal Portal talk 101
108 Book Book talk 109
118 Draft Draft talk 119
710 TimedText TimedText talk 711
828 Module Module talk 829
2300 Gadget Gadget talk 2301
2302 Gadget definition Gadget definition talk 2303
Virtual namespaces
-1 Special
-2 Media
============================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism
"This is not a noticeboard for vandalism. Report vandalism from specific users at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, or Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for specific pages.
Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Disruptive editing."
"This page documents an English Wikipedia policy."
"This page in a nutshell: Intentionally making abusive edits to Wikipedia will result in a block."
DEF Vandalism:
"On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge."
"The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. There, of course, exist more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism."
Consequences of vandalism, vandalism management
"Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means a prerequisite for blocking a vandal (although administrators usually only block when multiple warnings have been issued). "
"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."
"For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism." !!!
"Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism."
"If it is clear that the editor in question is intending to improve Wikipedia, those edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some other core policy of Wikipedia."
"When editors are editing in good faith, mislabeling their edits as vandalism makes them less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement,"
Handling
"Upon discovering vandalism, revert such edits, using the undo function or an anti-vandalism tool. Once the vandalism is undone, warn the vandalizing editor. Notify administrators at the vandalism noticeboard of editors who continue to vandalize after multiple warnings, and administrators should intervene to preserve content and prevent further disruption by blocking such editors. Users whose main or sole purpose is clearly vandalism may be blocked indefinitely without warning."
"examples of suspicious edits are those performed by IP addresses, red linked, or obviously improvised usernames"
One of the strategies to spot vandalism is "Watching for edits tagged by the abuse filter. However, many tagged edits are legitimate, so they should not be blindly reverted. That is, do not revert without at least reading the edit."
"Warn the vandal. Access the vandal's talk page and warn them. A simple note explaining the problem with their editing is sufficient. If desired, a series of warning templates exist to simplify the process of warning users, but these templates are not required. These templates include
Level one: {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} This is a gentle caution regarding unconstructive edits; it encourages new editors to use a sandbox for test edits. This is the mildest warning.
Level two: {{subst:uw-vandalism2}} This warning is also fairly mild, though it explicitly uses the word 'vandalism' and links to this Wikipedia policy.
Level three: {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} This warning is sterner. It is the first to warn that further disruptive editing or vandalism may lead to a block.
Level four: {{subst:uw-vandalism4}} This is the sharpest vandalism warning template, and indicates that any further disruptive editing may lead to a block without warning."
Types of vandalism:
"
* Abuse of tags: Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {{afd}}, {{db}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. This includes baseless removal of {{policy}} and related tags.
* Account creation, malicious: Creating accounts with usernames that contain deliberately offensive or disruptive terms is considered vandalism, whether the account is used or not. For Wikipedia's policy on what is considered inappropriate for a username, see Wikipedia:Username policy. See also Wikipedia:Sock puppetry.
* Avoidant vandalism: Removing {{afd}}, {{copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal deletion candidates or avert deletion of such content. However, this is often mistakenly done by new users who are unfamiliar with AfD procedures and such users should be given the benefit of the doubt and pointed to the proper page to discuss the issue.
* Blanking, illegitimate
For legitimate cases of blanking articles, see Wikipedia:Redirect § Redirects that replace previous articles.
Removing encyclopedic content without any reason, or replacing such content with nonsense. Content removal is not considered to be vandalism when the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.
Blanking that could be legitimate includes blanking all or part of a biography of a living person. Wikipedia is especially concerned about providing accurate and unbiased information on the living; blanking may be an effort to remove inaccurate or biased material. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, {{uw-test1}} or {{uw-delete1}}, as appropriate, should be used as initial warnings for content removals without more descriptive edit summaries.
* Copyrighted material, repeated uploading of: Uploading or using material on Wikipedia in ways which violate Wikipedia's copyright policies after having been warned is vandalism. Because users may be unaware that the information is copyrighted, or of Wikipedia policies on how such material may and may not be used, such action only becomes vandalism if it continues after the copyrighted nature of the material and relevant policy restricting its use have been communicated to the user.
