Change Details

## Context AbuseFilter provides the ability to define //consequences// in response to triggers. These are currently things like block, deny action, etc. It would be nice to define a consequence to show a CAPTCHA via the ConfirmEdit extension, for cases where the AbuseFilter exists to deny bot editing. ## Proposal - Introduce an EditCaptchaConsequence that can be used specifically for edit actions in AbuseFilter - Users with `skipcaptcha` right can continue to bypass CAPTCHA even if they trigger the AbuseFilter ## Consequences - It is possible to configure AbuseFilters that show a CAPTCHA when conditions are matched - Other actions (e.g. login) are out of scope for this task -------------------------- ### Original report **Author:** `mike.lifeguard+bugs` **Description:** To either slow down human abusers or weed out bots, please allow AbuseFilter to present a CAPTCHA & allow the change only if solved. Yes, I'm aware that captchas are mean to humans both blind and sighted (though of course a particular horror from an accessibility standpoint) - they'd have to be used sparingly etc, but that's a useful option IMO. **Version**: unspecified **Severity**: enhancement

## Context AbuseFilter provides the ability to define //consequences// in response to triggers. These are currently things like block, deny action, etc. It would be nice to define a consequence to show a CAPTCHA via the ConfirmEdit extension, for cases where the AbuseFilter exists to deny bot editing. ## Proposal - Introduce a CaptchaConsequence that can be used for actions in AbuseFilter - Users with `skipcaptcha` right can continue to bypass CAPTCHA even if they trigger the AbuseFilter ## Consequences - It is possible to configure AbuseFilters that show a CAPTCHA when conditions are matched -------------------------- ### Original report **Author:** `mike.lifeguard+bugs` **Description:** To either slow down human abusers or weed out bots, please allow AbuseFilter to present a CAPTCHA & allow the change only if solved. Yes, I'm aware that captchas are mean to humans both blind and sighted (though of course a particular horror from an accessibility standpoint) - they'd have to be used sparingly etc, but that's a useful option IMO. **Version**: unspecified **Severity**: enhancement

## Context AbuseFilter provides the ability to define //consequences// in response to triggers. These are currently things like block, deny action, etc. It would be nice to define a consequence to show a CAPTCHA via the ConfirmEdit extension, for cases where the AbuseFilter exists to deny bot editing. ## Proposal - Introduce an Edit CaptchaConsequence that can be used specifically for editfor actions in AbuseFilter - Users with `skipcaptcha` right can continue to bypass CAPTCHA even if they trigger the AbuseFilter ## Consequences - It is possible to configure AbuseFilters that show a CAPTCHA when conditions are matched - Other actions (e.g. login) are out of scope for this task -------------------------- ### Original report **Author:** `mike.lifeguard+bugs` **Description:** To either slow down human abusers or weed out bots, please allow AbuseFilter to present a CAPTCHA & allow the change only if solved. Yes, I'm aware that captchas are mean to humans both blind and sighted (though of course a particular horror from an accessibility standpoint) - they'd have to be used sparingly etc, but that's a useful option IMO. **Version**: unspecified **Severity**: enhancement