Extension:Moderation/ja

調整拡張機能は小規模から中規模のウィキ向けに荒らし対策を提供します.

This is one of the most effective anti-vandal protection methods and has very little impact on legitimate users.

はじめに

 * 動作の仕組みは？:
 * 1) 新規利用者の編集 (もしくは画像投稿) はすべて調整キューへ送ります.
 * 2) 調整役の承認を得るまで、それらのページに修正は反映されません. 承認待ちの編集はページの履歴にも最近の更新にも表示されません.
 * 3) 投稿した利用者には自分の編集内容が表示され、当該ページの編集を非公開で続けることができます.


 * 管理者の調整の手順は？:
 * 1) 新規に特別ページが提示されます (Special:Moderation).  最近の更新にやや似ていますがボタンが固有で、「承認」「却下」「すべて承認「すべて却下」("Approve", "Reject", "Approve all" and "Reject all") と揃っています.
 * 2) 却下した編集は専用のアーカイブに移されます.
 * 3) 承認された編集は通常のとおり、ページに反映します.
 * 4) 「承認の担当者と項目」のログが記録されます. 閲覧できるのは調整者に限定されます.
 * 5) 編集の競合が検出され自動的に解決できない場合は、調整者は統合ボタンを使い手動で編集を行います.


 * 利点は？:
 * 1) 新規利用者にいきなりや電話番号認証その他を求めて萎縮させることがありません.  調整を受けない平常の状態で編集を継続できます.
 * 2) わざわざブロックを使わなくて済みます. . ブロックに良い効果はありません (範囲ブロックをかけると無関係な利用者を巻き込むこと、たまに気まぐれに1、2ページで不正行為をする程度の利用者から良質の編集をするチャンスを奪うことにもご配慮ください. )
 * 3) 「承認欲求」が原因の不正行為は慎むべきです. もしそういう行為は許されるという認識の結果であれば、5時間もかけて新しいプロキシを探し、管理者を怒らせようとする人などいません.
 * 4) 「複数のアカウントを使って特定のページを荒らし、ワンクリックで巻き戻せないようにする」方法の荒らしは、すでに無効です.
 * 5) ウェブサイトによっては匿名性の高いTORあるいはI2Pを運用できます.
 * 6) Users can hide their mistakes from appearing in the revision history and even from moderators by fixing them in time.

代替策
MediaWikiが採用するその他の荒らし対策とは？ 一言でいうなら - ありません.

MediaWikiはウィキペディアのために創設されました. ウィキペディアであれば、どんな時間帯でもリアルタイムに荒らしを巻き戻すために協力するボランティアが何百人、何千人といます. ウィキペディア以外に、そのような恵まれた状況にあるウィキはほぼ皆無です. MediaWikiで荒らし対策を常備しようと考えた背景は、そのほうが巻き戻しよりも作業時間を短縮できると考えたからです. 通常はこの考え方が適切ですが、これでは荒らしを未然に防ぐ効果は望めず、たとえ巻き戻し自体の作業時間は短くても、管理者がしばしば荒らされていないか確認する手間に変わりはありません.

現状では'''荒らし対策として次の3つの方法があります. '''

一例としてLurkmore.toでは、新人利用者の編集に1件ずつ認証を受ける強力なキャプチャ方針を設けており、その手順を経ずに編集を認めるまで、多数の編集実績を求めています. Therefore the vandal has to spend a lot of time to do a handful of edits. If the social network verifies that all its users have a valid mobile phone number, then each vandalism attempt requires the vandal to go to the shop and buy a new SIM card. This method is extremely effective, though eliminates the anonymous editing and turns away the users who don't have an account in any supported social network. In non-democratic countries editing a page on politics can result in government trying to identify and persecute the user. For example, Lurkmore.to was contacted by Russian "anti-extremist special force" with demands to disclose information about the authors of pages about Ramzan Kadyrov and Molotov cocktail.  For example, a user can create 100 pages with offensive titles, but they can all be deleted by two clicks in. Moderation extension belongs to this category.
 * 1) Make all edits hard.
 * The obvious minus is that all legitimate users have to bypass the captcha as well, which could discourage minor edits like spelling fixes.
 * 1) Enforce user identification - for example, login via Facebook.
 * A strong minus of this method is the impact on users' privacy.
 * 1) Mitigate the results of vandalism.

Is this extension stable?
This extension is stable. It has been deployed in production on Russian Uncyclopedia (absurdopedia.net) since November 2014.

The extension has an automated testsuite with significant coverage (phpunit and Selenium). Every change to Moderation is automatically tested on:


 * 1) newest version of MediaWiki
 * 1) MediaWiki 1.35 (LTS)
 * 2) MediaWiki 1.31 (旧版 LTS)

Please read the files KNOWN_LIMITATIONS, TODO and WONT_DO for all known issues. Feel free to contact the author if you have any questions.

What's the difference from FlaggedRevs or Approved Revs?
and hide the bad revisions only from readers. The vandal edits will still exist in history and RecentChanges, and all editors will stumble upon them when they try to edit the page which was vandalized. Therefore editors would have to revert vandalism quickly.

On the other hand, Moderation completely eliminates vandal edits: non-approved revisions are simply not created in page history, etc. This ensures that not only readers, but also other editors won't see the vandal edits in any of the pages.

In short, (1) FlaggedRevs is for quality control but doesn't help against persistent vandalism. (2) Moderation is specifically against vandalism and renders it completely ineffective.

インストール
For modern versions of MediaWiki (1.35+), use the following instruction:

Installation for older versions of MediaWiki
For MediaWiki 1.31-1.34, replace the above-mentioned "git clone" command with the following:

For MediaWiki 1.27-1.30, replace the above-mentioned "git clone" command with the following:

For MediaWiki 1.23-1.26, replace the above-mentioned "git clone" command with the following:

These versions may still receive security fixes (if any), but not new features.

