![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As this talk page is getting rather large, is everyone OK for adding a MiszaBot II auto-archive template? It Is Me Here t / c 22:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
What about some kind of systems whereby two different people are required to set a filter to disallow? Or perhaps some kind of follow up dialog when trying to set a filter to disallow asking the admin if they've tested the filter first? Or heck, restricting AFE to people who know what they are doing? I'll be the first to remove myself from the group, even though I have the common sense not to screw too much with things that I don't understand. – xeno ( talk) 16:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Or removing the abuse filter editor rights from abusers, which I'm going to do now. Cenarium ( talk) 17:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
There are several issues here. One, the abuse filter is super powerful, and by extension super dangerous if used inappropriately by people who either don't understand what they are doing or don't exercise adequate care in testing and thinking about specific rules. Reasonable behavior demands that due care and testing be done in order to catch errors and false positives. At the same time, Beetstra correctly notes that some rules can be far more limited than the blocks and protections that we routinely allow admins to unilaterally apply. That is to say, one shouldn't need a huge bureaucratic process in order to deploy a rule that correctly and narrowly targets a specific vandal. Nor would it be a good idea to give a vandal free reign for several days while we discussed it.
I'd suggest the following:
I want to be liberal about granting people the ability to work here, but when your actions have the potential to effect every single edit, they also need to carry a sense of caution and thoughtfulness. And if people make a habit of engaging in careless or reckless behavior then they shouldn't be working here. Dragons flight ( talk) 01:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
What about adding something like this to the guideline: "Any filter that affects a large number of edits (by searching through entire namespaces and/or user groups) should be tested for a few days before being set to "disallow" or "warn"." -- Conti| ✉ 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Ignore these mostly. Filter 65 however is warning users from giving themselves userpages, I have seen acceptable userpages not saved by newcomers because of it. --Clark89 ( talk) 19:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
If all admins are able to give themselves the "Abuse Filter editor" position, why not enable it for all sysops by default? After all, that's what the situation is with rollback; admins have rollback by default, since the function is packaged with the sysop user class. Am I missing something...? — Anonymous Dissident Talk 05:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The last diff by KnightLago is weird. Not only is it not clear what exactly was changed, but filter also suddenly seem to have gotten de idea they need reference formatting. - Mgm| (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Should we start putting filter notes at the top of the box, rather than at the end, so that the latest comments are visible without having to scroll down? NawlinWiki ( talk) 16:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I want to discuss filter 117 (the one detecting removal of Category:Living people). Where is the best place to do that? Currently, there are false positives I can't explain (like this) and some I can explain (like this). The latter is simply a case of someone replacing the category with {{ Lifetime}} (which contains the category - people have argued against putting sensitive categories in templates, but consensus seems to support it here when it was raised at a TfD). Another false positive ( here) was where someone added pipe-sorting to the category, but didn't remove it. Typical example here is a correct detection, but it is also a correct edit (saying the person has died). However, it would be nice to have a separate logged stream of such "death announced" edits, so people can check sources were used and confirm the news. And this is just plain wrong. It seems to think that because the category appears on both sides of the diff, it got removed then added. Strange. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Wonderful. Thanks. I did see one edit that got logged, but when I went to the article, the edit wasn't there. Does that mean the edit had triggered more than one filter and had been disallowed by one of them? Carcharoth ( talk) 00:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you remove the abuse filter from the website? 69.141.191.77 ( talk) 10:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I see we at the moment have two type of filters in our list (which may be an unintentional separation ..), those which are meant to block vandalism and warn against typical problematic edits, and another set, which may never going to be set to block, warn or whatever, but which enable users to catch problematic edits (which don't actually violate policy or guideline, or which are significantly error-prone), so can then easily be screened later and reverted by hand. I think that the latter is a also great potential of the filter!
However, the 'catching' filters (those that are not going to be set to warn) are of lesser importance than the blocking ones. Still they do take away resources for possibly filtering edits (we get close to having a 100 active rules, I don't know where we hit the limit, but probably 200-250? .. I am not sure if that will be 'enough'). But for the catching filters, it does not matter that they are performed in real-time, they can be done after the edit is saved, and it does not matter that they are slow (a couple of seconds after the edit is saved is still fine, as long as it does not become minutes, and as long as it does not impede the performance of the real wiki).
I know that this would require a new version of this extension, which hooks into a different part of the software, etc. etc. But I think that it would be great to have a separate, catching-only 'filter'. It gives another level of filtering, rules can be tested there without a significant risk of screwing things up too much, etc. etc. It could also be used to test rules and see how they behave in terms of speed etc. etc. Would this be a useful spin-off of the filter? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I found this out when an edit I made got repeatedly blocked for joking around on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales. It used, in part, a common Internet meme, as well as Wikipedia's venerable Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. 192.12.88.7 ( talk) 15:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I found myself having to log in to make the joke, unfortunately. 192.12.88.7 ( talk) 15:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to have a filter set up to do something similar to what is done here? Recent example. Detecting death claims is needed, because false claims are a form of abuse it is good to be able to catch (though it does require people checking the log). That page was set up by User:Sam Korn (who pointed it out to me), so maybe ask him if it involves anything more complicated than detecting a change in category from "living people" to "2009 deaths". He might have managed to successfully detect all the other ways people edit an article to indicate someone has died. The problem with that list, and the changes logged by filter 117 (the removal of category "living people) is that there doesn't seem to be a way to patrol the log, to avoid people duplicating each other's work and checking the same things. Is there a way to patrol a log of an abuse filter? Carcharoth ( talk) 00:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This filter is triggered quite often when anons/new users either revert a talk page blanking, or manually archive a talk page, which is quite unfortunate. Adding "edit_delta > 10000" to the filter might solve that problem, but I'm not (yet!) an expert with all this, so I figured I better ask here first before making the change. :) -- Conti| ✉ 16:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
& (edit_delta > 10000)
should do that.