* Edit summary vandalism: Making offensive edit summaries in an attempt to leave a mark that cannot be easily expunged from the record (edit summaries cannot simply be "reverted" and require administrative action if they have to be removed from a page's history). Often combined with malicious account creation.
* Format vandalism: Changing the formatting of a page unreasonably and maliciously. But many times, editors might just make an unintended mistake or are testing how the wikicode works. Sometimes it might be a bug in the Wikipedia software. Some changes to the format are not vandalism, but rather either good faith edits of editors who don't know the guidelines or simply a different opinion on how the format should look, in which case it is just a disputed edit.
* Gaming the system: Deliberate attempts to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures by causing bad faith edits to go unnoticed. Includes marking bad faith edits as minor to get less scrutiny, making a minor edit following a bad faith edit so it won't appear on all watchlists, recreating previously deleted bad faith creations under a new title, use of the {{construction}} tag to prevent deletion of a page that would otherwise be a clear candidate for deletion, or use of sock puppets.
* Hidden vandalism: Any form of vandalism that makes use of embedded text, which is not visible to the final rendering of the article but visible during editing. This includes link vandalism, or placing malicious, offensive, or otherwise disruptive or irrelevant messages or spam in hidden comments for editors to see.
* Hoaxing vandalism: Deliberately adding falsities to articles, particularly to biographies of living people, with hoax information is considered vandalism.
* Image vandalism: Uploading shock images, inappropriately placing explicit images on pages, or simply using any image in a way that is disruptive. Please note though that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors and that explicit images may be uploaded and/or placed on pages for legitimate reasons (that is, if they have encyclopedic value).
* Link vandalism: Adding or changing internal or external links on a page to disruptive, irrelevant, or inappropriate targets while disguising them with mislabeling.
* Page creation, illegitimate: Creating new pages with the sole intent of malicious behavior. It also includes personal attack pages (articles written to disparage the subject), hoaxes and other intentionally inaccurate pages. There are many other types of pages that merit deletion, even speedy deletion, but which are not vandalism. New users sometimes create test pages containing nonsense or even autobiographies, and doing so is not vandalism; such pages can also be moved to become their sandbox or userpage. Pages on non-notable topics are not vandalism. Blatant advertising pages, and blatant POV pushes, are not vandalism, but frequently happen and often lead to editors being blocked. It's important that people creating inappropriate pages be given appropriate communication; even if they aren't willing to edit within our rules, they are more likely to go away quietly if they understand why their page has been deleted.
* Page lengthening: Adding very large (measured by the number of bytes) amounts of bad-faith content to a page so as to make the page's load time abnormally long or even make the page impossible to load on some computers without the browser or machine crashing. Adding large amounts of good-faith content is not vandalism, though prior to doing so, one should consider if splitting a long page may be appropriate (see Wikipedia:Article size).
* Page-move vandalism: Changing the names of pages to disruptive, irrelevant, or otherwise inappropriate names. Only autoconfirmed or confirmed users can move pages.
* Silly vandalism: Adding profanity, graffiti, or patent nonsense to pages; creating nonsensical and obviously unencyclopedic pages, etc. It is one of the most common forms of vandalism. However, the addition of random characters to pages is often characteristic of an editing test and, though impermissible, may not be malicious.
* Sneaky vandalism: Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles (such as minor alteration of facts or additions of plausible-sounding hoaxes), hiding vandalism (such as by making two bad edits and only reverting one), simultaneously using multiple accounts or IP addresses to vandalize, abuse of maintenance and deletion templates, or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Impersonating other users by signing an edit with a different username or IP address also constitutes sneaky vandalism, but take care not to confuse this with appropriately correcting an unsigned edit made by another user. Some vandals even follow their vandalism with an edit that states "Rv vandalism" in the edit summary in order to give the appearance the vandalism was reverted.
