Forum:Edit spam

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Edit spam
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 18 September 2012 by Joeytje50.

This thread's purpose is to bring to the foreground an issue that has been popping up frequently on IRC between myself and others. Since the implication is made that no one cares except me, I'd like to see how the community feels about the issue.

Have a look at this -- the phenomenon that I call Cookspam. Cook often makes thousands of tiny edits, allegedly manually, on a non-bot account. These edits flood Recent Changes, his contribution history, his edit count, and, though less important, article histories. Additionally, I have learned of User:Flaysian/The Good, the Bad and the Cook|this upcoming contest for October, wherein participating users will spam edits in order to reach the highest edit count they can. I believe this to be disruptive, and as an administrator I have warned users to avoid flooding the wiki with trivial edits for a questionable purpose, but I have met with opposition and been forced to bring this subject to the Yew Grove.

Here is the problem: When one or more users edit in a spammy fashion, people can't browse Recent Changes for poor-quality edits, edits that are relevant to their interests, or vandalism, because almost all they can see is the spam. Various ways to filter the spam are flawed -- hiding minor edits, in Cook's case, would hide everyone's minor edits, and RC patrollers have an interest in seeing all the edits that happen on the wiki. Filtering individual users with JavaScript is even more heavy-handed, as such a filter would not let their non-spam edits through. In addition to technical problems, I assert that individual users should not have to take their own action to solve, for them, what is a site-wide problem. There is, therefore, a flaw in any spam filter that users must enable on their own.

My proposal is thus: Don't spam. The wiki has a collective interest in making sure things run smoothly, and edit spam is disruptive for those of us who aren't having "fun". If you want to spam, get a bot flag; if you complain that that's not what bot flags are for, then amend the relevant policies to allow it. I'm not sticking a suggested maximum edit rate onto this proposal because that's unnecessarily bureaucratic and could hinder less disruptive editing (like a user making a handful of small edits in a short period of time). Just use your heads. Constructive edits are welcome, and are wholly in line with this wiki's mission, but making them in a way that interferes with others is not.

Discuss. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 04:54, September 8, 2012 (UTC)


Comment - I, for one, definitely see your point with the problems it may cause patrollers and anyone else who seriously does use the RC. I, however, also think that users should do something about it with their own self, i.e. javascript blocking a user's edits or w/e. This little editspam war is all by trusted users from what I can tell. No harm should come from blocking any of their edits on the RC. Regarding Cookspam, I believe it is possible to do all of those edits manually. That's what multi-tabbing/multi-window use is for. --Touhou FTW Zaros symbol.png 05:07, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Well, before you make your opinions on this alleged contest, you should've been in the [[Special:Chat|chat]] at the time of the situation. Everyone makes silly taunts to other users so we just did that to each other as a fun thing to do. As I myself knew that I wouldn't be active in the time of this "contest", and I know that Atheist wasn't going to be active, and Flay wouldn't be that active I would think. If this were going to happen though, I would've gotten most images set up with RS:IMG. So, I wouldn't want to be blocked for getting images in accordance with policies personally because I made "too many edits"... Hair 05:08, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

To start off - Just some points before I'm awake enough much later to completely trump your logic:

My edit shown in that picture. One example of fixing a problem where another user attempted to fudge a {{fact}} (which also was during spam).

Some helpful links: Hide minor edits (what I, cook, etc automatically mark our edits as) ; hide all non-IPs, useful seeing as most repetitive vandalism is done by anons

Bots aren't capable of cookspam; what you showed was not cookspam; cookspam is 30 edits a minute; I've been in cookspam and I've handled well, read faster.

What about your trivial edits? Do you realise how unneeded it is (whether spam or not) for you to troll around everyone's edit to lower one capital letter for the Style Guide?

That "war", if you had actually been paying attention, has died down and not a damn word was said. You complained about it when you saw what it was after Hairr and I removed our signatures (a clear sign that hype has died).