Fun
Pika
16:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Any examples? It might be worth killing off the words that are causing problems. BJ Talk 22:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
In email group that have auto-censors, I have run across or heard of disallowals from these false positives:
Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 06:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion on meta to enabled global abuse filters that will affect wikis with the abuse filter extension, including the English Wikipedia. Please give you input. Thanks. Techman224 Talk 01:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is an abuse filter problem per se, but all of the filters have started reporting large processing numbers (2-5 times normal). This occurred even with filters that haven't been changed. I suspect this particular problem is some unrelated high load affecting WMF in general. Filters are certainly capable of creating high loads, but my monitoring suggests it is not our fault (at least this time). So for the moment, don't panic. Dragons flight ( talk) 05:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Could "diff" buttons be added to the AbuseLog to make it easy to revert changes? I understand that at least some of the filters should automate reversion at some point, but for now (and for the filters which don't trigger auto-reversion), it would be a great vandal-fighting tool. – Drilnoth ( T • C) 03:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
A diff view is visible if you click 'details'. Prodego talk 03:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Bambifan101 is a long-time IP-hopping sockpuppeteer devoted to vandalizing articles about Disney-related topics. Would it be possible to craft a filter that works on a combination of their various known IP ranges and topic-dependent words like "Disney" present in either the original article text or the new article text, and then blocks those edits? Autoconfirm isn't any use in this case, because they're known to create sleeper accounts. -- The Anome ( talk) 14:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Just checking to see if there is any movement on this one, as he just struck again with both the IP and a new named sock. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 02:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I tried my first filter, # 135, to catch people just holding keys down or copying and pasting 50 times. I'm accumulating improvements from false positives, but also have a few weird ones like this one. Where's the repetition there? Any other comments/ideas? — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to have the filter act based on the deletion of a page? Thanks. Someguy1221 ( talk) 09:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I had to undo a change because a single-quote made the whole regex fail. Anyone know how to include a single-quote in a [ ] group? I tried two single-quotes and preceding with a backslash - no go. Thanks. — Wknight94 ( talk) 12:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this just the sort of thing the abuse filter is for? I take it this wasn't caught because there were words other than penis in the edit? Rd232 talk 12:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
E.g. "common page move vandalism". Fulfils a purpose previously served by MediaWiki:Titleblacklist quite well without that needing to be private (and still served by it, just to confuse people). Why is it necessary to become an administrator just to find out what you are and aren't allowed to move pages to? Isn't this project supposed to be open or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.77.168 ( talk) 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It's there when I examine an edit, but when I want to use it in the actual filter I get a syntax error. I'd like to use it at Filter 133 so it only catches newly introduced citation errors. -- Conti| ✉ 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
new_html and new_text are fine, the parse operation has to happen anyway. old_html and old_text should in theory be pullable from the parser cache, but I haven't got there yet. — Werdna • talk 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I just removed many (12 or so) old filters with little or no hits for performance reasons. Prodego talk 22:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
This is true, however, if users are reporting edits timing out (and you can test this yourself too) then there is a problem. The best way to deal with it is to ensure we are using our resources in the most efficient way. The table at User:Prodego/Sandbox shows how the filters use resources. This is useful to know, since it lets us judge if a filter is helping or slowing down edits unnecessarily. Prodego talk 20:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Prodego, if there are 5 filters with an average of 3 milliseconds, then that adds 15 milliseconds to the average edit. Indeed, removing 3 of them is a huge improvement (60%!). But if one of those 5 actually has a median at 2 milliseconds, but has a processingtime of 30 milliseconds on the large pages, then removing the 3 fast ones (which are fast except on the ONE page they actually should hit on!) has only an improvement on the whole from 42 to 33 milliseconds (about 25% gain) .. if 40 milliseconds times out, then indeed, having the three disabled solved your problem, but the problem would be better solved with having the slow filter being reduced to 15 milliseconds, as that would enable all filters, especially those which do what this filter was designed for, top abuse! May I again point at my suggestion somewhere else where we have a split off of filters which are NEVER going to set to warn, block or prevent into a after-edit-abusefilter (it could even be in the same system, I envisage that it is easy to first evaluate the action-filters, and if no action is performed that results in the edit being saved, followed by the processing of the non-action filters, that would even be good for testing!), as they do not have to monitor in real time? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit late, but there's no performance burden for new_html and new_text, the page has to be parsed anyway. — Werdna • talk 01:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Just noting here that it's possible to restrict certain actions ('disallow' comes to mind) to a smaller group of users. Is this desirable? It would be possible to require a bit more of a formal assessment of filter performance before setting a filter to disallow. Not sure about whether we want it or not, just raising it as an option. — Werdna • talk 03:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The general implementation is that you can't save a filter with the 'disallow' action if you're don't have a right called abusefilter-edit-restricted. A side-effect would be that the emergency disable mechanism would also disable 'disallow' filters. I do agree with Dragons Flight that some guidelines at least, if not some kind of process (especially for hidden filters), would be helpful. — Werdna • talk 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Abuse filter/Performance. This is still subject to experimentation. It's got about 36 hours of data so far, and hence the (7 day) columns aren't very meaningful yet. Also, the 1 hour column can be quite noisy for a variety of reasons. Please don't use this as a reason to start slashing at things, because the general load is okay right now. But if we do ultimately need to have discussions about prioritizing then this can provide a more tangible and long-term basis for judgment. Dragons flight ( talk) 05:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Based on the data as of 4/8/09
Category | Private | Public |
---|---|---|