Parameters for LocalSettings.php

 * $wgModerationEnable: If set to false, then new edits are applied as usual (not sent to moderation). Default: true.
 * $wgModerationTimeToOverrideRejection: Time (in seconds) after which rejected edit could no longer be approved. Default: 2 weeks. Note: old rejected edits are NOT deleted (moderators can always look at them in Rejected folder even if this time has elapsed).
 * $wgModerationOnlyInNamespaces: If set to an array of namespace numbers (e.g. ), moderation is only enabled in these namespaces (edits in other namespaces will bypass moderation). Default (empty array): moderation is enabled everywhere.
 * $wgModerationIgnoredInNamespaces: If set to an array of namespace numbers (e.g. ), non-automoderated users can bypass moderation in these namespaces. Default (empty array): moderation can't be bypassed anywhere.
 * $wgModerationNotificationEnable: If true, notification email will be sent to $wgModerationEmail (e.g. ) each time an edit is queued for moderation. Default: false.
 * $wgModerationNotificationNewOnly: If true, only notify about new pages (but not about edits in existing pages). Default: false.

See also: #Configuration options ONLY for pre-publish review (options not recommended for 95% of wikis).

Additional anti-vandalism tips
In order to prevent vandalism, the following additional measures should be applied:


 * 1) Please restrict the renaming of pages to a trusted group (not just "automoderated"), because it can be used for difficult-to-revert vandalism.
 * 1) Registering new accounts with offensive names is still a way for a vandal to show itself in the RecentChanges. A simple solution is to remove newusers log from RecentChanges:

Recommended use / good practices
The following good-practices are advised:

Not-so-good edits with good intentions (e.g. adding excessive plot details into the Wikipedia article about film) are better made Approved and then reverted as usual. This way the author is not offended and the text is saved in page history, viewable by anyone. Better promote them to  manually for one good edit and not promote for 30 useless-edits-made-for-count. Don't "just in case", except maybe for important templates. Their useful edits to the articles should be allowed, no matter how many times they were blocked. At the same time, trolling on talk pages should be rejected, so are the purposely-low-quality edits.
 * 1) Only vandalism should be Rejected.
 * 1) Any user that is deemed legitimate (does N good edits) should be added into   group.
 * 1) Adding users to   group via  is NOT recommended, as it motivates the vandals to do many very-minor edits (e.g. adding interwiki).
 * 1) Abstain from using.
 * 1) Allow the full rehabilitation of users with a bad history of editing.
 * 1) Please note that an editor who appears to be resubmitting a rejected edit does not necessarily imply an intent to edit-war, but the editor might have made changes to their pending edit without noticing that it was rejected in the meantime.

Non-recommended use: Moderation as pre-publish review extension
Moderation is an anti-vandalism tool first, but some wikis use it for quality control. For example, a wiki of scientific works might choose to:


 * 1) Not Approve any edits until they meet the strict quality standards of the industry.
 * 1) Not Reject any edits that are not yet good enough, so that the author could continue editing it as long as necessary.

Pros of this approach:


 * 1) New page appears as a fully reviewed, correctly formatted document with no typos, etc.
 * 1) No one except the author and moderators would see the imperfect revisions.

Cons:


 * 1) Other users can't improve the article until it is Approved. In fact, they won't even know that it exists.
 * 1) Pending changes don't have an "edit history". Moderation stores only 1 pending change for each Page/User pair. That's inconvenient if you are preparing your page for publication for weeks. User can even accidentally delete the necessary text in their pending revision, and it won't be recoverable.

Configuration options ONLY for pre-publish review
The following parameters are only needed when using Moderation for review. They are not recommended for 95% of wikis (when following the Best Practices, they are totally not needed).

''Why not recommended? Answer: when following Best Practices, you would never Reject a good change just because it is formatted poorly. Whether this edit is good or not, you know from "diff" link. "Preview" link tells you "how is this page formatted", which shouldn't affect your decision.'' ''Why not recommended? Answer: easy to mess up. Moderator can accidentally delete the text of pending edit (and it won't be recoverable). Furthermore, these changes are not attributed to moderator (after approval, it looks as if the original author made the edit this way), which is creepy.''
 * $wgModerationPreviewLink: If true, Preview link is shown on Special:Moderation. Default: false.
 * $wgModerationEnableEditChange: If true, moderators can modify the text of pending changes before Approving. Default: false.

Compatibility with other extensions
Theoretically it should also work with other API-based editors. (currently very few extensions do)
 * 1) Extension:Moderation should be enabled last in LocalSettings.php, because it aborts at least  hook.
 * 1) Extension:Moderation fully supports, meaning that if CheckUser extension is enabled, then any approved edit will have correct IP, user-agent and XFF saved in the checkuser tables.
 * 1) Extension:Moderation is fully compatible with  and.
 * 1)  (also known as Flow) and  will work, but edits in Flow/CommentStreams forums will bypass moderation.
 * Moderation of Flow forums should be implemented in Extension:StructuredDiscussions itself. These forums use a non-text "content model", which is not supported by Moderation.
 * CommentStreams extension misinterprets "edit was queued for moderation" as an error, which can only be fixed in Extension:CommentStreams itself.
 * 1) Extensions that modify several slots of Multi-Content Revisions (not just the main slot, as MediaWiki itself does) are not yet supported.

関連項目

 * - common CAPTCHA extension.
 * - common extension against spam bots and typical vandalism like blanking.
 * - allows marking a revision as "approved", being the one displayed by default on a page.
 * - more advanced (and heavy) version of.