Hello everyone, currently, some sysops (including me) and one non-sysop user are having an on-wiki discussion on Serbian Wikipedia, regarding disabling page creation there, because lately (some) anonymous and new users don't have peace and are "making vandalisms" (I'm sure that there is a better word, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) by creating new pages.
See this screenshot as an example: https://i.imgur.com/wpvq4kG.png
As well and https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%... and https://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%... Ограничења%20за%20креирање%20нових%20страница?
I know that these topics could be confusing, but the second one is more about technical stuff.
I'm aware of the procedure for configuration changes on Wikimedia's projects regarding gaining community consensus, so I would happily start RfC there.
Is this something that could be done, from the perspective of limitations for configuration changes? The non-sysop user, which I mentioned here, made a suggestion (which I'm considering as a compromise to not fully interfere with concept of Wikipedia works) to keep creating pages in the Draft namespace as an available option, like on English (and Persian) Wikipedia. See https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/mediawiki-config/+/223497.
I'm looking forward to responses, questions, suggestions, and a nice discussion. :)
Best regards, Zoran
P. S. I wanted to make a draft patch in Gerrit for this, but I'm unsure of where to start, so help about that would be really appreciated.
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 3:31 PM Zoran Dori zorandori4444@gmail.com wrote:
Is this something that could be done, from the perspective of limitations for configuration changes? The non-sysop user, which I mentioned here, made a suggestion (which I'm considering as a compromise to not fully interfere with concept of Wikipedia works) to keep creating pages in the Draft namespace as an available option, like on English (and Persian) Wikipedia. See https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/mediawiki-config/+/223497.
I will avoid any political discussion about whether or not this violates the spirit of "anyone can edit".
On a technical level, similar restrictions exist today for a few wikis including enwiki. The https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/operations/mediawiki-config/+/refs/heads/master/wmf-config/core-Permissions.php config file is where we manage these sorts of rights deviations from the MediaWiki defaults. Searching that file for "createpage" and "createpagemainns" will show you the sort of restrictions that have been implemented to prevent certain user groups from creating any page (createpage) or pages in the main namespace (createpagemainns).
Wikis that deny createpage to anons: * apiportalwiki * ckbwiki * enwiki * eswikibooks * fawiki * idwiki * swwiki * test2wiki
When createpagemainns is restricted it is typically so that https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ArticleCreationWorkflow can inject an alternative like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard when restricted users attempt to create a new page in the main namespace.
Bryan
Thank you so much Bryan!
I will avoid any political discussion about whether or not this
violates the spirit of "anyone can edit".
This sounds much better than what I wrote, thank you!
I'll take a deeper look into the resources and details that you've provided.
Best regards, Zoran
уто, 10. сеп 2024. у 01:19 Bryan Davis bd808@wikimedia.org је написао/ла:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 3:31 PM Zoran Dori zorandori4444@gmail.com wrote:
Is this something that could be done, from the perspective of
limitations for configuration changes? The non-sysop user, which I mentioned here, made a suggestion (which I'm considering as a compromise to not fully interfere with concept of Wikipedia works) to keep creating pages in the Draft namespace as an available option, like on English (and Persian) Wikipedia. See https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/mediawiki-config/+/223497.
I will avoid any political discussion about whether or not this violates the spirit of "anyone can edit".
On a technical level, similar restrictions exist today for a few wikis including enwiki. The < https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/operations/mediawiki-config/+...
config file is where we manage these sorts of rights deviations from the MediaWiki defaults. Searching that file for "createpage" and "createpagemainns" will show you the sort of restrictions that have been implemented to prevent certain user groups from creating any page (createpage) or pages in the main namespace (createpagemainns).
Wikis that deny createpage to anons:
- apiportalwiki
- ckbwiki
- enwiki
- eswikibooks
- fawiki
- idwiki
- swwiki
- test2wiki
When createpagemainns is restricted it is typically so that https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ArticleCreationWorkflow can inject an alternative like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard when restricted users attempt to create a new page in the main namespace.
Bryan
Bryan Davis Wikimedia Foundation Principal Software Engineer Boise, ID USA [[m:User:BDavis_(WMF)]] irc: bd808 _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list -- wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikitech-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
Hey Zoran,
In general the workflow for something like this would be to 1) get consensus for it with a local onwiki discussion or RFC, then 2) make a ticket on Phabricator ( https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/edit/form/1/ ) and tag it "Wikimedia-site-requests" and link to the onwiki consensus, then 3) you or someone else will write the patch. This workflow can be used to request removing permissions from user groups (wgGroupOverrides) and/or adding namespaces (wgExtraNamespaces).
Hope that helps.
Sincerely, Novem Linguae
I am sure youe are over these steps before opening such a talk, just thinking loudly.