Total Filters | 41% | 59% |
Total Hits | 2.5% | 97.5% |
% of Filters that disallow | 83% | 17% |
% of Category that disallow | 80% | 12% |
% of Total Disallows | 28% | 72% |
% of Hits against category resulting in Disallows | 88% | 6% |
Not very interesting numbers, but it does show that private filters are being used to disallow edits with very specific editing patterns as opposed to public disallow filters which have much wider scope, since despite making up only 17% of disallow filters, public filters result in 72% of disallow actions. Burzmali ( talk) 14:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
That is interesting data, thank you! :) — Werdna • talk 02:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Things like this. Unless you want to make 1000000 filters most of which will have 0 hits and slow editing to a crawl. kthx 86.164.203.7 ( talk) 20:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
We are the others Baseball Bugs. The filters are a substantial load, we do have to worry about performance. @Will, generally rotating in more specific ones works for things like Colbert vandalism (which is periodic). Prodego talk 04:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I get some reassurance that things listed on the false positives page will be read and acted upon? Even sampling random log entries while trying to test code for interacting with the logs, I keep finding stuff that shouldn't be there; I'm sure if I actually looked deeper, I'd find a lot more wrong. The paranoid desire to unnecessarily keep most of the details of these filters hidden from me is not exactly helping, either, it's like trying to debug software by examining its output when you don't have the source code. Are posts there likely to be read, or am I better off sending everything to the administrators' noticeboard? Gurch ( talk) 17:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks - and no need to point me in the obvious humor direction for my thread title ;). I got a spam filter notice for ezine.com when I tried to use it as a reference. I looked first to the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log page, but I can't seem to find the right area to ask. Is ezine.com considered to be an unreliable site for reference? Thanks. — Ched : ? 19:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input folks ;) — Ched : ? 04:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall anything like that ever showing up in a watchlist notice. And I don't see the RfAFE's for these people either. -- Random832 ( contribs) 12:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
We seem to be going round and round on something that in my personal opinion doesn't matter. The difference between having a right by default and having the right to add the right is very small. Could someone organize a vote or something so we can try to get some closure on this? Dragons flight ( talk) 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
“ | Should the abusefilter-modify permission be included in the ' sysop' user right? | ” |
This will have the effect of giving all administrators the access to the Abuse Filter settings that is currently restricted to the ' abusefilter' group. This issue is separate from the question of whether the 'abusefilter' group should continue to exist and to whom it should be granted, which should be discussed separately. Please indicate support or opposition below. Happy‑ melon
sysop
package, as Administrators are already trusted with tasks of equivalent sensitivity (e.g. Spam blacklists) and hence should be trusted with this. The inclusion of this right would just save Admins a little bit of hassle, in my opinion; its presence does not oblige Sysops to make use of that right every day. To give a similar example, despite technically
being able to edit others' .CSS and .JS pages (editusercssjs
), upload a file from a URL address (upload_by_url
) and mark rolled-back edits as bot edits (markbotedits
), I have yet to actually use any of those aforementioned rights. This does not mean, however, that they should be removed from me, as they might come in useful one day. The fact of the matter is, Sysops are trusted not to use their rights with malicious intent, and, as such, the situation whereby they can make use of these technical features should remain.
It Is Me Here
t /
c
22:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)I found the entries in Special:AbuseLog overly descriptive, so on another wiki I changed MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-detailedentry into something like
$1: $4: [[Special:AbuseFilter/$3|$3: $7]], $2 on $5, action: $6 ($8) ($9)
so the log entries look like
Just a thought... — AlexSm 15:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
$1: $2 on $5 ($4), [[Special:AbuseFilter/$3|$7]]. Action taken: $6 ($8 | $9)
That's going to stop working soon, because of some changes I've made to global filters $3 will be replaced by a link to the filter, rather than the actual filter. The link text will be in a separate message. I suppose I could pass the filter name to that message, though. — Werdna • talk 02:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
On filter 58, already reverted. Sorry. NawlinWiki ( talk) 02:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I've created a filter (currently disabled) to check AfD !votes. It should be able to flag bolding problems like '''delete''. I've tested it myself several times, but could someone else make sure it works, since I'm new to the abuse filter and it involves the apostrophe (a tricky character)?
Also, I'd like to extent it to the following perhaps:
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to create a filter on svwp which prohibits a certain ip-range from editing certain articles. But when I try to use the ip_in_range thing it either catches every IP or none at all. Presumably I'm doing it wrong! Can you tell me how to use it to catch a certain range? Would be much appreciated. Njaelkies Lea ( talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Can this filter excluse autoconfirmed users (and not just sysops). Its quite clear by looking throught the logs that people tripping it are non-autoconfirmed and that the people who are autoconfirmed are doing so for a reason (IE making a good solid stub compared to incoherible jibberish). I can see no reason why sysops should be excluded from this filter if autoconfirmed users arn't Prom3th3an ( talk) 02:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
For starters, i dont think removing an image (no matter how often it happens) is abuse and therefore within the morals of the abuse filter. Secondly. If i was a vandal I would spam those images (and / or upload images with simiar names and spam those to) on those pages because I know no one but a sysop could remove them which would take some time longer than a user. I think that filter as it stands (as proven above) is flawed and needs to be refined a bit. Prom3th3an ( talk) 02:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Is a joke and outside of the abuse scope by far. Noting that every rule slows the servers down I must wonder why Raul needs his own rule that does absolutly nothing and has no clear purpose. I would stongly encourage its deletion as Prodego already tried. Again, this is an abuse filter not some office clerk. The abuse filter was made to stop serious issues, it however was not made to stop things that we personally find annoying. Prom3th3an ( talk) 02:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Prodego disabled this filter on the 5th of april providing "Too specific, disabling, performance -Prodego" as a reason as well as a detailed explanation on flight's talkpage of why. Within hours [4] of Prodego doing so Dragons flight re-enabled the filter without any additional comment [5] (talkpage or on-filter).