You have been given multiple options as to how to deal with this and I feel you don't care about others' interests, just your own. Edits are edits, get over it. MolMan 05:10, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

  • Congratulations, you had one edit during the Cookspam. It's nice that you're apparantly able to deal with it just fine, but that's no reason to expect everyone to do the same as you.
  • Hiding minor edits hides the minor edits of other users who aren't spamming. Hiding non-IP edits is good for spotting IP vandalism, but is bad for anything else (including registered user vandalism). It's certainly no way to browse Recent Changes by default.
  • There's nothing stopping Cook from manually editing with his bot account when he wants to spam.
  • I don't make my trivial edits at such a rapid rate that it interferes with others' ability to watch Recent Changes. Furthermore, why are you accusing me of trolling? RS:UTP and RS:AGF.
  • If the edit war is called off, then I wonder why Cook even bothered to bring it up a couple weeks ago when we were arguing about Cookspam in IRC. Additionally, if it's so irrelevant, why are you so testy about it? Your wording is aggressive, bordering on hostile. You certainly seem to care about it.
  • As I expressed in my post, the options are imperfect. They inflict collateral damage, when they work at all. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 05:34, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Trolling is just a word I use, it's synonymous with lurking, watchdogging, etc; not my fault you hate my vocabulary. MolMan 05:37, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
No, you don't get to use inflammatory language and then write it off as a difference in semantics. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 05:39, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Ummmm... I'm not. MolMan 05:40, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Trawling through.  a proofreader ▸  05:47, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Saying damn is not aggressive; it is, once again, just part of my common vocabulary.
Your argument that others going out of their way to patrol recent changes is unfair? It's just as unfair to force cook (or anyone else) onto another account. MolMan 05:42, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Right. It's just as unfair to make one person edit with a bot flag as it is to make any number of editors each take individual action to ignore spam. Tell me of the harm that Cook, and any other, would suffer by being required to spam only with a bot flag. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 05:44, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
You're being just as aggressive with your flesh-tearing comments. But I don't care (see below) anymore, I just don't. MolMan 06:08, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - As long as the edits are constructive, then there should be no limit on how many edits you can make. If they are marked as minor (which they should be and usually are) then they can be hidden easily, while most bad edits won't be hidden as how many ips/new users actually mark their edits as minor? As well as this, you can use other methods people have mentioned if you feel that hiding minor edits is inadequate. So I really see no reason to limit the number of edits people can make, if they are constructive. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 05:15, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Question for Cook - Can you please thoroughly explain for everyone the reasons for using your own account instead of a bot? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:17, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Answer for Fergie - I use my main account for most of my edits instead of my bot account because most of my edits can't be accomplished with AWB's automatic tools or pywiki's scripts (that I know of, I'm not actually familiar with pywiki). For things like redirects or licenses or anything where there's a page for every redirect, a name for every licensed image, I can't feed a list into the program where I have a variable for the replace. It just doesn't work, and while I've tried to do it with AWB's manual text editing tools, they're really bad and it's just faster, easier and more efficient to do it by hand. As for the actual accounts, it's always been my understanding that I should use my main account for any edits done through the browser, and policy backs that up. Also, as perfect as I am, I do make mistakes, and they're usually caught by people watching the edits. Flay has a whole list of them that he trots out whenever he wants me to feel bad. Bots don't make errors -- what they do, they do on purpose. ʞooɔ 00:43, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
I'll just leave a small little reply to this, as I probably know what his response will be, but he should still reply. He uses his own account, not the AWB bot account, as his edits aren't AWB. AWB edits can't go to the speed that he's doing, as it won't load that fast, even on automatic. Hair 05:21, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
My point #3. MolMan 05:22, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Okay but I was asking Cook. If he says speed then his whole argument is invalid. Also AWB rules can be changed. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:23, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
I don't think they should; If they are, then every time I'd want to change 40 pages at a time, I'd have to log onto a purple account. MolMan 05:25, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
I never said that you would have to change the rules to make it so X amount of edits require an AWB account. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:26, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
The rate at which I personally do 40 edits, would probably (let's put this nicely) "offend" some people; it'd be considered spam. MolMan 05:27, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
If you did 40 edits every few minutes every single day for 3 years, it would be annoying, yes. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:28, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Cookspam or Botspam annoys me very much, but the edits are often necessary. Yes, it's quite a pickle browsing through it and filtering real edits out, but then again, it only takes a minute or so longer. There shouldn't be a limit on the amount of edits as long as they are good and helpful (even if it's adding a license template to 3000 images). As for the contest... uh... yeah... not so sure how that will turn out good... User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 05:30, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the contest is actually still on. (this whole thread is moot) MolMan 05:34, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Not moot; Cook routinely does redirect creation spam, and has recently done inventory & NPC license spam, as well as exchange buy limit spam. I don't anticipate that ever ending Smile  a proofreader ▸  06:32, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Breaking my own rule, but I meant the reason that sparked it. Okay, now I am done. MolMan 06:33, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Your proposal is thus, "Don't spam". That's already a wiki policy; you can't post spam links to websites, nor can you add stupid, pointless or annoying messages (SPAM) to main namespace pages, lest your content be reverted. More seriously however, a script to hide Cook's edits (sorry, forgot the page name, and I thought it was under Quarenon's user space) can be loaded, but has a problem: it interferes with AJAX-refreshing Special:RecentChanges. When one loads the page with the script enabled, there is a "Hide Cook Me Plox edits" link until the first refresh, after which the link disappears and the edits are constantly shown until the next refresh. Also, modifying JavaScript is necessary to add new users to the hidden user list. As rightly noted by The Mol Man on Forum talk:Edit spam, the faster patrollers and those using tools like RC Patrol or Suppa's recent changes can deal with the edits; however, casual RecentChanges patrollers are shut out. I would propose:

  • having a "lowlight" (neologism opposed to "highlight") of #B0B0B0 for trusted users who often do high-frequency edits, to dim their names from view
    10:00 Dragon ceremonial outfit‎ (diff | hist) . . (-17)‎ . . Insert vandal (Talk); and/or
  • have a gadget that's easy to install from Special:Preferences and hides the edits of a customisable list of users; or
  • have a script or gadget that collapses the edits of any users who have had over 20% of the current RecentChanges and shows one expandable line at the top of the page for the user.
    10:00 |> 17 edits by Insert vandal (Talk) hidden. Click to expand.

If the edits are constructive, the user is trusted, and the number of edits needed is high, perhaps making the account a bot is warranted.

 a proofreader ▸ 

05:42, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

I like your third point. But I have a question: Will it simply collapse the edits to where there are only like two lines on the RC (the collapsed line and the line of another user's edit), or will it collapse them all and fill the page back up with other edits? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:46, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
That would be up to the implementor, not me, as I don't know JavaScript well enough. For the sake of argument, let us say that a user browses RecentChanges with 500 edits shown; I envision that, if a user has 100 edits in that batch of 500, that user's edits will appear at the top, be removed from the main RecentChanges, and the remaining 400 would be shown. If multiple users have their share of RecentChanges, the 20% shall of 20% of the total number the user has selected, so 100 per hidden user for 500-change RecentChanges. That would also either be subject to change, or be a tunable parameter.  a proofreader ▸  05:51, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
So if only the default 50 are 49 of the 50 are from one person, those would be collapsed, and the other one edit would show under it. That would be kind of lame. But I imagine it'd be harder to do it the other way... sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 05:53, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Right.  a proofreader ▸  05:56, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Of your suggestions, I like 3 the most. I would certainly support its implementation. However, one consideration: If someone assembles a vandal bot that attacks the wiki with high-frequency edits (as has happened in the past), those edits shouldn't be hidden. Or should they? *shrug* --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 05:47, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
They would only be "hidden" below the header for the user. It would be up to you to expand the header if it's someone you don't know, and leave it at the top collapsed if it's someone like Cook. The link for the user in the header would always be Special:Contributions instead of User:X for quicker checking.  a proofreader ▸  05:56, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, if the vandal bot uses multiple IPs or users, their edits would not be enough for 20% of the RecentChanges and would fill the page. If it uses one IP or user, the name will raise red flags to those who examine RecentChanges and know some of the trusted names.  a proofreader ▸  06:01, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Aye, 3 is the best, I support that, as long as it's collapsed by default. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 06:07, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
This (#3, as above) would solve the problem, no? I know if I did browse recentchanges that much this would do the trick. If I wanted to see the huge number of edits, I could; if I didn't, I'd still know they were there. -- Cycloneblaze (user - talk - contribs) 11:08, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Screw it - I'm withdrawing anything I say; I'll be the better me and just drop this. I don't feel like saying/doing something that will either get me in trouble, blocked, or a lower reputation than I'm already at. I see that I've already offended you (somehow) and any attempt to rectify it (all of which have been truthful) have just been met with disdain.

I'll never agree with you, Andorin, ever, that is clear, and any which-way, this thread doesn't pertain to me to the extent that it does to Cook. He's a smart man and when he really wants to argue, he'll do it for himself. You and I, Andorin, we're both stubborn as all Hell, we'll never be in agreement.