* Spam external linking: Adding or continuing to add spam external links is vandalism if the activity continues after a warning. A spam external link is one added to a page mainly for the purpose of promoting a website, product or a user's interests rather than to improve the page editorially.
* Stockbroking vandalism: Adding information to pages about quoted companies concerning forthcoming mergers, announcements, and the like. The vandal's intent is to provide credibility to their attempt to promote shares.
* Talk page vandalism: Illegitimately deleting or editing other users' comments. However, it is acceptable to blank comments constituting vandalism, internal spam, or harassment or a personal attack. It is also acceptable to identify an unsigned comment. Users are also permitted to remove comments from their own user talk pages. A policy of prohibiting users from removing warnings from their own talk pages was considered and rejected on the grounds that it would create more issues than it would solve.
* Template vandalism: Modifying the wiki language or text of a template in a harmful or disruptive manner. This is especially serious, because it will negatively impact the appearance of multiple pages. Some templates appear on hundreds or thousands of pages, so they are permanently protected from editing to prevent vandalism.
* User and user talk page vandalism: Unwelcome, illegitimate edits to another person's user page may be considered vandalism. User pages are regarded as within the control of their respective users and generally should not be edited without permission of the user to whom they belong. See WP:UP#OWN. Related is Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
* Vandalbots: A script or "robot" that attempts to vandalize or add spam to a mass of pages."
This is not vandalism:
- boldly editing
- copyright violation
- disruptive editing or stubbornness --> edit warring
- edit summary omission
- editing tests by experimenting users: "Such edits, while prohibited, are treated differently from vandalism"
- harassment or personal attacks: "Personal attacks and harassment are not allowed. While some harassment is also vandalism, such as user page vandalism, or inserting a personal attack into an article, harassment in itself is not vandalism and should be handled differently."
- Incorrect wiki markup and style
- lack of understanding of the purpose of wikipedia: "editing it as if it were a different medium—such as a forum or blog—in a way that it appears as unproductive editing or borderline vandalism to experienced users."
- misinformation, accidental
- NPOV contraventions (Neutral point of view)
- nonsense, accidental: "sometimes honest editors may not have expressed themselves correctly (e.g. there may be an error in the syntax, particularly for Wikipedians who use English as a second language)."
- Policy and guideline pages, good-faith changes to: "If people misjudge consensus, it would not be considered vandalism;"
- Reversion or removal of unencyclopedic material, or of edits covered under the biographies of living persons policy: "Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is not in line with Wikipedia's standards is not vandalism."
- Deletion nominations: "Good-faith nominations of articles (or templates, non-article pages, etc) are not vandalism."
=====================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
Notice board;
"This page is intended only for reports about active, obvious, and persistent vandals and spammers."
"Don't forget that blocking is a last resort;"
=====================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing
"Disruptive editing is not vandalism, though vandalism is disruptive."
"Disruptive editing is not always intentional. Editors may be accidentally disruptive because they don't understand how to correctly edit, or because they lack the social skills or competence necessary to work collaboratively "
Okay what are disruptive edits that are not vandalism? (apart from edit wars)
"sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site as a platform for pushing a single point of view, original research, advocacy, or self-promotion."
"not verifiable through reliable sources or insisting on giving undue weight to a minority view."
"Collectively, disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors who may quit the project in frustration when a disruptive editor continues with impunity."
examples of disruptive editing:
"Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified {{citation needed}} tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable."
"Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors."
=====================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiBullying
"This is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policies.
This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."
"WikiBullying is using Wikipedia to threaten and/or intimidate other people, whether they are Wikipedia editors or not."
"If you feel that you are being bullied or another user has threatened you with bodily harm, it is important that you report them immediately to the Incidents page on the Administrator's Noticeboard so the matter can be properly dealt with."
"All complaints about bullying, even those which turn out to be unjustified should be treated with seriousness and respect, and any WP:BOOMERANG on individuals who have complained they are being bullied is contrary to the principles of respect for thoughtful intellectual discourse that Wikipedia represents. No one should ever fear coming forward to make the community aware of a bullying concern."