This raises serious questions about why Dragons flight reverted another admin when sufficent reason was provided. I also note he is yet to disable it despite increasing calls to do so. Prom3th3an ( talk) 04:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Occasionally, I find edits that didn't really seem to exist in the filter logs. For example in the log of filter 81, I find
This edit seems to be a complete phantom: it isn't in the history of the article, and it isn't in the editors coontribution history. I'm sure there's a simple explanation, but I don't know what it is, and I'm curious.— Kww( talk) 03:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't consider this a bug, although it may be useful to, as suggested, record which edits succeed. — Werdna • talk 04:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I have seen 2 types of situations where, in my opinion, a psudo-block using the abuse filter could be better:
Both of these should give a disallow message which resembles MediaWiki:Blockedtext. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away Jimbo said adminship is no big deal. But, we now have abuse filter rights built into it. Now it's a much bigger deal. One well intentioned administrator can cause serious damage to the project. We've seen editing shut down for a while due to one admin screwing up applying a new filter.
It's already becoming insanely impossible to become an administrator, and the rate of new administrators is way down. Adding abuse filter into the rights mix just makes all the more reason why people would want to limit who becomes an administrator.
I don't think we need abuse filter editors so badly (hell, we already have over a hundred of them) that we have to permit all administrators the notional ability to do it.
I hate, despise, scream in agony at the thought of creating a new bureaucracy, but something has to be done to separate the rights to abuse filter editing away from administrators. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This is one of those cases where the only way to know for sure is to wait for the future to come. My prediction is a year from now there will be a vetting process for abuse filters editing ability. Those of you who think I am wrong are of course welcome to your opinions. But please remember your opinion and my opinion have the same value. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we add "Willy on wheels", "on wheels" and various capitalizations. Spate of vandalism earlier today in this regard and obvious historical reasons.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
See these 14 pages created today. These are not all of the ones created today; just the ones I protected out of a larger group, and that I can therefore easily find. We still get Willy on Wheels vandalism, despite that it's all copycat. Unless the abuse filter has a very finite number of things it can look at, I don't see the point of not doing it. And don't lose the second issue. Haggar is active today.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 20:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
.*[OÓÒÔÖÕǑŌŎǪŐŒØƏΌΟΩῸὈὉὌὊὍὋОӨӦӪ][N₦ŃÑŅŇṆΝ][ ]?[WŴẀẂẄẆẈ₩][HΉĤĦȞʰʱḢḤḦḨḪНҢӇӉΗἨἩἪἫἬἭἮἯῊᾘЋΗⱧԋњһh][ÉÈËEĘĚĔĖẺẸẾỀỄễỂểȨȩḜḝĒḖḗȄȅȆȇỆệḘḙḚḛ3عڠeēėèéëẽĕęəẻếềẹ][ÉÈËEĘĚĔĖẺẸẾỀỄễỂểȨȩḜḝĒḖḗȄȅȆȇỆệḘḙḚḛ3عڠeēėèéëẽĕęəẻếềẹ]+[L₤ĹĽḶŁĿΛЛЉ][[S$ŚŜŞŠṢΣЅ].* <moveonly> # Disallows moves with "on wheels" with 2 or more Es .*on wh33ls.* .*on whiels.* .*\bwith wh?iels\b.* <moveonly> .*on rails.* <moveonly> .*on treads.* <moveonly>
As you can see its had the Unicode treatment -- Chris 00:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
We can't automatically block as an action... How about having some notification that a filter is being triggered? Persistent vandals are just continually trying their edits tweaking them until they get around filters (see here). Unless you are sitting on the filter refreshing, there is no way to know. Maybe an e-mail? A talk page message? A note on some page that we could watchlist? Wknight94 talk 20:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Filter 107 should not be private because its specifications are easily accessbile here. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make sense to auto-include an ID string on filter comments added to the edit summary? Something like: [[Wikipedia:AF|AF]]:filter text). In other words, it would produce ( AF:Nonsense movie?) to use the one that caught me out.
I'm a sample of one, admittedly, but I was one confused new page patroller because I didn't even know the filter existed. 19 extra characters will save noobs like me a lot of perplexity. 9Nak ( talk) 18:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Its come to my attention that wether a filter is private or not is largely down to the discression of the administrator who makes it and there are no guidelines as to what should be private and more importantly, what should not. Im of the opinion that all filters should be public unless an elaborate regex rule that could be easily circumvented if the regex was public (IE a meme pattern).
An example of a filter that should not be private is [6] and because it is an "as is" filter that cannot be circumvented. Another questionable regex is [7] «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Since they now show up in contributions lists, as a sort of an urgent action I've gone ahead and created a bunch of less-harsh/less-accusatory tag appearances for several of the tags listed over on
Special:Tags that have gotten hits. No worries about permanence, since they're simply part of the interface (i.e., changing something will basically instantly become visible). Bringing it here for people to come up with better ones + populate the extended descriptions. If you're not a sysop and wanna make a change, I'd say just use {{
editprotected}}
on whatever message's talk page, though it might be better for someone to redirect the talk pages to a centralized location (maybe a subpage of this page?) Anyway, I'm swamped, so talk amongst yourselves. --
slakr\
talk /
01:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
OverlordQ ( talk · contribs) disabled three filters 94, 101, and 156.