So with that I leave; you won't see my fulfill my allegations of some logic-trumping essay; you won't see me argue on this thread anymore; you'll see nothing. But just remember: I did this to stop me from being stupid, not to contribute to obtaining consensus. MolMan 06:08, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

FYI - Just wanted to remind everyone that the wiki API has a "rcexcludeuser" parameter when generating recent changes lists. This can probably be added to the Special:RecentChanges page easily; I'm not entirely sure, it's been a while since I've done any wiki scripting. In any case, the feature is implemented in all three of my recent changes scripts.

Now, I'm not denying or even confirming that this issue needs a resolution. I don't want to get into the debate, I just wanted to remind you that this feature does exist in case anyone had forgotten. Suppa chuppa Talk 06:46, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - When I'm disappointed by the pace of AWB's editing (which is usually), I just open several AWB.exes and split the page list between them. I believe I am capable of exceeding the pace of Cookspam in this fashion. Wink 222 talk 06:59, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Why does it matter? - Hell, why am I even posting here? This just seems kinda trivial to me... 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 14:08, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - If you are gona cry about Cook doing legit edits faster than a bot, just block him from your RC? I think suppa got a script for that somewhere. — Jr Mime (talk) 14:13, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Despite my confusion about the definition of spamming here, a constructive edit is, after all, constructive. Ignoring the ideas regarding javascript add-ons (which are there if you feel you wish to improve the wiki for yourself/remove something you don't like), the editors here are working towards making the wiki as good as it can be and thus we should not attempt to alienate someone who is making 'too many' edits. As Cook is indeed a highly trusted user, as indicated by the variety of tools as his disposal, I think we can agree that his edits are positive additions to the wiki, and if he says they are made manually then we should treat them as such. If they are completed (semi-)automatically then I would agree that such edits should be taken to CookBot. If someone has such an issue, then I would suggest making use of the variety of options suggested above rather than waste time clamping down on someone who is doing what many of us are too lazy or have too little time to do ourselves. cqm 20:59,8/9/2012 (UTC) (UTC)

What is the practical difference between Cook making thousands of tiny automated edits and Cook making thousands of tiny manual edits? Why does one warrant a bot flag while the other does not? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:05, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Because one is completed manually and the other is not? As far as I'm aware making redirects is not possible through AWB (feel free to correct me), and it really doesn't hurt anyone. cqm 21:09,8/9/2012 (UTC) (UTC)
One is manual and the other is not... so what? Again, why is this distinction so important that one can spam Recent Changes and the other can't? And if Recent Changes spam doesn't hurt anyone, then why do we hide bot edits by default? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:11, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Do you want to see automated bots all the time that do good things, like tybot can't do any mistakes, and do many thousand of edits. While cook, him, it's not automated. — Jr Mime (talk) 21:17, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Once again... so what? I do not understand why it's so important that Cook's edits are different from bot edits insofar as they're manual. Both of them spam Recent Changes. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:19, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
He doesn't use a bot, he shouldn't be force to use a bot. Simple solution: Use Suppa's script and this war is finished. — Jr Mime (talk) 21:22, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Suppa's script doesn't work -- specifically, the autorefresh. And you still haven't adequately answered my question. Why are bot edits hidden from Recent Changes, but not Cook's? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:23, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Cook does manual edits, he's allowed. Difference is many edits cook does bots can't do. Now, I'll stop posting here before it starts getting outhanded. + I think there's a script for the normal RC. — Jr Mime (talk) 21:30, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
That's still not an answer. No one, thus far, has been able to tell me why bot spam is hidden and manual spam is not. And I'm told the normal RC script does not work for autorefresh. I see no reason why I should have to choose between autorefreshing Recent Changes and the blocking of edits that interfere with my ability to browse it. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 21:33, September 8, 2012 (UTC)

If we went back to why AWB exists, it is because many of us find the tasks typically performed with it boring and tedious. I would imagine someone then realised the volume of edits AWB could produce and someone else complained about not being able to read RC and never thought to extend it to manual edits. Sounds familiar, no? I believe we inherited the bot policy (I have trouble checking from my phone) and no one questioned it. After reading through Forum:Modification of RS:BOTS - Relating to AWB use it seems the initial problem was a mix between flooding RC and falsely inflated edit counts. No one ever considered you could do as many edits by hand because there was no way of distinguishing between the two at the time of the proposal.

