https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22713

--- Comment #3 from Gurch <matthew.brit...@btinternet.com> 2010-03-04 12:04:15 
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It's not Vandalisms, but Edit-War.

Again, this is a *privileged group* you've given rollback to. If they're
abusing their position, the solution is not restrictive abuse filters, it's to
remove them from that position of trust.

> And i made very good experience by limiting
> the edit count on a single page per user on dewiki. I set a limit of three
> edits per day for each user and article and that reduces die edit-war and in
> most cases solves the problem by time.

Ugh... you really did that? I'm glad German isn't my native language. Yes, I'm
sure it has drastically reduced the edit warring problem. It's also lost you a
lot of useful contributions.

> Some full locks in the past weren't not successful because the party of the
> blocked version did not participate at the discussion.

Then you unprotect the page, and block the edit warring user if they continue.
I don't see why the abuse filter needs to get involved.

> I tried the editlimit at some pages which had sysop protected since years and
> after a week the edit war stopped in about 80% of the pages. Now there aren't
> many sysop protected pages anymore.

Sounds to me like you'd been leaving those pages protected far longer than
necessary. Full protection because of an edit war should never last "years". I
think you're making a false correlation here -- I assure you if you'd just
unprotected those pages without putting any abuse filters in place at all, you
would still see an 80% reduction in edit wars, because years later, most people
have either resolved the issue through discussion, or more likely completely
forgotten about and abandoned the argument.

And even if they haven't, you remove the protection anyway and block them if
they resume. Otherwise, nobody ever gets to contribute. Full protection because
of an edit war should never last more than a few weeks.

> But with rollback you can bypass the edit limit.
> I think you know that it is not always easy to revoke editor right for people
> committing since years

Type their name into [[Special:Userrights]], click a few buttons. It sounds
pretty easy to me. If they're edit warring, they have no excuse. If they're not
only edit warring but intentionally bypassing your project's policy on edit
warring after you've told them to stop, then frankly I think a block would be
in order, let alone de-grouping.

> and the editlimit filter is more effective than i ever
> expected in my dreams before.

Only because you have a warped definition of 'effective'. You could
full-protect every page on the wiki and be 100% 'effective' at preventing
vandalism, spam, edit warring and everything else. Do you see the fallacy
there? If your filters are anything like those on the English Wikipedia -- and
everything you've said points to them being much, much worse -- you are losing
thousands of useful contributions, both because your filters are preventing
them, and because new users frustrated with your filters are never becoming
engaged enough with the project to regularly contribute.

I swear the abuse filter is the worst thing to happen to this project in recent
years.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

_______________________________________________
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l

Reply via email to