The first two are very lightweight, averaging 0.89 and 1.26 ms respectively ( performance data). They are both targeted single page vandalism getting 10 and 8 hits respectively since activation (including 5 and 1 hits respectively in the last two weeks). This kind of persistent targeted vandalism is exactly the kind of thing the Abuse Filter was initially designed for and given that these checks are extremely cheap I am inclined to reactivate these filters.
156 on the other hand is somewhat more expensive (though 5.08 ms is by no means bad) and has drawn 0 hits. It is also so specific in what it targets that it is probably easily avoided by the vandal (who is probably a lone individual, unlike the vandalism in 94 and 101 where there is a decent argument multiple people are involved). The mitigating factor if that 156 is only 4 days old. I probably would have waited several more days to see if there would be any hits before disabling (and would re-enable it in the face of ongoing vandalism), but I generally would agree that this filter seems unlikely to be of much long-term use.
In the interest of encouraging more transparency when it comes to filter use, I wanted to start a discussion about these things. In particular, I'd propose reactivating 94 and 101. Dragons flight ( talk) 19:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Prom3th3an pretty much sums up my views, so there's no reason to restate them here. Quick somebody added a word to an article! Lets add it to abuse filter! There's vandalism and there's abuse. Ten in a month is vandalism. Ten in a minute is abuse. In my opinion, only the latter should get a filter. (This is of course ignoring egregious cases) Q T C 01:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
OverlordQ, Promethean, indeed, we don't need a filter for every single form of hit and run vandalism. But I am sure tht the AFE that wrote these filters wrote them because the problem was broader, and other solutions are causing more aggravation or problems. It still is what the abusefilter was written for, and I do not believe, that it was written to log edits which may be problematic, but for which the editors will never get even a warning. It makes much more sense to disable the log-only filters (not the ones in test phase, of course) and write a bot that replaces those rules (giving similar functionality), freeing up the resources on the wikimedia servers and offloading them to the toolserver, e.g. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I have re-enabled both 94 and 101. In addition to the supportive comments above, I would also like to note that the vandalism targeted by each of these rules has actually occurred during the period they were disabled. Dragons flight ( talk) 08:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Think we could have some sort of filter for non-admins adding protection templates to articles? That may help discourage putting them on pages that are not "officially" protected. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
So... if we have abuse filters, then why is ClueBot still running? Cheers, theFace 19:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I would like to know the code for the filter against possible infringements of copyright. Because I want to install the Wikipedia in Portuguese. Thank you. HyperBroad ( talk) 18:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Who is the operator of the bot? HyperBroad ( talk) 00:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think Special:AbuseFilter/5 needs to be turned on with "prevention" and a custom warning, like testwiki:MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning/selfrename. The last line of code (about user_talk → article) has to be moved to a separate filter with a separate message. — AlexSm 21:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi all. I've been monitoring the false positives page for a while, removing inappropriate reports and commenting on some of the reports that come through. However, I'm not a filter admin, so in the case of filters that might be acting inappropriately or are obviously broken and need fixing, I can't do anything about it.
It seems to me that there are no filter admins monitoring this page, and there is now quite a backlog of requests that could really do with being processed (I'm also unsure of when to move them into the "reviewed reports", and also when to archive them).
I think it is a good idea to have this page, as obviously false positives will occur, but it needs monitoring by people who can do something about it. If it is the case that the existing filter admins don't have enough time to do this, then perhaps a request needs putting out for additional filter admins to come on board? ~~ [ジャム][ t - c 07:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
For starters, There are quite a few false positives for filter 102. Secondly, I request that the ACC group be excluded from all filters that impact on account creation in any way, shape or form. Thirdly filter 102's message (and all filters that impact on account creation) should include a link to ACC to get the account made manually, as well as a link to false positives. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we remove the warn filter for short new articles. Longer articles are better, but short stubs are also useful and can be expanded by others. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 10:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that upcoming albums should be allowed to be posted into the bands page. But I do not think the ablum';s own page should be created unless the album name is known. At the moment both are not allowed. I think it should be fine to write 'Upcoming studio album (year)' and then leave a reference. This is a great resource for fans to see if the band is producing a new album. Who agrees? -- Arnies ( talk) 11:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Whne looking through the hits of Filter 171 (currently set to log only), I found some hits which seem to represent multiple edits, as opposed to single edits. For example, this entry seems to represent this diff, which is actually 2 edits of different users. Does anyone understand why this happens? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Love the AF tagging process - makes vandalism catching much easier. However I've noticed a few (two within the last hour) where long strings of underscores which are appropriately used in org chart pages of family lineage pages tripping the filter. Just wondering if we think this is a safe enough character to excluded from this AF tag (as well as perhaps ascii art or other dashes). Would have to weigh the odds of a vandal using underscores I guess. (Here are two examples: [8] and [9] 7 talk | Δ | 01:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's stop beating the dead horse :) -- Luk talk 12:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Information on the performance of abuse filters can be found at Wikipedia:Abuse_filter/Performance.
A client side javascript abuse filter should be developed so that the wiki servers won't get hammered as much. A number of the filters can easily be converted. Smallman12q ( talk) 21:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support- I believe this would reduce the amount of time between edit saves by moving the processing to client side(there is really minimal processing). Smallman12q ( talk) 15:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I wrote a filter to detect section blanking (as opposed to page blanking). As far as I can see it seems quite correct, but I'd like a second AFE to have a look at it (and I am going away for a couple of days as well), as I think it is good enough for a section-blanking-notice (it is quite often vandalism, though not necesserily). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Could someone add the terms fuck, whore, and horny f(a|e|u)?ck|whor|horny
? (I'm not sure if I got the code right). Thanks.
