1

UPDATE 2:  Discussion on “restricting AWB” is over.  See here for outcome.

UPDATE:  See here for my latest proposal.

TL;DR:  The AutoWikiBrowser tool should be restricted to established contributors who can demonstrate a need for it.

Earlier today, I encountered a user named “SpellBot” that immediately dove in using AutoWikiBrowser to spellcheck articles.  This is kind of problematic, because the purpose of AutoWikiBrowser is to perform extremely tedious tasks, such as adding a {{historical}} tag to articles in a large category.  Typo fixing is a secondary feature that could be used.

What needs to be done to restrict AWB/CheckPage

The technical measure for restricting AutoWikiBrowser is by creating a checkpage at https://wikihow.com/Project:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage (autoredirects to  https://wikihow.com/wikiHow:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage where the checkpage should actually be created).  The page has to be a specific format for the tool to be properly restricted.  Basically, users on the CheckPage and administrators are given access to the program, and users not on the CheckPage aren’t.  The CheckPage would be fully admin protected so that new users would not just be able to add their username to the list, as it would defeat the purpose.  The format of the CheckPage is something like this:

 ==Approved users== \<!--enabledusersbegins--\> ===Bots=== \<!--enabledbots--\> \* Willy on Wheels! \* Foobot tha Great \<!--enabledbotsends--\> ===Normal users=== \* Lorem \* Ipsum \<!--enabledusersends--\> \<!--Message:Some message all users will see after login--\> \<!--No general fixes: List pages here that have specific formatting issues not compatible with AWB's general fixes. [[Mathematica]] - formulae are screwed up! [[Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings]] [[Associative array]] - becomes dissassociative [[List of musical works in unusual time signatures]] --\>

This template is copied from Wikipedia’s CheckPage format.  This first part requires no engineering time whatsoever and can be done by any admin once consensus is achieved.

Tagging edits made by AWB

The second part is tagging edits made with AWB with “AWB”.  I believe this is done by going to Special:Tags and creating a tag called “AWB”.  That way, in RC patrol, we can separate AutoWikiBrowser edits from regular edits.

Now onto the part as to why AWB should be restricted:

  1. AWB can cause major problems because it was not designed for wikiHow.  I have used AWB before and often have to reject changes that convert “<br><br>{{whvid}}” to "

{{whvid}}" (
means line break in programming, I cannot type it here, so I am just showing two line breaks.).
2. AWB has a large potential for abuse.  It is very easy to run through a list of pages and systematically do something disruptive, like “fixing typos” that do not need fixing.  This can raise the RC patrol backlog really high.  RC patrol managed to get into 100s because the user I mentioned was new and did not know what AWB should be used for on wikiHow.
3. Using AWB requires a large amount of trust.  I have been told not to use AWB for certain tasks and also learned that AWB should be used sparingly to perform extremely tedious edits that would take a long time to do manually.  This case of an extremely new user using AWB is rare, but this shows what could potentially happen if the tool is left open for anyone to use.
4. We already have a lot of dashboard tools that do better than AutoWikiBrowser.  For example, we have the spellchecker that can be used to identify typos, and the copyedit greenhouse to make copyedits.  AWB can introduce formatting issues, such as by adding unnecessary non-breaking spaces or messing with line breaks, that make it not ideal for widespread use on wikiHow.

I propose that prospective AWB users (that are not admins) meet the following criteria to be considered:

  1. Minimum 1000 mainspace edits and 90 day old account (i.e. trusted editor).  There needs to be demonstrated willingness to pursue wikiHow’s mission in order to use AWB.  There also needs to be demonstrated interest in performing cleanup on the site, such as by copyediting articles or using the spellchecker tool.
  2. Access to New Article Boost can be preferred, but does not need to be a requirement.  A user without NAB should still be able to get access to AWB if they demonstrate a need for it (such as by managing article tags in a category).
  3. Not previously had access to the tool removed in the past 90 days (or blocks or bans for any disruption).
  4. Willingness to accept feedback for edits made by the tool.
  5. Should access to the tool pose a risk to disruption at any time, access may be removed.

