Forum:AbuseFilter

Forums: Index > Village Dump > AbuseFilter

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4849 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

AbuseFilter is a MediaWiki extension that, while not installed here at present, could prove highly useful for countervandalism if it were. Like the regex filter we use for some things currently, it can be used to block edits with certain qualities, but it does a lot more than that - effects can be limited by usergroup, such that only IPs and new users are affected by a check, so the rest of us are less affected by preventative measures, and it can also be used to tag suspicious edits (such as section blanking) on recent changes without actually stopping them, throttle certain actions, and various other things I don't quite understand. At present, it would probably be most useful against our latest string of stupid spam edits - characterised by gibberish edit summaries and creating very short pages/removing content from existing ones - which it could apparently stop fairly effectively, but its potential use would be a lot wider. For those of us who frequent the wikimedias, it's what they use, so that might give you an idea what to expect from it.

Anyway, this is my proposal to try to get some semblance of community consensus regarding this time so sannse can make one of the tech guys install it. It's useful, we should install it, and I really don't know of any downsides it'd be likely to have, at least not that we don't already have from other measures we've taken to counter vandalism. 1 2 3 4 ~ 18:27, 28 August 2011

Obligatory vote: Should we get Extension:AbuseFilter?

Score: 19.5

Yes.

1 2 3 4 ~ 18:27, 28 August 2011

For sure. -- PLEB SIR Lollipop (TALK) - updated on 28 August 2011, at 18:34
Maybe. ~ 18:50, 08/28/2011
Undecided. I'm kinda anxious that it would take away half the fun of qvfd and ICU. --Wilytank can be a pain in the ass. 18:55, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
If it were used to block anything of sufficient quality to ICU, that would be counterproductive, but it would probably be used more for vandalism than new pages, anyhow.

1 2 3 4 ~ 19:06, 28 August 2011

Sure. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:37, 28 August 2011
If it'll really help, then of course! Sir Georgie • Harangue • Mediocracy 22:31, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
For. I've seen the abusefilter on another wiki and it's quite good at catching vandalism and bad edits when properly configured. In addition to stopping the obvious things like page blankings and insertion of curse words, the abusefilter can pick up stuff like IP edits to userspace, edits that add red links, excessive whitespace, etc. --Andorin Kato 22:32, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
We do have a lot of red links around the place, though. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:38, 28 August 2011
Yes. --Hrodulf 22:54, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
Comment. I just stopped by for a spell and noticed this. I haven't used uncyc for ages, so I consider it your wiki now, and I won't vote officially on this. However, I will say be careful and consider any hidden downsides this poses. Cursing, redlinks, and excessive whitespace can all be used to good effect in the right kind of article. You're certain only new users and I.P.s are effected by that? I for one, fucking love cursing, and I think noobs should have that right too, even though they're noobs. I have no idea by the way what's been happening with vandalism on the wiki, etc so I'm probably missing a lot. How does the filter work? Does it just filter out the bad edits, does it prevent an abusive article from being created or both? Does it remove vandalized articles or is it strictly preventative in nature? Does it work on forums? Some of the most hilarious forums have been from idiots trying to be abusive about an article. I know I sure would miss that. Then again, I'm never here anymore. Just a few things to consider. Oh, also hi everybody. It's Mr thejazz... a case not yet solved. 23:51, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
As Lyrithya's post points out, the abusefilter can be configured to warn users when they're doing something wrong instead of outright preventing them. Yes, it can filter page creation. No, it does not delete vandalized pages. No, it will probably not be set to affect the Forum: namespace. As I said in my vote, I've used abusefilter on another wiki, and it's been nothing short of positive. --Andorin Kato 23:59, August 28, 2011 (UTC)
On the UnMeta, I couldn't register the name "Lollipop" because 'Lol' is in the abuse filter for usernames. -- PLEB SIR Lollipop (TALK) - updated on 29 August 2011, at 00:16