Smallman12q (
talk)
18:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth checking the length in addition to an rlike comaprison? For example (for filter 104)
!("sysop" in user_groups) &
(article_namespace == 0) &
(contains_any(added_lines,"{{helpme}}","{{adminhelp}}"))
or (improved)
!("sysop" in user_groups)
& (article_namespace == 0)
&(length(added_lines) >= 10)
&(lcase(added_lines) rlike "{{(helpme|adminhelp}}")
My question is "&(length(added_lines) >= 10)" needed?
Also, is rlike faster than contains_any? (And is there any link to where these speeds are documented? The documentation for the abuse filter is truly lacking.) Smallman12q ( talk) 20:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Old
(article_namespace == 0)
& (article_recent_contributors == "")
& (new_size < 150)
& !("autoconfirmed" in user_groups)
& !(contains_any(lcase(new_wikitext), "{{surname}}", "{{given name}}", "{{delrev}}", "#redirect", "{{softredirect}}", "{{db-unpatrolled}}"))
& !('disambig' in article_text)
& !('disambig' in lcase(new_html))
Suggested new
(article_namespace == 0)
& (article_recent_contributors == "")
& (new_size < 150)
& !("autoconfirmed" in user_groups)
& !(lcase(new_wikitext) rlike "{{(surname|given name|delrev|softredirect|db-unpatrolled)}}|#redirect"
& !('disambig' in (article_text|lcase(new_html)) //Not sure if this one works
Smallman12q ( talk) 20:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Tag searches shouldn't be especially slow, they're pulled from an index. — Werdna • talk 09:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Could filter 9 and 39 be combined? Smallman12q ( talk) 20:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Now, I love the AF. However, I am inclined to ask... does it even work? After reviewing Special:AbuseLog, I notice that there are a lot of actions that still seem to get through and it lets them do it, even though it triggers the AF. Why doesn't it stop all those actions? — Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!) What I Do / What I Say 22:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Special:AbuseFilter/164 seems to be doing what it was meant to, although it catches a good number of false positives. Namely, editors' using an existing article as a template and failing to remove maintenance tags, or editors' tagging their own articles as unreferenced. I can't tell how many of the deleted or redirected hits came from people monitoring the filter or from everyday newpage patrol, so I was wondering if anyone here could clarify that. Because if it is just newpage patrol catching the more obvious cut & paste moves, I'm planning to remove the unreferenced tag from the search parameters to cut down on the false positives. Someguy1221 ( talk) 08:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This filter pops up whenever I archive a talk page. Is it too sensitive? 70.29.208.129 ( talk) 14:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
For those who haven't already noticed, I've started running a bot to report some abuse filter hits to AIV. This is an extension of the bot I've been running in the abuse filter IRC channel for a few months now. The full details about what it will report are at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mr.Z-bot 7. The lists of filters it monitors are at User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js; any admin can change the lists and it will be reloaded by the bot within 5 minutes. One list is for filters that should trigger an AIV report for all hits - anything that would be considered "block on sight" vandalism. The second list is for all other filters that prevent vandalism. These should be filters that catch what is unambiguously vandalism, preferably ones already set to warn or disallow (so the user gets adequately warned). Mr. Z-man 00:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
On forms to create and edit filters, I see all the controls enabled, but no button to actually save the changes. If I can edit filters, shouldn't there be a button to save the edits? If not, shouldn't the controls be disabled? Neon Merlin 02:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
When tagging a db-copyvio (using twinkle or manually) where the copyrighted URL is on the blacklist the spam filter prevents it. As a workaround I insert a space somewhere in the domain name, but still slows things down a bit.
Would it be possible to have the spam filter ignore text in curly brackets? 7 talk | Δ | 23:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering that editors have already been warned once when they trigger the abuse filter, shouldn't vandal fighters immediately proceed to warning level two when reverting vandalism where the abuse filter was ignored? Better yet, shouldn't we make a special series of warning templates for people that ignore the abuse filter? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Please, will someone reply to this request? Having the log of bad charts greatly simplifies my life, and letting the list of charts that the filter detects go stale means that I have to go back to manually searching for them: a tedious and error-prone process.— Kww( talk) 01:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
In this [ edit here] I replaced a speed deletion tag with a hangon tag, and it did not trigger the filter.I was not logged in at the time. A new user has just done the same thing on a page which probably will get deleted. Is this a bug? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin451 ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
How do I prevent edits like this (reverts of page blanking) from showing up in the abuse log for this filter? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a major problem, I can't save a redirect over an existing page. It used to let me press save again, but now pressing it ten times in a row results in no save. So I have to save a redirect on top of content instead of clearing the page to do so. This is a very bad error. 70.29.212.226 ( talk) 06:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an interesting case. There are two filters, which only warn and tag ( 28—warn only and 33—warn and tag). However the cumulative effect of their combination is disallow. After the first warns, the second tags, then the first warns again etc (infinite cycle). Ruslik_ Zero 15:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering how my creation of the article John Paskin triggered the tag "large unwikified new article"? cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 09:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a
bug in AbuseFilter
as seen here, that can unfortunately kill all edits if an invalid regex is present in added to a filter. So be sure to click CHECK SYNTAX BEFORE submitting. I had to fix
this filter.
Q
T
C
11:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Bugzilla:19216. The recent update massively broke things. added_lines and removed_lines are behaving erratically. This is most obvious in rule 180, mentioned further up the page, but is also affecting a large number of other rules. Many may simply need to be disabled until this is fixed. Dragons flight ( talk) 15:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that Special:AbuseFilter/172 stopped working, and reading above about the problems other filters, I tried to figure out why the filter stopped working ...
However:
gives a positive result!
