Last modified: 2011-01-25 01:46:19 UTC
Per the consensus in the above link, please enable the Abuse Filter extension on English Wikipedia. To avoid doubt, the following needs to be done wrt configuration and code review: CODE REVIEW: A live demonstration is available at http://wiki.epstone.net/test, but the code will require review. GROUP RIGHTS: Assign the following permissions to all users ('*'): abusefilter-view abusefilter-log abusefilter-log-detail Assign the following permissions to a dedicated group 'abusefilter': abusefilter-modify Assign the following changeable groups SYSOPS can add/remove the abusefilter group. Leave the following permissions unassigned for now: abusefilter-private AVAILABLE ACTIONS: Set $wgAbuseFilterAvailableActions to array( 'flag', 'throttle', 'warn', 'disallow', 'blockautopromote' ); That is, the permissions 'block', 'degroup' and 'rangeblock' should be removed from this array. OTHER SETUP: The native parser (under parser_native) should be built (ask River for details), $wgAbuseFilterParserClass should be set to 'AbuseFilterParserNative'. The variables defined underneath should be assigned to the appropriate values depending on where this native parser is built: (Defaults) $wgAbuseFilterNativeParser = "$dir/parser_native/af_parser"; $wgAbuseFilterNativeSyntaxCheck = "$dir/parser_native/syntax_check"; $wgAbuseFilterNativeExpressionEvaluator = "$dir/parser_native/af_expr";
What consensus? This has all the problems of the title blacklist but much worse, because it has the potential to affect all editing. Too much scope for things to go wrong, yet another level of secrecy introduced by denying us mere mortals the ability to view the filters, and most worryingly, the extension's developer seems to think that a flase positive rate that wouldn't be tolerated in any bot with this sort of power is acceptable merely because it is a part of MediaWiki. Wikipedia is supposed to be "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Administrators already have too much power to revert and delete edits they don't approve of, without cutting out the transparency and preventing them altogether.
I personally like the idea, however if opposition increases beyone expectation can it be installed on the test wiki as a live demo?
This has been discussed at the relevant page, and two bureaucrats have determined that consensus exists. Specific points on the community impact of the extension should be made at its discussion page on Wikipedia, not here. They are not technical issues, and as such should be discussed on-wiki, where these community issues are determined.
(In reply to comment #2) > I personally like the idea, however if opposition increases beyone expectation > can it be installed on the test wiki as a live demo? > It's installed at http://wiki.epstone.net/test
I don't think it is appropriate on this mailing list to insist that consensus doesn't exist on wp-en or to suggest that a code change requested there shouldn't be implemented on the basis of interpretation of their policies here. We face a growing problem with page move and template vandalism that has already widely restricted the ability of non-admins and IPs to edit the encyclopedia and stands to further restrict that in the future because the tools the community has are too blunt for the job. Agree broadly w/ comment #3 from Andrew.
The abuse filter is now installed at test.wikipedia.org.
There are some more rights with Abuse Filter in the later revisions that were made before this conf. was made. You may need to change the configuration to add some more rights (your choice or Consensus).
I think "tag" should be added to $wgAbuseFilterAvailableActions because tagging wasn't there when this bug was filled, and it just tags it for review, so it doesn't do much.
Re-assigning to me.
Progress update: After some final-iteration changes, we're looking to check that this performs acceptably on dewiki et al and, if so, flick the big switch on enwiki.
Done.
I've tested a few filters at the test wiki and they work fine! I think a good idea would be to stop any new filters being created that have the same parameters as an existing filter because the existing filter list is already quite large and that's only after half a month. In general I think the abuse filter will be a VERY helpful addition to enwiki.