"There are essentially two forms of bullying on Wikipedia: attacks against the individual editor by targeting a single user, or giving the perception of power aimed at the entire Wikipedia community at large."
"Forms of WikiBullying:
1.1 Asserting ownership: "No article on Wikipedia is owned by any editor. Any text that is added to Wikipedia is freely licensed under WP:CC-BY-SA and other users are free to add, remove or modify it at will, provided that such editing is done responsibly."
1.2 POV Railroading: "Point of View (POV) railroading refers to the use of bullying tactics to discredit an editor with an opposing viewpoint or eliminate them from a discussion."
1.3 False accusations: "False accusations are a common form of bullying on Wikipedia, although people do sometimes make honest mistakes. Accusations of misconduct made without evidence are considered a serious personal attack."
1.4 Misrepresentation: "Quoting others out of context and other forms of straw man argument are against the civility policy. Again, try to find out if there has been a misunderstanding."
1.5 Making "no-edit" orders contrary to policy: "Another form of wikibullying is to issue no-edit orders which are not backed by current policies (or guidelines). A "no-edit" order is a message sent to a single editor (who is not banned) or to the Wikipedia community not to edit at all or in a particular manner, or not to edit a particular page or part of a page at all or in a particular manner. These messages can be sent to a user's talk page, placed on an article's talk page, or in hidden text that would not be missed if an editor attempts to edit the article or section. No editor may unilaterally take charge over an article or part of an article by sending no-edit orders.
There are some no-edit orders that are acceptable. For example, if a consensus has already been formed regarding a topic, and a single editor has constantly stubbornly defied the ruling, politely discussing this one-on-one on the user's talk page is acceptable."
1.6 Wikihounding: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."
1.7 Use of hidden text: "Some unacceptable uses are:
Telling all other editors not to edit the page
Telling others not to remove a section of the article, as if the section were written in stone
Telling others that a page should not be proposed for deletion, when this may be doubted by others
Writing new guidelines that apply specifically to the page and branding them as "policy." In the past, policies that have been proposed for a single article have failed to attain a consensus."
1.8 Real life threats: "The Wikimedia Foundation, if need be, will investigate or arrange for law enforcement to investigate threats of violence."
"
============================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection
"Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used only to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection)."
=============================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offensive_material
"In original Wikipedia content, a vulgarity or obscenity should either appear in its full form or not at all;"
"A cornerstone of Wikipedia policy is that the project is not censored. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. "
=============================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
"This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it."
"This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. "
"Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias"
"Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them."
" Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight."
"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone."
"Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."
"The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned; it may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is the main topic being discussed."
"Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."
==============================================================
Filters manual tags evaluation
Following filter categories have been identified (sometimes, a filter was labeled with more than one tag):
- Vandalism
- hoaxing
- silly vandalism (e.g. repeating characters, inserting swear words)
- spam
- sockpuppetry
- long term abuse
- harassment/personal attacks
- doxxing
- impersonation
- trolling
- copyright violation
Labeled along the vandalism typology (check above)
- link vandalism
- abuse of tags
- username vandalism
- image vandalism
- avoidant vandalism
- talk page vandalism
- page move vandalism
- template vandalism
- vandalbots
Kind of similar:
- seo
- stockbroker vandalism
- biased pov
- self promotion
- conflict of interest
Inbetween
- edit warring
- political controversy
- politically/religiously motivated hate
- Good faith
- bad style ("unencyclopedic edits" e.g. citing a blog or mentioning a hypothetical future album release)
- lazyness
- Maintenance
- bugs
- wiki policy (compliance therewith)
- test filters
A lot of filters are disabled/deleted bc:
* they hit too many false positives
* they were implemented to target specific incidents and these vandalism attempts stopped
* they were tested and merged into other filters
* there were too few hits and the conditions were too expensive
Multiple filters have the comment "let's see whether this hits something", which brings us to the conclusion that edit filter editors have the right and do implement filters they consider necessary
================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=help&modules=main
action
Which action to perform.
abusefiltercheckmatch
Check to see if an AbuseFilter matches a set of variables, an edit, or a logged AbuseFilter event.
abusefilterchecksyntax
Check syntax of an AbuseFilter filter.
abusefilterevalexpression
Evaluates an AbuseFilter expression.
abusefilterunblockautopromote
Unblocks a user from receiving autopromotions due to an abusefilter consequence.
