First of all, this is why I am discussing it here, to avoid having multiple people work on same thing.
Abuses: I would consider this to be more like something like "minor edit" for which you also don't need a permission. People who deal with vandals probably shouldn't filter out users based on things like "minor edit" or "tool edit", but rather on reputation, like huggle does. This is basically just going to be useful for regular wikipedia users who just want to filter out automated edits. For example in RFA you are required to have some non-automated edit count. This would make it easier to figure out things like this. You would be able to easily filter out edits you are not interested in. I can't think of a better use for this, but maybe there would be some. Not sure if it worked for AWB, Twinkle or Huggle: I don't know twinkle, but as far as I know both AWB and huggle are using API's to interact with mediawiki. Huggle 3 is using ONLY api, unless for regular, single page rendering. So if there was option in API's for this (that is what I actually propose here) tools could just add some parameter to API's url and that would flag the edit as tool edit. It would be optional. If this is only going to work for OAuth based tools, then it wouldn't work for non browser based tools. On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:07 PM, This, that and the other <at.li...@live.com.au> wrote: > "Chris Grant" wrote in message > news:caf_zkbp-abgzgcy4lqqvbtxur-2tjo8opmbwxtrosfvihuc...@mail.gmail.com... > >> On 11 Feb 2015 17:57, "Petr Bena" <benap...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > As I said, I belive that any registered user should be able to use, >> > with no need for permissions as I see no way to abuse it. >> >> If anyone can use it, wouldn't the smarter vandals just use it to avoid >> the >> RC patrollers? > > > How does a user prove that they're using a particular tool a way that can't > be faked? Something like OAuth comes to mind. All edits made via an OAuth > consumer are already tagged with a unique tag, and I would assume that it is > not possible to falsely represent an OAuth consumer. > > I'm not sure whether this could work for common tools like AWB or Twinkle, > though: > > * I don't know whether OAuth works for client-side downloadable programs > like AWB. > * JavaScript tools edit as the user from the user's browser, and as such, > OAuth is not relevant to them. In any case, anything they do (like adding a > specific string to edit summaries, adding a tag to their edits, or the like) > can be easily spoofed or faked by a tech-savvy user. > > Before change tagging could be used as a way to *filter out* particular tool > edits (as opposed to being simply a way of identifying revisions that > satisfy some criterion) the RC tag filter would need to be improved. > > (I'm not pretending that change tagging is the only solution for Petr's > "tool edits" idea: I just think it is the most likely candidate for > implementing something like this.) > > TTO > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