I do think AWB is a nice tool (I have used it before), but I think it is important that we prevent disruption and controversy that may ensue from misuse of the tool.

2

Can you specify allowed user groups on the checkpage? I know you said that admins are allowed to edit, but, for example, could you specify that New Article Boosters are also allowed to use Auto Wiki Browser on the chekpage?

3

What’s the message that everyone sees after login? —\UwU/—

4

I can support this, I think that it’s a good idea to restrict AWB. I think that it could be restricted to admins and new article boosters (if possible), and other editors can also request access in some way. I especially support this since it can cause a lot of damage. You never know, one day a vandal might decide to try to use AWB to quickly vandalize many pages. I have also seen AWB edits from many users (including established editors) that have done things such as braking internal links, so I think that restricting it to only users who know how to use it would be good. These edits take a long time to clean up, and typically require the use of multiple pages that are listed on wikiGnome tasks , and, in the case of the potential for wide scale vandalism, I think that the saying, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” applies here very well, and, as someone who has cleaned up mass vandalism from a bot before, I definitely don’t want to do that again. The fact that it does not require engineering time is also a benefit, since I know that the engineers are busy.

I also think that creating tags would be good, as long as those would not require engineering time. If they do, then maybe we can do it once they have more time. Alternatively, if tags cannot be done, then we can require that the edit summary must specify that the edit was made by Auto Wiki Browser for edits that are made by Auto Wiki Browser.

5

After I get to 1000 contributions, I might not get the AWB because it’s only available for Windows, but I can’t get the Virtual Box. I’m on an iPad.

7

Yep, I agree with the test for AWB.

8

Hmm… I support this actually. However, I don’t think a test would be necessary. I don’t think AWB is too hard to use, but we just have to make sure that the user has read some articles on it, and I believe it should be fine. I’ve used AWB before, but I might use it more often!

9

However, I believe that some people might not like to use their own private account to use AWB. For example, if I were to use it, I might just create a new account called WikiaWangAWB or something, but people might get confused. So I think that the use of using AWB on a sockpuppet is allowed, as long as it’s confirmed by the user.

10

Without knowing much about AWB, it seems that AWB could be a portal for a crippling attack on wikiHow. Would it be better to eliminate this possibility by disallowing the use of AWB by non-staff wikiHowians?

11

I don’t see how simply using a feature for its intended purpose is problematic?

Again, this might just be my personal experience, but when I first discovered AWB, I didn’t have a concrete need for it, I just wanted to mess around and see what it could do.

I don’t think a test is a good idea either. What would you be testing? I’m not sure if it’s just the way I use AWB, but a lot of it has been trial-and-error and reading through relevant wikiHow/Wikipedia pages, and I’m not sure how a test could have prepared me for that. I feel like the only skill a user should really have is good knowledge of wikiHow syntax, so they can detect when an edit performed using AWB breaks the formatting or something.

I guess my general question about this ordeal is: do we really have a need for this? There are just a dozen people on wikiHow using AWB (even less who do so regularly) and so far I’ve yet to see disruptions major enough to require a formal restriction on accessing the tool. I can see that it has a potential for abuse but the program is also just a bit of a PITA to use so the chance that a person both has enough knowledge to really use it and an intent to misuse it, seems rather small.

12

I don’t think that their is a need for a test in the traditional sense. I would just make it something like:

“I understand that I cannot autosave edits”

“I have read How to Use Auto Wiki Browser on wikiHow ”, and

“I understand that I must correctly tag my edits as being made from Auto Wiki Browser.”

Then, if the user is also a trusted contributor in good standing, then they can be given access. I don’t think that we need to make it difficult to get access by creating some kind of test.

