Active user page filter prevents vandalism and harassment

In focus

Active user page filter prevents vandalism and harassment

Share this

Funcrunch (left) and I JethroBT (right) at WikiConference North America in 2016.

Chris "Jethro" Schilling (User:I JethroBT) is an editor and admin on the English Wikipedia. He is also a community organizer for the Wikimedia Foundation who runs Inspire Campaigns to encourage ideas and collaboration across Wikimedia projects on thematic topics and challenges that our communities face.

A proposal from the Inspire Campaign to address harassment was recently implemented to prevent unconstructive and malicious editing on user pages. Since its activation, it has been effectively preventing cases of vandalism and harassment directed at specific editors.

User pages are particular pages – separate from the article space – that editors use to talk about themselves, what they enjoy editing, and Wikimedia-related projects they work on. In June 2016, editor Pax (Funcrunch) submitted an idea to the Inspire Campaign titled Protect user space by default, which proposed placing all base user pages (but not subpages) under semi-protection, which would prevent unregistered and very new editors from modifying those pages. User talk pages would remain unaffected.

Sometimes, editors are targeted for vandalism or harassment by way of maliciously editing their user page. This kind of disruption can be mundane, such as insertion of random gibberish, but can also be harsher, such as personal attacks and provocation. Editors who are involved in sensitive, controversial, or otherwise divisive topic areas are particularly prone to these sorts of attacks. Pax, who is openly transgender and uses singular they pronouns, learned of the anti-harassment campaign shortly after their own user page was vandalized; the anonymous attacks included deadnaming and misgendering. While Pax has experienced similar harassment elsewhere on Wikipedia and on other Internet sites, the defacement of their user page felt particularly violating, akin to spray-painting hate speech on their front door.

The proposal received enthusiastic support during the campaign and many volunteers were interested in supporting it. Like with many ideas from the campaign that focused on proposing changes to local project policies, I contacted Pax in my official capacity (as I JethroBT (WMF)) to offer my support in preparing a formal proposal that the community could decide on. This support came in the form of reviewing examples of good/poor RfCs in the past in terms of preparation and structure, thinking about pros/cons of different kinds of proposal structures, inviting feedback from other editors on proposal drafts, and minor suggestions for revisions.

The resulting Request for Comments (RfC) that we and other volunteers drafted together was posted in August 2016 (with several other protection options for consideration). The basic rationale for this preventative measure was based on a number of factors, such as:

Many editors have experienced vandalism or harassment on their own user page; for some it is infrequent, for others it is ongoing. These edits are not constructive, and because these are user pages, malicious edits are inherently more personal.
A sample of 100 recent edits from unregistered editors showed that roughly half were cases of vandalism or harassment. The other half were edits that appeared to be made while logged-out (e.g. to an article draft), and a small proportion of edits were problematic edits made in good faith.
There isn't a compelling use case for unregistered or very new editors making changes to others' user pages.

The discussion was divided. On the one hand, some community members felt that this change was too restrictive, did not address a sufficiently important problem, or that there are sufficient tools to deal with this problem. There were also concerns expressed around development time needed to change page protection to accommodate the proposal. On the other hand, many community members supported some form of protection, and acknowledged that we ought to be doing more to prevent vandalism and harassment against editors.

The discussion was closed with consensus favoring ongoing semi-protection of user pages. A subsequent discussion was opened to consider the logistics of implementing this change and to address various clarifications and concerns. Some commented that making changes to the MediaWiki software for page protection was not feasible. Krenair wrote, Yeah, this is not something MediaWiki allows us to do. MusikAnimal also noted, I suspect there's a lot of work involved to get this functionality in [the] MediaWiki core. It was suggested that an edit filter might be an easier approach. MusikAnimal then quickly and single-handedly developed a test edit filter that accomplished the same outcomes as semi-protecting user pages by default.

This general sequence of events was a good example of how it is helpful to build consensus around an idea, and then have a subsequent discussion on the implementation of that idea once consensus has been reached. It is during those implementation discussions where creative (and, in this case, simpler) solutions can emerge to solve a problem. This approach was also used in the discussions for new page reviewers.