Eh, anyone? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The bot to report abuse filter violators to AIV is now approved. Again, the filter lists it uses are at User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js. Any admin can edit the lists to affect what it will report. Mr. Z-man 20:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this should be in a filter, or put into Cluebot's code, but would it be feasible to check for the addition of certain html, and tag accordingly.
e.g. <div style="display:none"> like in this
which effectively blanked the page whilst leaving the source there. Of course the time taken for the filter to work might not be worth the hits it gets.
Martin451 (
talk)
22:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
If a user has over 50,000 edits and has been registered for over four years, let's assume they know about copy and paste moves. Stop tagging legitimate edits. Given the number of variables and options available in the AbuseFilter extension, the current behavior is simply unacceptable. Fix the damn filter. Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Nearly 10% of all edits are hitting the condition limit now, so it is rather imperative we reduce the numbers of filters in order to stem this problem. I intend to cut back on the following types of filters: log only, very low hit, tag only, and duplicate filters. Prodego talk 07:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
An user had a valid concern about that filter: it also tags repeating characters inside URLs. Could it be possible to tweak it to ignore such instances without hurting performance and accuracy too much? -- Luk talk 09:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Heh. When someone creates an article with only the words "Dank asshole", I guess I'd rather we not have a filter jump in that says "please consider making your article longer" ... and then inserts that in the edit summary :) - Dank ( push to talk) 14:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that MediaWiki has been updated past r52071, Tags are now wrapped in a span which allows us to identify them. There is now an open discussion on whether we should style tags when they appear in RecentChanges, Watchlist, etc. All commens welcome! Happy‑ melon 09:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
To make Special:Tags more comprehensible, I added descriptions to some tags, all formatted with {{ Tag description}}. It supports the parameter inactive=yes for old tags that aren't used by any abuse filter and thus do not appear in recent changes (those we'll be able to get rid of when T20670 will be fixed). You may want to complete the list if you have inspiration. Cenarium ( talk) 00:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Noel Streatfield ( talk · contribs) triggered the abuse filter 28 more than thousand times, in non-stop, see. This filter is not private and I remember someone having anticipated that vandals could exploit the abuse filter to hinder performance. I don't think it had any major effect besides clogging the log, but reporting here just in case. When approved, Mr.Z-bot may be used to report such users. Cenarium ( talk) 17:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
It sounds a little strange, though, that the abuse filter checks null edits, shouldn't first the software check whether an edit is null, and then the abuse filter analyzes it only if it's not ? I don't know for the impact on performance, is it worth a bug ? Cenarium ( talk) 15:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
No hits for the last two days... probably caused by the recent scap. MER-C 12:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Od Mishehu has asked that I seek group membership in the "Abuse Filter editors" group. He also mentioned that this is probably the best place to ask for it. I am Cobi, the owner and operator of ClueBot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights), one of the antivandalism bots here with over 1.1 million edits. I believe that my work with ClueBot demonstrates my technical ability at writing heuristics to identify problematic edits. Thank you. -- Cobi( t| c| b) 07:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I must oppose non-admins getting this userright, as it is getting admin tools by the back door. I believe this was the consensus on AN as well. (This is no reflection on Cobi whom I am sure is trustworthy and would support at RfA.) Therefore I think the userright should be deactivated. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 14:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Filter 44 hasn't been hit since April. Filter 112 since late May. Filter 137 since early May. Perhaps it is time to disable these? -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 04:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
44 is still active, and responsible for filter 186. Cenarium ( talk) 14:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I disabled 4, 44, 66, and 137, in attempt to reduce the number of hits against the condition limit (was 15%). Now the condition limit is ~7% which is still too high in my opinion, but may be better served by looking for filters to optimize. Dragons flight ( talk) 15:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone point me in the right direction (Mediawiki pagewise or developer-wise) to add a short AF: with a wikilink to an explanation about tags before the tag description? – xeno talk 00:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
[[Special:Tags|Tag]]:
rather than having to create the mediawiki page for every one of them? –
xeno
talk
02:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be something unusual going on with this tag: it was assigned to the George McHugh article. See Revision history of George McHugh. -- Big_iron ( talk) 20:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Please format your tags properly, see at Special:Tags. Cenarium ( talk) 20:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
02:23, 29 June 2009 (hist) (diff) N MediaWiki:Tag-Possible Michael Jackson vandalism (Tag: Possible Michael Jackson vandalism) (Tag: Possible Michael Jackson vandalism)
Special:AbuseFilter/80's current appearance on change lists is " Tag: possibly inappropriate external links". I found this a bit misleading when trying to work out why an edit had been tagged as it suggested to me that the URL triggered it. I had to look at Special:Tags and Special:AbuseFilter/80 to discover that it is triggered by a new user adding several external links within a given timeframe (currently >3 in 20 mins), and the URL is irrelevant, and therefore realise I should examine their recent contributions. Can I suggest that MediaWiki:Tag-possible link spam be changed to something a bit more descriptive such as "New user rapidly adding external links", or if space allows, "New user recently added several external links"? Regards, Qwfp ( talk) 12:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't there a way to check if the page is in a category with the abuse filter (before the edit, and after) ? I mean, not just pages with the category directly given in wikitext, but also when transcluded. That would be tremendously useful, for example for 29 and 189, those filters use workarounds, but they are far from complete, while it would be easy to simply check respectively if the category is in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion before and not after, and in Category:Living people before. Cenarium ( talk) 02:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
If you write a script to create a permanent log calling wikipedia editors abusive vandals you should know a little more about wikipedia than you do.