================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download
================================================================
https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2
To generate stats for different wiki projects
=====================================================================
Claudia: * A focus on the Good faith policies/guidelines is a historical development. After the huge surge in edits Wikipedia experienced starting 2005 the community needed a means to handle these (and the proportional amount of vandalism). They opted for automatisation. Automated system branded a lot of good faith edits as vandalism, which drove new comers away. A policy focus on good faith is part of the intentions to fix this.
=====================================================================
Toolforge links:
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Toolforge#Troubleshooting_2
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Toolforge#Contact
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Analytics#Contact
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Toolserver:Main_Page
Abuse Filter Project on Phabricator
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/217/
Abuse Filter git repo
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/extensions/AbuseFilter/+/489705/3/includes/AbuseFilter.php
Evidence abuse filter history still exists
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/history
====================================================================
Get hold of abuse_filter_history
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/operations/puppet/+/refs/heads/production/modules/profile/templates/labs/db/views/maintain-views.yaml
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/mediawiki/extensions/AbuseFilter/+/refs/heads/master/abusefilter.tables.sql#63
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123978
#wikimedia-cloud
"
there'll be such a table, I don't think there's a view for it to expose it to the public
it's not in https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/operations/puppet/+/refs/heads/production/modules/profile/templates/labs/db/views/maintain-views.yaml
I don't know enough about AbuseFilter to know how easy it would be to write a view for this table
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/mediawiki/extensions/AbuseFilter/+/refs/heads/master/abusefilter.tables.sql#63
you'd probably need to respect afh_deleted, and join against abuse_filter to check filter visibility?
in order to expose a view?
aha: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123978
yes
"
===================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[a]"
"(This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.) "
"The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed.[a]"
===================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Harassment&oldid=886343748
"This page in a nutshell: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks, intimidation, or posting personal information."
"Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated"
"Edits constituting harassment will be reverted, deleted, or suppressed, as appropriate, and editors who engage in harassment are subject to blocking. "
"The prohibition against harassment applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to harass a user with a history of inept or disruptive behavior as it is to harass any other user."
Hounding
"Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. "
" Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. "
Doxxing
"Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, other contact information, or photograph, whether such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy"
"attempted outing is sufficient grounds for an immediate block. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. "
" When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. "
"Dredging up their off-site opinions to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment"
"Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies"
" Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted. Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other."
"Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable in specific situations (but see also Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment)."
"Also, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums"
Private correspondence
"There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence. "
"The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee once stated as an editing principle that "In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki""
User space harassment
"A common problem is harassment in userspace. Examples include placing numerous false or questionable "warnings" on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them, placing "suspected sockpuppet" and similar tags on the user page of active contributors, and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space."
Off Wiki harassment
"Inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication, following, or any form of stalking, when directed at another editor, violates the harassment policy."
"In alignment with the protection of editors from harassment described throughout the rest of this policy, edits that harass living or recently deceased people who are not members of the Wikipedia community are also prohibited. Per the oversight policy, harassing content will be deleted or suppressed."
"In case of problems administrators have exactly the same right as any other user to decline or withdraw from a situation that is escalating or uncomfortable, without giving a reason, or to contact the Arbitration Committee if needed."
"Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by harassment and/or personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences such as blocks, arbitration, or being subjected to a community ban. Harassment negatively affects editor retention. "
=====================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Responding_to_threats_of_harm
emergency response page
========================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith&oldid=889253693
"It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."
"This page in a nutshell:
* Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
* If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives."