If something's not an issue, though, why configure the thing to affect it at all? This is Uncyclopedia, mon - folks here seem to like to fly by the seats of their pants, so to speak, reacting to stuff more than preparing for it. IP vandals create a series of pages with titles ending in numbers, disallow that. Some guy spams 'HAGGER!' everywhere with proxies, disallow that word. If a series of idiots make usernames with 'lol' in them, perhaps we would also add something to stop that, but with all of these, folks here only tend to add things for stuff when they happen, and turn them off later if they turn out to be a problem for actual users. I could add various curse words to the spam filter we have, but there's no reason to do that here, same with how there'd probably be no point making a character minimum for admins creating new non-redirect articles on most other wikis. The abuse filter is simply a tool, not the end result of what might be done with that tool. We already have tools that could do far more damage than you seem worried about, but we try to use them with care. They are not, however, nearly so effective when it comes to not doing damage as this one could be.

1 2 3 4 ~ 01:00, 29 August 2011

Oooh, now I get it. Kind of like how the U.S. only had internment camps during WWII and now they have Guantanamo instead. That's right, this conversation just got political! :0 It's Mr thejazz... a case not yet solved. 02:52, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Don't make me add your username to the spam filter.

1 2 3 4 ~ 12:26, 29 August 2011

Strong For -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 12:34, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
Very weak for. As I never do any patrolling I have very little idea how much vandalism there is except for what affects my articles on my watch list. If you really believe that the potential problems it creates is worth dealing with if there will be less patroling to do, then why not (though I have a feeling that a few users really enjoy patrolling and comming up with all sorts of clever "summaries" to insult the person). My vote is also based on only applying this filter to IPs, and when there is a conflict, giving them a friendly and clear message as to why the edit is being blocked and how to quickly and easily bypass the filter if their edit is in good faith :) --ShabiDOO 20:56, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
For with the stipulation that we use that thingy you said where we limit it to IPs and new users. The filter we're using already pisses me off to no end for not doing that: "Please contact an administrator if you think that this filter is inappropriate..." -_- -RA HB 21:50, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
For. --User:Jack Phoenix/sig 00:26, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
For. Give it a one month trial and close watch on the type of edits that are automatically blocked. If it is too restrictive, it may well put off new contributors. I guess nearly all the current regulars didn't hit the ground running when they discovered this site and produced a pile of crap for their first edit. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:26, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
If it's too restrictive, we can just turn off whatever's being too restrictive - it ś a big, huge pile of options. But yeah, preventing actual content, no matter how bad, probably wouldn't be good. That's what tags could be for, though.

1 2 3 4 ~ 14:50, 31 August 2011

For. What Romartus said. --Scofield & The Machine 10:00, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
Absol.--~~Fcukman~~LOOS3R!!! 10:16, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
What the fuck →A (Ruins) 18:03, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
THE NEW WORLD ORDER IS UPON US - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinA Y B CUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at21:52, Wednesday 31 August 2011 -
OH NOES! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:35, 1 September 2011
For. --Hotadmin4u69^[TALK]15:24 Sep 1 2011
For. Casual and reckless abuse deters creative input to the site and ought to be constrained for our overall benefit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.44.186.93 (talk • contribs)
What the fuck, SIGN THE HELL IN BEFORE YOU VOTE!!!! →A (Ruins) 22:26, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
Stop harassing the IPs, Aimsplode. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:54, 3 September 2011
For. I am however, incredibly pessimistic about Wikia giving a flying fuck about this vote, I do hope I'm wrong though. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 20:31, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
sannse has informed me, joyously that I am in fact wrong. So I'm excited to see when we'll get it... and also slightly turned on -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 18:32, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
Now now Olipro dear, turning you on is a pretty good argument for not turning it on. In fact, it's a pretty good argument for running a mile -- 38.127.199.123 17:34, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
ANOTHER IP. Who the fuck are you? →A (Ruins) 17:37, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
YES!!! –Hi! — 02:31, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
DURP *Thinks about all those long nights of patrolling RC with no admins support up against all the IPs, dies* ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 02:38, September 4, 2011 (UTC)
"Yes in CAPS." Burn in heil IPs! -Ga mma287 22:28, September 5, 2011 (UTC)