If this is a repeated activity, does it have recognizeable patterns? If so, can it be handled by abuse filter? According to CU investigations, would there be useful a range block? If it comes from a few recurring vandals, would it be useful to complain at their ISP? Do you have enough admins who can be on duty and easily detect these attacks and block the invaders and do mass reverts (or bot reverts to keep clean the recent changes page)? Do you have enough CUs? Would it be useful to use admin bots or give bot right for admins for a while to clean RC page? Can you create a continuously running bot on a toolserver which alerts admins in these cases? Are there statistics on new users' new pages, regarding the ratio of vandalism?
Wikis that deny createpage to anon, mentioned by Bryan, have made this decision because of vandalism or quality reasons? I am really interested in this.
I have been admin on huwiki approx. for 15-16 years, and we also had troubles several times. When newer admins have fears or vandals are too proud that they can do anything, I always tell the same: we are more, we are stronger, they will give up. Because it happened every time in the past two decades.
Hello everyone, it took me a while to process everything.
Here are answers to @Bináris:
If this is a repeated activity, does it have recognizeable patterns?
Yes and no at the same time.
If so, can it be handled by abuse filter?
We already tried it.
According to CU investigations, would there be useful a range block?
I'm unsure if there were any CU investigations.
If it comes from a few recurring vandals, would it be useful to complain at
their ISP?
No, as Serbian ISPs are unresponsive regarding abusing their services.
Do you have enough admins who can be on duty and easily detect these
attacks and block the invaders and do mass reverts (or bot reverts to keep clean the recent changes page)?
We do have enough admins, but as it's repetitive, it can get hard.
Do you have enough CUs?
Yes, we do I guess.
Would it be useful to use admin bots or give bot right for admins for a
while to clean RC page?
We're considering some bots from English Wikipedia, but we're still thinking about it.
Can you create a continuously running bot on a toolserver which alerts
admins in these cases?
I think I could give it a try, but I'm sure that there are better ways.
Are there statistics on new users' new pages, regarding the ratio of
vandalism?
I would have to check that and let you know.
@Novem: Thank you so much for letting me know, but I'm already aware about that part.
To all: We've started considering using FlaggedRevs instead, as the mass creation of vandalism (and threatening pages targeted to a few users) has stopped. But I'm unsure if enabling FlaggedRevs is possible (if I remember correctly, it's not, because it's not maintained much, but I saw some efforts and tasks on Phabricator regarding code stewardship).
I think that using the FlaggedRevs extension could be the best solution at the moment, as it doesn't interfere with Wikipedia's spirit of "anyone can edit".
FlaggedRevs is considered an option because of questionable edits mainly coming from IP (anonymous users), including "new users" who are making mistakes.
I'm still thinking about everything. If I come up with something additional, I'll let you know.
Thank you so much so far!
Best regards, Zoran
уто, 10. сеп 2024. у 06:43 Bináris wikiposta@gmail.com је написао/ла:
I am sure youe are over these steps before opening such a talk, just thinking loudly.
If this is a repeated activity, does it have recognizeable patterns? If so, can it be handled by abuse filter? According to CU investigations, would there be useful a range block? If it comes from a few recurring vandals, would it be useful to complain at their ISP? Do you have enough admins who can be on duty and easily detect these attacks and block the invaders and do mass reverts (or bot reverts to keep clean the recent changes page)? Do you have enough CUs? Would it be useful to use admin bots or give bot right for admins for a while to clean RC page? Can you create a continuously running bot on a toolserver which alerts admins in these cases? Are there statistics on new users' new pages, regarding the ratio of vandalism?
Wikis that deny createpage to anon, mentioned by Bryan, have made this decision because of vandalism or quality reasons? I am really interested in this.
I have been admin on huwiki approx. for 15-16 years, and we also had troubles several times. When newer admins have fears or vandals are too proud that they can do anything, I always tell the same: we are more, we are stronger, they will give up. Because it happened every time in the past two decades.
Wikitech-l mailing list -- wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to wikitech-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/lists/wikitech-l.lists.wikimedia.org/
Zoran Dori zorandori4444@gmail.com ezt írta (időpont: 2024. szept. 11., Sze, 20:50):
Are there statistics on new users' new pages, regarding the ratio of
vandalism?
I would have to check that and let you know.
I am not personally interested, I was just thinking loudly. Your situation is really not promising.
We've started considering using FlaggedRevs instead, as the mass creation of vandalism (and threatening pages targeted to a few users) has stopped. But I'm unsure if enabling FlaggedRevs is possible (if I remember correctly, it's not, because it's not maintained much, but I saw some efforts and tasks on Phabricator regarding code stewardship).
We use it on huwiki. It only protects reviewed pages somehow, but newly created pages will still be visible for anyone. For the status of the extension, see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org