Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-30 Thread Jon Robson
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread Petr Bena
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread Bartosz Dziewoński
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread Petr Bena
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread John Vandenberg
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread Bartosz Dziewoński
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?

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread Martijn Hoekstra
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread Derric Atzrott
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread John Vandenberg
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread Petr Bena
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread John Vandenberg
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread Bartosz Dziewoński
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread Petr Bena
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread Aaron Halfaker
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread Petr Bena
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,

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread Aaron Halfaker
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread Risker
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread Petr Bena
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-27 Thread Risker
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

[Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-26 Thread Petr Bena
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-26 Thread Arcane 21
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-26 Thread Petr Bena
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-26 Thread Chris Steipp
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-26 Thread Petr Bena
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-26 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-26 Thread Petr Bena
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,

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-26 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-26 Thread Petr Bena
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-26 Thread Petr Bena
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-26 Thread Tim Starling
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-26 Thread MZMcBride
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

Re: [Wikitech-l] Improving anti-vandalism tools (twinkle, huggle etc) - suspicious edits queue

2013-09-26 Thread Jay Ashworth
- 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