Forum:Enable extension AbuseFilter/archive

Forums: Yew Grove > Enable extension AbuseFilter/archive

This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 8 December 2010 by Liquidhelium.

Hello everyone, I'd like to propose that the AbuseFilter extension be enabled here.

AbuseFilter is a powerful extension which allows administrators to create, modify and disable edit filters that can do various things. This extension can do things such as warning a user when they submit an action with, say, a swear in it, and giving them the option to continue, or even completely block that action. AbuseFilter uses regular expressions (regex), so it is highly customisable, and can help prevent vandalism before it happens. I really don't know what else to put here, so please ask questions and I'll try and answer them.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 00:12, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - Sounds like a great idea and would help the wiki greatly. Though I would like to know what filters we plan to use.

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 00:15, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yea, we'll sort that out before implementing (if this passes)

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 00:18, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Question - I'm not quite sure what you mean. Let's take your example (swearing). So, let's assume that you were a disruptive user who swears constantly. What you're saying is that this extension will allow a sysop to place a lien on you so that you can no longer make any edits with swear words in them? --Liquid^Talk 00:16, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Kinda, it would effect all users (can exclude some groups, and be namespace specific).

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 00:16, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so what are the groups? Autoconfirmed, unregistered user, etc? --Liquid^Talk 00:18, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, user groups. And as I said, because it is programmed with regex you can have it just effect, say, anons, or everyone but bureaucrats.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 00:19, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Tentative support - This could be good...or bad possibly...depending on how it's used. I'm not going to full support yet. Until I know more at least...because this could be set up for abuse...even by sysops (on accident of course). Sort of like autoblock works. User:Haloolah123/Sig 00:20, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Provided we don't go overboard with the swear filters, and certain namespaces (like user talk and forum) are excluded. Andrew ^talk 00:21, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It doesn't sound that bad, and I would assume its activation is hard enough that it can't be done by accident. --Liquid^Talk 00:22, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As long as it doesn't get in the way as Wikipedia's does sometimes. User:TyA/sig 00:32, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Why not give it a try? We could always get rid of it if it proves to be a burden. Suppa chuppa ^Talk 00:38, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. User:Stelercus/Signature 00:53, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I like it, but AbuseFilter looks overly complicated to me. Maybe I'm just looking at it too hard. Ryan PM 01:22, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

It is incredibly complicated, but that allows for precision within the filters.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 01:59, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Useful. It will cut down on the amount of counter-vandal work needed. Question, what happens if the filter finds a "bad" edit, will it simply not save, or just censor the word. 222 ^talk 05:30, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

It can either completely block the action, warn the user making the action or tag the edit in the recent changes/history.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 21:31, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - As long as the settings are listed somewhere (like RuneScape:AbuseFilter). Do we have to contact wikia every time we want to change it? Evil1888 ^{Talk A's L} 05:47, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

The filters are viewable by everyone, and admins here are able to change it.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 13:25, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support with condition - As long as it is disabled for roll-back, custodians and admins, or if thats not possible disabled on user, user talk, Runescape and Forum namespaces. Sentra246 07:32, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support with condition - Per Sentra245 willwill Talk 13:19, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - per all User:LordDarkPhantom/Signature 19:39, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

How would we decide what should be filtered? I don't see anyone raising those issues. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 20:19, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I said that we would discuss which filters to make once consensus was reached that this would be a good idea.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 20:37, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be more prudent to demonstrate that we actually have a need for any particular filter before we implement the extension. User:(wszx)/sheeeeple 21:10, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is a need; we have vandalism, don't we? This extension allows us to prevent things such as anonymous users blanking pages, and can also tag certain edits that meet a criteria (e.g. inserting many capital letters, blanking a section, removing a deletion template, etc.)

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 21:30, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Is there a way for the filter to only warn in those cases? I think that blocking them completely may be a bit overkill, since, for example, there are cases when anonymous users may want or need to blank a page. --Liquid^Talk 21:32, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Of course; it can either completely block, warn, or just tag. Very customisable :)

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 21:34, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Is there someone (you?) who is intimately familiar with how the filters work? The AF is very powerful and can do a lot of damage if filters are coded wrong or maliciously. User:(wszx)/sheeeeple 22:00, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty familiar with it, however, I still need to learn all of the ins and outs. You are right, if it isn't programmed correctly it can cause a lot of false positives, however, it is possible to revert all actions taken by a filter in the unlikely occurrence that we really screw something up.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 22:06, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Though I am a bit concerned about enabling it without having someone who really knows what he's doing with the filters, most of the obvious filters are public on en.wiki and so we can just copy them over. We don't have enough of problems that en.wiki does to warrant anything but the most broad filters (such as page blanking), so we probably won't need anyone highly familiar with it. So, as long as this particular discussion is not considered consensus to implement any particular filter, just the extension, I think we're good to go. User:(wszx)/sheeeeple 21:38, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support - But not in Talk and User namespaces. Seems handy. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 23:19, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - --Iiii I I I 23:41, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support with condition - The AbuseFilter can be turned on for spam, page blanking, etc., but how about if, let's say, swear words. Maybe that should be decided on the forums. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) • 跟我谈话 00:15, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Why would someone have a good reason to insert a swear into an article? Not even the slang dictionary should have swears anymore.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 00:24, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

I mean for, say Userpages. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) • 跟我谈话 00:54, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

It can be set per namespace as said above, so we can just not enable that filter in the User: and User talk: namespaces. User:TyA/sig 01:01, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I dislike the idea of stopping users from doing some things and still letting them edit. If they have bad intentions, just let them edit and block them. We do not need an editor with bad intentions. If they have good intentions, then they are trying to help, so they shouldn't be stopped in the first place. bad_fetus^talk 16:49, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

The point of this is to prevent commonplace vandalism. This most definitely won't dissuade a user who is intent on harming the wiki, however, it will prevent up to 50% of common, everyday vandalism from happening. That is a good thing. The less time we spend cleaning up after vandals, the better. Prevention should be more prevalent in our minds that dealing with it. Editors who are editing with good intentions won't be stopped by the filter; at the very most, their edit will get tagged. Any warning or blocking filters will be for an edit that can only be vandalism, and preventing such edits is definitely in our best interest.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 19:45, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

You aren't making any sense, Chess. The whole point of this is to prevent people from adding random swear words into articles, blanking pages, and other nonsense. We won't have to worry about blocking/warning for these things because AbuseFilter will stop them. That means we can spend more time doing other, more positive things. It most certainly wouldn't stop any good editors, because good editors don't intend to disrupt the wiki by vandalizing. Andrew ^talk 21:22, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Support + Comment - per my earlier support/arguments in Forum:Protecting the exchange namespace. However, back in August 2009, Angela said Wikia won't install AbuseFilter... has anyone asked Wikia first? User:Azliq7 00:52, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Yes; it has now been configured so that it can be easily enabled.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 05:15, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

~~A user has requested closure for Enable extension AbuseFilter/archive.~~ Request denied. The reason given was: This discussion is far from over - tomorrow I'm going to put all this stuff in /archive and discuss which filters should be enabled. -Ajraddatz

This discussion is far from over - tomorrow I'm going to put all this stuff in /archive and discuss which filters should be enabled.

REDIRECT User:C886553/sig 00:06, November 14, 2010 (UTC)