I wonder if the refactor described in
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Support_for_user-specific_page_lists_in_core
could be adapted to help with this use case. I suspect it would be
highly useful to be able to create publicly viewable watchlists of
suspicious edits.
With a
We are getting somewhere else than I wanted... I didn't want to
discuss what should be reverted on sight or not. Problem is that right
now lot of vandal-fighters see certain amount of dubious edits they
skip because they can't verify if they are correct or not, which are
then ignored and get lost
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:51:34 +0200, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
We are getting somewhere else than I wanted... I didn't want to
discuss what should be reverted on sight or not. Problem is that right
now lot of vandal-fighters see certain amount of dubious edits they
skip because they
What I described are flagged revs the other way. Is it possible to
enable them in reverse-mode so that all edits are flagged as good, but
editors can flag them as bad? If not, I can't see how it could be
useful for this purpose...
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Bartosz Dziewoński
On Sep 27, 2013 5:06 PM, Bartosz Dziewoński matma@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 11:51:34 +0200, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
We are getting somewhere else than I wanted... I didn't want to
discuss what should be reverted on sight or not. Problem is that right
now lot of
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:39:46 +0200, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it possible to
enable them in reverse-mode so that all edits are flagged as good, but
editors can flag them as bad? If not, I can't see how it could be
useful for this purpose...
flagging as bad? Do you mean reverting?
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Bartosz Dziewoński matma@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 12:39:46 +0200, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it possible to
enable them in reverse-mode so that all edits are flagged as good, but
editors can flag them as bad? If not, I can't see
Is it possible to
enable them in reverse-mode so that all edits are flagged as good, but
editors can flag them as bad? If not, I can't see how it could be
useful for this purpose...
flagging as bad? Do you mean reverting?
I just don't see what you are trying to accomplish. Sorry.
I
On Sep 27, 2013 8:18 PM, Derric Atzrott datzr...@alizeepathology.com
wrote:
Is it possible to
enable them in reverse-mode so that all edits are flagged as good, but
editors can flag them as bad? If not, I can't see how it could be
useful for this purpose...
flagging as bad? Do you
Not really, I can't see how tags help at all in here. We are talking
about any kind of edit (nothing that can be matched by regex) which
seems suspicious to vandal-fighter (human) but who can't make sure if
it's vandalism or not. Nothing like abuse filter nor patrolled edits
can help here (unless
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 8:52 PM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
Not really, I can't see how tags help at all in here. We are talking
about any kind of edit (nothing that can be matched by regex) which
seems suspicious to vandal-fighter (human) but who can't make sure if
it's vandalism or
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:18:01 +0200, Derric Atzrott
datzr...@alizeepathology.com wrote:
I thought FlaggedRevs prevented the newest version of the page from being shown
until it has been approved?
Flagged Revisions allows for Editor and Reviewer users to rate revisions of
articles and set
Yes, having https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1189 would
be definitely a solution. But question is if it's ever going to happen
on production.
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Bartosz Dziewoński matma@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:18:01 +0200, Derric Atzrott
I've got to say that this problem seems pretty straightforward.
Essentially, we need something lighter than 'revert' for edits that need a
second set of eyes.
What we really want is a queue of suspect revisions that allows Wikipedians
to flag new revisions, query current flagged revisions and
Hi,
I think you perfectly summarized this issue. I like the first solution
(3rd provider on wikimedia labs with some well documented api
interface) but I must admit that identity sharing might be little
problem (if some troll figured out this system and we weren't using
any identification at all,
All this is unnecessary complication. If you use Huggle and see
something ok (= not to be reverted), Huggle must mark it patrolled; if
you're unsure, you should be able to tell so to Huggle and it will be
left unpatrolled.
If you're emotionally attached to the idea of doing the opposite, you
If you use Huggle and see something ok (= not to be reverted), Huggle
must mark it patrolled; if you're unsure, you should be able to tell so to
Huggle and it will be left unpatrolled.
This is not the same. Surely, most edits would appear in such an
unpatrolled list. Most edits are not seen by
I think a few different concepts are being muddled here.
Flagged revisions (and its variant, pending changes, on enwiki) is applied
to individual articles to hold *all* edits from certain user classes for
review.
What Petr is looking for is a way to flag *individual edits* to an article
(not the
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I think a few different concepts are being muddled here.
Flagged revisions (and its variant, pending changes, on enwiki) is applied
to individual articles to hold *all* edits from certain user classes for
review.
What Petr
On 28 September 2013 00:54, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:38 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I think a few different concepts are being muddled here.
Flagged revisions (and its variant, pending changes, on enwiki) is
applied
to individual articles
Hi,
I noticed that there is a high amount of suspicious edits that may be
vandalism but were never reverted because people who were dealing with
vandals (using some automated tool) in that moment weren't able to
decide if it was vandalism or wasn't. For example some smart changes
to statistical
edits for vandal edits, and automated vandal
detection/reversion processes would generally have a poor margin of error for
such subtle vandalism.
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:06:47 +0200
From: benap...@gmail.com
To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools
edits, and automated vandal
detection/reversion processes would generally have a poor margin of error for
such subtle vandalism.
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 15:06:47 +0200
From: benap...@gmail.com
To: wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle
Hi Petr,
I can see the value. Although I'm not entirely sure how you were planning
on identifying these edits-- are you thinking all our current tools would
have another classification (like more review needed), and submit them?
Or would these be identified by another, new bot?
On Thu, Sep
Yes, I mean this identification. The tools would have button like
needs review by expert which would have similar effect like skip
but the edit would be enqueued somewhere so that experts could review
it later and revert in case if it wasn't correct.
Only task what would need to be done by a bot
This queue already exists: it's the absolute complement of
[[Help:patrolled edit|]]s.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Patrolled_edit
Nemo
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
But this works the other way, every edit is marked as suspicious
while users can flag these that appear to be OK. What I am talking
about is the other way. Vandal fighters would flag these edits that
look weird to them and experts would review only those edits, not all
of them.
On Thu, Sep 26,
That's a problem in the client, not in MediaWiki. To implement that with
current code, you can patrol everything that is not suspicious and
you'll get what you describe; if your patrolling bot is error-prone you
may hypothetically need an unpatrol feature, but then just fix the bot.
Nemo
No I wouldn't. The queue would start getting filled up by good edits
in case everyone who uses huggle would disconnect or stopped using it.
The current system as it is clearly isn't sufficient for this. We need
to cherry-pick the bad edits, not good edits. Current system allows
only to flag good
I am also not talking about mediawiki at all. This evidence of edits
that needs further review could be stored off-wiki, for example on
wikimedia labs using some universal interface that all antivandalism
tools can use
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Petr Bena benap...@gmail.com wrote:
No I
On 26/09/13 23:06, Petr Bena wrote:
Hi,
I noticed that there is a high amount of suspicious edits that may be
vandalism but were never reverted because people who were dealing with
vandals (using some automated tool) in that moment weren't able to
decide if it was vandalism or wasn't. For
Tim Starling wrote:
I used to just revert them automatically when such changes appeared on
my watchlist. If someone changes the population of Denmark or the
formation enthalpy of carbon tetrachloride, without providing any
reference or any suggestion that it is a revert, the chances that the new
- Original Message -
From: MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com
Much of the content on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia wikis comes from
non-vested contributors. That is, many, many helpful additions and
corrections come from people who will make only a few edits in their
lifetime. While I
33 matches
Mail list logo