On 30 November, the filter was turned on. Since then, it has prevented over 1000 edits to user pages from unregistered or very new editors. Here are several edits prevented by the filter (note: usernames / article topics have been redacted):

Personal attacks / Provocation / Other disruptive behavior
- I'm a wanker
- Please Remove mentally sick dog and admin. editor (Redacted)! Remove that sick Dog!
- WARNING – THIS PERSON IS OFFENDED BY ADULT EROTICA
- I have a little wiener
- slut
- (Redacted) is a full of shit dictator. An honest description of (Redacted) gets eliminated. Hey (Redacted) we r building a wall and I am coming for u. BANG
- Unsubstantiated additions/removals of the {{sockpuppet}} template
- Additions/Changes to userboxes regarding mental status, gender identity, and sexual identity.
- Breaking wikilinks
Spam
- (Redacted) – is the first and largest wine flash website. We offer wines from around the world, one at a time, at up to 70% off...
Gibberish/nonsense
- jiohe9ewuifrwer9eit9-i3490r8t4908t oerbgi45y7y8r34yu8957r8wyuidfAFUopqeri0-23o4lsp[doqwd0-23o4o23iero3-g0
Page blanking

There has also been some discussion around opting out of the filter on one's own user page. A template is currently being tested and should be available soon for those who wish to opt out of the filter.

The filter is by no means a holistic solution to preventing vandalism and harassment for editors, but it is a productive step in the right direction. Furthermore, while the filter is currently enabled on the English Wikipedia, we will also be working to develop some documentation of the edit filter on Meta. This documentation can then be translated, and we will be inviting other Wikimedia projects to consider implementing the filter should their community find it beneficial. Please feel free to get in contact with either myself or Funcrunch if you'd like to help in preparing or translating this documentation.

← Previous "In focus"

In this issue

22 December 2016 (all comments)

In focus

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Is this filter active on all User pages? Will editors be notified if it prevents an edit to their userpage? Can it be opted out? John from Idegon (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: It is active for all user pages, with exception for Jimbo Wales (who has an explicit invitation for anyone to edit the page). I don't think editors are notified, but the filter is public and logged. As noted in the article, MusikAnimal and xaosflux have been discussing/working on an opt out mechanism that should be available soon via a template that you (and only you) can add to your own userpage. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't talk pages filtered? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: User talk pages weren't part of the original proposal. I could be wrong, but I think a lot of folks feel that editors should be able to communicate with other editors via their user talk pages, even if they are unregistered. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: User talk pages were part of my original proposal on the Inspire Campaign, but I was convinced to limit the RfC to just base user pages, for the reason I JethroBT mentioned above. Funcrunch (talk) 05:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, JethroBot. One further question. Where is the filter log located? Good to hear from you, as always. John from Idegon (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: The relevant edit filter log is here. Funcrunch (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! The work has stalled, but I think all we need to do is test the new opt-out system before enabling it for everyone. Will try to get the ball rolling soon. Indeed, it's very much preferable that talk pages be open. There's generally not a compelling reason that a new user would edit your personalized userpage, but the talk page is for communication, which is essential for collaboration. Especially when they need to reach out for help, etc. — MusikAnimal ^talk 08:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an impactful solution to a real problem, where a lot of folks came together and opted for a good solution with immediate value rather than waiting for a perfect one. Thank you for documenting it, I JethroBT! Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we put an active filter on the article pages rather than waiting for the ClueBot to revert vandalism? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: There are a ton of filters active for article pages for specific kinds of vandalism (e.g. Special:AbuseFilter/815 and Special:AbuseFilter/260, so there's some of that preventative work going on already. A filter like this one for the article space would need some careful consideration, I think. It's true we get a lot of vandalism from unregistered editors, but they also make a considerable number of productive edits to this project. Do we want to require registration for people to contribute to the sum of all human knowledge? You might also want to check out a 2014 Wikimania presentation by Halfak (WMF) and Steven Walling on unregistered editors: Hi, my name is 192.195.83.38: unmasking anonymous editors on Wikipedia. They talk about how unregistered editors are contributing around the 8:00 mark. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Wikipedian, so I can't view the AbuseFilters, but I'll take your word for it.

I wasn't thinking about cutting off unregistered editors, just preventing obvious vandalism. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, several other language Wikipedias filter their articles by default. Perhaps it was pending changes—doubt it was semiprotected by default czar 00:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to express my appreciation for all who involve themselves in protecting our user pages from this playful fellow and many others, some of whom are far less lighthearted. – Athaenara ✉ 19:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great initiative :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, how does the new filter work? Are only edits of new editors affected? What if a newbie wants to contact a mentor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.34.44.188 (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How it works is that if an anonymous or new (less than four days/10 edits) user attempts to edit the user page of another editor, they get a notice that such edits are not allowed. User talk pages are not affected, so anonymous and new editors can still contact others that way. Funcrunch (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost is written by editors like you – join in!

Home

About