But I digress. Perhaps there is no cross section of pages that would generate the pages Cook wishes to (de)categorise. Apparently, as no one has corrected me on my belief, redirects are difficult to make on AWB. Instead of demanding Cook do these edits on another account, have you thought why he does them manually? cqm 11:37,9/9/2012 (UTC) (UTC) edited at 12:43, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

He does them manually because of a technical limitation on AWB. According to your explanation and to others, this technical limitation appears to be the only substantial difference between Cook's edits and a bot's edits. I fail to understand why this limitation is sufficient to allow Cook's edits, which seem functionally similar or equivalent to bot edits, to appear on Recent Changes while bot edits are hidden. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 20:28, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

Comment - My understanding of why bot edits are automatically hidden is clearly different than some others'. I always assumed that the bot edits are hidden because they are much less likely to make a mistake than a human, which means they don't need every edit checked. Cook, on the other hand, is a human and probably will make a mistake every now and then. I don't see what 'spamming' has anything to do with edits getting hidden from the recent changes. Either ways, I don't see why Andorin cannot simply install a script to hide Cook's edits since he seems to be the only one that has the problem. bad_fetustalk 13:26, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

If my amateur opinion on the subject were requested, I would sooner think that a human is less likely to make a mistake than a bot, but I don't know how complex our wiki bots are. Anyway, installing a script to hide all of Cook's edits is, from the point of view of a Recent Changes patroller, bad. Even if Cook is a trusted user, he is not above policy and, like any other user, there is still an interest in seeing his edits. If such a script could magically filter out his spam, then that would be a better solution, but I do not know of any such script. Finally, I assert that even if only one person complains about an issue, that issue could still, objectively speaking, be a valid problem for the wiki. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 20:28, September 9, 2012 (UTC)
Bots can still make deterministic mistakes if they were coded incorrectly, c.f. RSW image renamer. It is those mistakes that need to be watched. Humans editing the wiki can make copy-paste errors, typoes when typing in an item name too quickly, click the wrong button, not handle edit conflicts correctly (made even more possible by the recent edit conflict bug whereby your text is lost and replaced with an empty diff), but they can preview before sending their new revisions to the wiki, avoiding red links and so on. Bots can't copy-paste, typo or click the wrong button, and they can handle edit conflicts with error handling; however, they can't preview, they can introduce red links, and they can parse or modify the wikitext incorrectly if the original wikitext is not as they expect. A well-coded bot can have a very low error rate; a badly-coded bot can be improved with better text and error handling. A well-coded human... doesn't exist. Wink  a proofreader ▸  06:44, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral - I don't really see a point in preventing edit spams - Cook is a very efficient and one of the more prestigious users on this wiki. He does things that most of us can't be bothered to do. On the other hand I can imagine more difficulty in spotting possible vandalism during the edit spam period. --Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 20:32, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Cook and others can't make rapid edits. I'm saying that if they want to, they should do it in a way that does not inhibit our Recent Changes browsing. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 20:35, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Andorin, there are solutions to this that you are fully aware of, but you refuse to use them. Since I'm having a hard time weaving all the problems with your statement into a coherent narrative, let's just do a point-by-point refutation of what you're saying:

  • Cook often makes thousands of tiny edits, allegedly manually, on a non-bot account - Assume some good faith for once in your life. These are manual edits (with the exception of one time when I misclicked the login on my AutoWikiBrowser), and saying "allegedly" is not in good faith and out of line.
  • These edits flood Recent Changes, his contribution history, his edit count, and, though less important, article histories. - I'll use one of your favorite lines: "So what?" Since the main use of RecentChanges these days seems to be for countervandalism, there are plenty of other tools, most made by Suppa, that can exclude my name or others from RC without any real problems. You can try to excuse it by saying that none of them work quite right for you, but they do exactly what you ask for. Contribution history? I've never heard of anyone complain that they couldn't look through my contributions because they were all clogged up. Non-issue. Editcount? Who cares? And I should remind you that article histories will be "flooded" regardless of whether it's a bot account or a main account doing the edits.
  • Additionally, I have learned of this upcoming contest for October, wherein participating users will spam edits in order to reach the highest edit count they can. - It's tongue-in-cheek, and you're not involved. If people want to contribute to the wiki (with useful edits, not trivial ones), why do you want to stop them? They're not causing you any problems that you can't fix easily. Speaking of the contest, I thought your first comment here was totally inappropriate. It's not your job to enforce nonexistent policies (which, from our conversation in IRC, seems to mean blocking). You don't get to make decisions like that on your own, and I think you're misinterpreting the role of an administrator, just like you did in IRC with the nickname thing.
  • Here is the problem: When one or more users edit in a spammy fashion, people can't browse Recent Changes for poor-quality edits, edits that are relevant to their interests, or vandalism, because almost all they can see is the spam. - This isn't really true, and you know it. There are tools you can use to hide the edits, and any problems you perceive with them are trivial at best. Before we had more advanced tools (and more advanced countervandals) in 2010 and early 2011, I would monitor RC while I was doing some of my "spam". Now, maybe I'm just great, but I never had a problem dealing with the unregistered edits even on top of my illustrious spam. Not to mention that I was unable to find any minor edits that would be classed as vandalism or needing further help. Not a single one in the last two months that I checked. Since the purpose of the thread seems to be to help countervandalism, why not just hide minor edits? You're not really missing anything. Since it's a small minority who seem to care about hiding edits that happen too fast for them, the "spam filter" should be opt-in, not opt-out. The fact that you see what I do as nonconstructive and something to be "solved" makes me wonder if you're really trying to accomplish anything positive here.
  • My proposal is thus: Don't spam. The wiki has a collective interest in making sure things run smoothly, and edit spam is disruptive for those of us who aren't having "fun". - You're not having fun? I don't really care. I'm not going to change my routine just because you don't have the time or the know-how to make a quick fix. In fact, the time you spent writing this thread could have been used to research solutions to your problem, of which there are many. Your policy proposal is a terrible idea; it will stifle the flow of helpful edits while giving you the same benefit as you would get by embracing one of the alternatives to Special:RecentChanges. Don't be lazy. As others have pointed out to you throughout this thread, there are reasons why my edits shouldn't be fully hidden from the Recent Changes, not the least of which is the fact that they're not bot edits (and policy outlaws the use of bot accounts for manual edits). If you refuse to see their points by claiming that what they say doesn't matter...that's your problem. I submit that there's probably no amount of logic that will cause you to change your mind, so this whole post may just fall on deaf ears.