//especially the 2nd one is interesting, bc harmful motives are what distinguishes good faith (but nevertheless disruptive edits) from vandalism
"Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. "
"This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism)"
"Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such. "
"When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, "
"When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, "
" If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns. "
"Although bad conduct may seem to be due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives"
"Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others." lol
Good faith and newcomers
"It is important to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules, but may nonetheless turn out to be valuable contributors. "
"Many new users who lack an intuitive grasp of Wikipedia customs are gradually brought around, once the logic behind these customs becomes clearer to them. "
======================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Vandalism_studies
The Vandalism Studies project is a portion of the Counter-Vandalism Unit designated to conduct research related to unconstructive edits on Wikipedia.
There are 3 Studies:
Study 3 (suggest ideas) Discussion ongoing..., but planned for November
Obama article study (talk page) ☒ Stale
Study 2 (talk page) ☒ Not done and not likely to be done
Study 1 (talk page) Done
====================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angela/Vandalism_study
User:Angela conducted a vandalism study on her own user page.
"Vandalism studies/Study1 found that almost all vandalism (97%) is made by unregistered users. Looking at vandalism on my own user page, I find a very different result. Almost half of the vandalism is made by registered users. "
=======================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Colonel_Chaos/study
Another user conducted vandalism study.
This one vandalises featured articles (different types of vandalism) and looks at the times to revert.
========================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-22/Vandalism
And yet another user conducted study.
This one is "Loren Cobb (User:Aetheling) holds a Ph.D. in mathematical sociology and is a research professor in the Department of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences at the University of Colorado Denver."
studies the survival function of vandalism
The two primary results from this study are: (a) the median time to correction is down to four minutes, and (b) some subtle forms of vandalism still persist for months and even years.
suggest using median rather than mean time to correction
100 randomly selected articles
"All data collection occurred on 2009-06-11"
"
Results
Of the 100 articles, fully 75 had never been vandalized.
Of the 25 articles that were vandalized at least once, the most recent such instance of vandalism was eventually corrected in 23 articles.
In five (20%) of the vandalized articles, the most recent instance of vandalism was corrected in less than one minute. A further four instances were corrected in less than two minutes.
The median time to correction was four minutes.
Two articles were found to have suffered vandalism that was never corrected. One of these was a subtle act of vandalism that was committed on 2007-02-23, and still not detected by the date of the study, 2009-06-11.
"
=======================================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Counter-Vandalism_Unit/Vandalism_studies/Archive_1
"
Sources of vandalism
Vandalism comes from:
Anonymous IP addresses
Newly registered users (typically vandal-only accounts)
Disruptive editors (limited but some constructive work)
Trolls, sock puppets, etc. - disgruntled "power users"
"
=======================================================================================
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:STiki
"STiki is a tool available to trusted users that is used to detect and revert vandalism, spam, and other types of unconstructive edits made at Wikipedia. "
"STiki chooses edits to show to end users; if a displayed edit is judged to be vandalism, spam, etc., STiki streamlines the reversion and warning process. STiki facilitates collaboration in reverting vandalism; a centrally stored lists of edits to be inspected are served to STiki users to reduce redundant effort."
"STiki may only be used by editors with a Wikipedia account. Additionally, the account must meet some qualifications to reduce the probability of users misidentifying vandalism."
"The account must have any one of: (1) the rollback permission/right, (2) at least 1000 article edits (in the article namespace, not to talk/user pages), or (3) special permission via the talk page. We emphasize that users must take responsibility for their actions with STiki. "
"After login, users primarily interact with the GUI tool by classifying edits into one of four categories:
vandalism
good faith revert
pass
innocent "
//interestingly, at the initial tool presentation~\cite{WestKanLee2010}, there was no "good faith" option. It seemed to have been added quite promptly after though, since the screenshot of the tool on the page has the button already and claims to have been made on 28 February 2010
"Uncertainty over malice: It can be tricky to differentiate between vandalism and good-faith edits that are nonetheless unconstructive. "
============================================================================