13

@R2_d2000 Agreed. After all, there isn’t much to test about because you won’t say “fix 10 spelling errors with AWB” or “mark 10 articles as historical with AWB.” Also, I believe that as long as the user is trusted and is showing good-faith, there really isn’t a need for a test. However, I believe that 90 days might not be necessary. I would say 60 since 1000 contributions isn’t all that easy to make.

14

I’m really not into AWB, I’ve never used it before, I don’t even know how it works. So I’m going to stay out of this discussion because I’m clueless.

15

I don’t support the idea of making people take a test to use AWB or restricting it to certain user rights. Zodi already brought up most of my thoughts, and there’s also the fact that this is the very first time I’ve seen actual misuse of AWB on wikiHow (as opposed to someone simply making an error with the tool). Most editors I’ve talked to either don’t know what it is or don’t use it regularly (if at all), and I don’t think there’s any real benefit to restricting a barely-used tool just because one user didn’t know our patrolling system isn’t built to handle AWB. I’d be more supportive if this was an ongoing issue that was happening with multiple users.

16

I’m curious to know how many people actively use AWB nowadays. I’ve been here for almost 9 years, majority of those years spent wikiGnoming, and haven’t used any external programs at all.

17

I don’t think so, AWB is a tool that people are given access to on a per user basis.  The only allowed user group that can use AWB freely are administrators.  Everyone else has to be listed on the check page (if it exists).

18

What I also think we can do is invoke the “grandfather” clause - those that have already used AWB without problems can continue to access AWB provided that their edits are still helpful, and those that have not used AWB can go through the requests for permission by emailing JayneG (or leaving a note on an admin’s talk page explaining why they think AWB access is necessary).

Like I said, the first part of the proposal requires no engineering time and instead just requires an admin evaluating consensus to protect a page once it is set up.  Of course, anyone who requests AWB can get it should they meet the criteria that we can all agree on.

I created a draft Check Page at  wikihow.com/User:Awesome-Aasim/AWBCP  (it does not restrict AWB usage right now because the title is incorrect.  You can add your name to it if you have already been using AutoWikiBrowser.  Once we get consensus for restricting AWB, we can move it to wikiHow:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage (where the CheckPage would become functional) and protect it.

The second part requires adding a tag called “AWB” to Special:Tags.  I was looking at this page which lists all the rights of users in the database and it seems as if admins can apply tags, but I think it would be something that should only be done by wikiHow staff because they can fix any bugs that arise with any change like this.

And no, I do not think AWB needs a test, it just requires trust that the tool will not be misused.  One of those things that will be granted upon request should there be an established history with making good edits.  If there is a test, it should be on how to use AWB in order to reduce any disruption from users unfamiliar with policies.

19

Zodi, you make a good point.  I am not thinking about contributor’s intent.  It is about what could happen should even someone less knowledgeable about the tool in good faith  runs it on wikiHow (like the SpellBot from earlier).  I am not making a question of good faith vs bad faith here, I am making a question as to whether leaving AWB open poses a risk of disruption.

20

We don’t restrict users from RCP unless someone’s demonstrated they’re struggling to use it, and we don’t restrict users from rolling back edits at all, despite the fact that both of those things can be easily abused. I’ve used AWB before, and to the average vandal, it’d be way more effort than it’s worth because it’s not an easy tool to use. They’d vandalize pages more quickly through RCP than if they set up AWB.

Why is the focus here on cracking down on users who have done nothing to warrant it? One of wikiHow’s core values is assuming good faith, and giving friendly guidance when people make mistakes. Even ignoring the fact that restricting the tool to a list like this would just make it a hassle for admins if someone new wants to use the tool, it goes against the core principle of assuming good faith. Yes, AWB can cause a lot of edits to stack up in a short period of time, but readers won’t see any of those edits until they’re patrolled in RCP, and the best course of action is to let the editor know that they need to go slowly with the tool and not autosave edits. Doing a blanket-ban of AWB for everyone until they ask for it is assuming the tool is going to be abused, not assuming good faith.

21

Great point @Galactic-Radiance .