Your entire argument is filled with contradictions and bad faith assumptions that I honestly have to question what your motivation is here. Take the quick fix, use Line RC or RCH Lite, and find something else to occupy your time besides fuming about my edits. ʞooɔ 00:43, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that we're able to filter specific user's edits, I see no problem. Using Suppa's Recent Changes Hybrid, you can just filter Cook's edits or any other edit spammer's edits. That way, you can spot possible vandalism without other users hindering you from doing so by edit spamming. --Recent uploads SpineTalkGuest book 02:10, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
Using RCH, Cook can filter his own edits? (You're replying to Cook, and telling him that he can hide Cook's edits...) =D  a proofreader ▸  06:55, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
Cook can filter his own edits, yes. Matt (t) 07:00, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
Cook Me Plox, I feel a strong sense of disappointment when I read your response to my proposal. I was expecting your conduct to be a bit different from what you have displayed here. I will not be doing a point-by-point refutation of your post since I have no interest in posting another impossibly large textwall, but I will be demonstrating to you the main issues that I find in your reply.
I strongly suggest you review the text of RuneScape:Assume good faith, as you yourself are violating it on multiple occasions here. I assert that the mere act of accusing me of creating this proposal in bad faith is in itself an act of bad faith, as you lack the "conclusive evidence" that AGF requires you to have before making an accusation of bad faith. You are a well-established member of this community and I think you know better than to make unsubstantiated claims of bad faith.
I do not understand what your point is when you link to one of my trivial edits and directly state that it is not a useful edit. Why is it not a useful edit? Is it because it is a minor adjustment for the purpose of conforming to proper grammar and the style guide? I do not see how it could be argued that such edits are not useful -- minor, certainly, but to call them useless is too far of a stretch for any sense of credulity. Additionally, if by some definition such edits are not useful, then how are your minor edits any different? This claim does not help your position, and I do not understand why you bothered to make it in the first place.
I am also disappointed with how you brought up this discussion and attempted to reprimand me. I believe this was already explained to you in IRC -- hence my wondering why you brought it up here -- but on that talk page, I was doing my job as an administrator. The fact that I was misinformed about whether or not edit spamming is (yet) a punishable offense does not in any way reflect on the fact that I was doing what I thought was best for the wiki. Again, please assume good faith.
Finally, we come to all that you say about these alternatives that you suggest I use. None of them are perfect. Suppa chuppa's scripts come closest, however they still appear to involve the loss of features. RCH Lite, for example, has a completely different interface from what I am used to, does not show log actions along with edits, does not show watched pages in bold, and does not show nonexisting pages as red links. Line RC shares the latter three issues (as it does indeed properly list log actions), and additionally, the autorefresh mechanism does not always function. Some of these concerns are very minor and hardly worth bringing up, whereas some are not. The point that I am making is that you are asking me, in principle, to sacrifice Recent Change features (and therefore efficiency) in order to avoid having to endure your spam edits (and therefore lose efficiency). To answer a question you posed in IRC, yes, if a suitable system for filtering out your spam edits were presented to me, I would adopt it. Again, Line RC is very close to being such a solution, and it will be if Suppa or someone else can supply fixes for the issues I've brought up. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 03:01, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
Andorin, you have a history of making policy proposals in which you try to force others to moderate their behavior in a way you see fit, usually without good reasoning. Sometimes these turn into heated textwall contests where we all fail to see the wisdom of our opposition, but they're usually eventually rejected as overly restrictive. Since this proposal is likely headed in that same direction, I'm not going to waste your time or mine by deepening this argument when it's clear that you're not going to budge. I don't think you have bad intentions here, but as I said earlier, this is not the first time that a situation like this has arisen with you. I don't know why it happens so much, but it's getting old.
I feel, however, that I should address what you said about doing your job as an administrator on that discussion page. This issue here is twofold. First, maybe I missed one of the policies, but I always had the idea that administrators weren't really in charge of anything; that the difference between sysops and non-sysops was technical and not governmental. That's why I think that proclaiming a threat against a group of respected editors (including three administrators) was completely off-base and not in the wiki's spirit (and policy) of equality. You are surely not above anyone else here, and threatening blocks for constructive editing is not the kind of thing I think anyone wants to see from an administrator these days. Secondly, you were not "misinformed" about whether "edit spamming" is a punishable offense. You knew that it wasn't, and I know this because when we last had this argument back in August, you resolved to make a thread (I guess this one) because it wasn't currently a rule on the books. You were aware that what I have been doing (and what these others were planning on doing) was not against the rules, but you conjured up some nonexistent policy that only you knew of and only you would enforce. You've indicated to me that "punishment" means "blocking", so I find it kind of frightening that you thought there was any ambiguity over whether you were allowed to block people for making constructive edits too quickly. Looking at the sentiment of this thread so far, there definitely are some people who aren't in love with the quick editing, but I don't see anyone besides yourself who would think that was acceptable under any circumstances. If you had actually blocked people for "disruption" of that nature, we'd be having a much different thread. ʞooɔ 22:42, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and complaining about AGF while saying things like How can you prove that he's not intentionally making small edits to increase edit count? doesn't really help your case either. ʞooɔ 23:22, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - Silliness. Ronan Talk 23:01, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't really see what this thread is trying to achieve besides highlight ways of hiding a lot of RC spam. Unless somebody is spamming redirects quickly there really isn't any issue that I can see here, as it is possible to have non page creating edits marked as minor by default and they are easily hidden. There have also been a whole load of suggestions made, and I believe Matthew is working on a script to hide edits by people doing a lot in 1 go What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 23:11, September 10, 2012 (UTC)

haha, nice to know we can joke around on the YG these days. ajr 00:52, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

oh crap not a joke? :s ajr 00:52, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

@Andorin: You said "Since the implication is made that no one cares except me, I'd like to see how the community feels about the issue." in your proposal. Every comment on this thread shows how that member of the community feels about this issue, so why do you keep attacking those community members' opinions? Your replies to the comments on this thread come across quite hostile to me, and if your purpose with this thread was to see how the community feels, I don't see a need for hostility. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:12, September 12, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - There hasn't been any discussion for 6 days. Making many edits in a short time is allowed, as long as you're not using a bot or AWB-related program. If you want to use a bot to do rapid edits, you should get an AWB or bot account though. People who find the amount of edits by a single user annoying should use one of the existing scripts, the wiki's #cvn-wikia-runescape channel, a filter on the recent changes or the newusers contributions. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:28, 18 September 2012