IPs can't make page moves. Removing articles written by bots that have had 4077 of their articles removed is not vandalism. Being stopped from removing them is vandalism. Your script is preventing me from editing the last 889 of the bad articles this bot created. Now who's the vandal? 889 potentially bad articles, some have evolutionary theory that's worst than an article written by a creationist. Wikipedia looks like an idiot calling bacteria eukaryotes. Now you're blocking qualified writers from fixing it.
Where's the abuse filter's abusive vandalism log for forcing these bad articles go unedited? -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 15:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know what users think about my suggested warning for direct use of stub categories before it goes live. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
... or should the log entries be set to expire after some time (say two weeks) ? After all, they are just meant to highlight possibly problematic edits for review and if an edit hasn't we reviewed in a couple of weeks it's unlikely to get/need attention later. We always have a permanent record of the edit diffs themselves, in case we need to review a user's edits later. Comments ? Abecedare ( talk) 18:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't answer the point of making adding layers of bureaucracy a default value. If there's a compelling reason related specifically to the development mission of this programming, then spell it out, otherwise the log should not be permanent. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 01:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This filter appears to be b0rked in someway, or is extremely poorly designed. Requesting it to be disabled or fixed. «l| ?romethean ™|l» (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, the filter detect BLPs by checking if the page contains Category:Living people in the wikitext, so it can't detect those with {{ lifetime}} et al, if someone knows a way to detect all BLPs, or a larger part, that would be appreciated. Cenarium ( talk) 23:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This is related to our 69.x.x.x algae expert, but I could also see it as a problem that may pop up from time to time. Some folks prefer to edit via their IP and no amount of convincing can get them to register an account. Nevertheless they may be experts in a certain refined field (i.e. phycology) and willing to put in a lot of grunt work to fix problems with articles on the same. What about some way to give certain IPs temporary exemption (I was thinking promote to autoconfirmed but it doesn't seem to be grantable nor can I access an IP's userrights). We could write a hack into the filters they're running into but that's suboptimal (though, could someone do that temporarily for the filter's that are giving 69.x.x.x trouble? [16]). Just telling them to re-submit their warned edits, or even telling them their edits were just "tagged" isn't a solution because other good faith users may see the tag and assume it's a bad edit (i.e. [17]). Thoughts? – xeno talk 12:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please tell me how to change
!("autoconfirmed" in user_groups)
into "not (autoconfirmed or User:69.226.103.13)" ? – xeno talk 01:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
&(user_name != "69.226.103.13")
to the end of a filter. Thanks Cenarium. I was chatting with Bjweeks about a way to solve this and came up with one way he thought might be "doable" - maybe we could write a hack in the abuse filter that tells it to evaluate "autoconfirmed" as "autoconfirmed and <these IPs>" ? (and we can keep a list of the IPs on a mediawiki page or something) –
xeno
talk 03:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)–
xeno
talk
03:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Wikipedia rewriting 2 billion years of evolution for the past four months in thousands of articles and getting it copied into cyberspace is a real problem.
And it's not a minute, I'd still have to wait 4 days to be autoconfirmed, and for some of the heuristics I have to be an established user with over 500 edits.
But, go ahead and edit them. I'm not a phycologist by the way, and it's a lot of work for me.
Every exemption is directly related to being able to quickly fix the mess created by anybot, a bot that had its authorization revoked after created thousands of bad articles and redirects that need corrects. If the bot had never been run, and if there were plenty of wikipedia phycologist this would not be an issue. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 03:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Ruslik0 made an exemption for anybot created content, as the problem is the anybot created content. However, if others are not comfortable making an exemption for anybot created content, which removes the IP issue from the discussion and focuses on the real problem issue, then I won't do edits that tag me as potentially unconstructive editor. Let me know.
But if the purpose of the abusive filter is to force people to register, then take up blocking IPs from editing with the community, or stop saying "anybody can edit." The community, though, has already decided the issue of IPs editing, and it is still anybody can edit wikipedia. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 15:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
And I tested it and it works. [18] Done with one click. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 15:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I started going through New user changing redirect or redirecting so I can tag c&p moves, of which there is about 1 per day whenever I check. This leads me to check the user's contributions to find what redirect they removed when they did the c&p move. I wonder if the tag can be modified to look for "New user removing redirect" in addition to changing a redirect; this would be a "companion" edit, if you will. Thx. -- 64.85.216.57 ( talk) 13:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sysop on Persian Wikipedia.How can enable abuse filter in Persian wikipedia?I'm translating massages and translate half of them Amir ( talk) 15:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This filter's heuristics are hidden, but this filter is bad. It is the one that tagged my edit as "possible vandal phrases," while it was referring to an edit made by a different user.
The edit filter should, in the very least, attach the tag to the correct editors. Really bad when it doesn't. See my edit log to find the edit, and note that the discussion and edit in the log are not mine. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 03:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
These edit filters need a work before they start recording incidents and putting them anywhere. No one reading this cares that Edit Filter 23 tags the wrong contributor, and, now, another one, [19] [20] Edit Filter 11, tags the words "New World" as possible vandalism, when it's supposed to be tagging it sucks, meaning that potentially every taxon that ranges both continents will be tagged as a vandalism edit if an IP edits it.
It's supposed to tag "You/He/She/It sucks," just like Edit Filter 23 with its hidden code is supposed to tag the actual contributor of the actual edit. When things that aren't in the code start happening, it's times to stop running it and get it cleaned up.
The IP -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 18:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
What is the differences between filter 9 and filter 97? The former applies to all edits of unregistered users in the main namespace, while the latter to all large (>5000) additions to pages in all namespaces made by non-autoconfirmed users. They frequently overlap. Does it make sense to have two filters? Ruslik_ Zero 16:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
While I was originally unreceptive to the idea, now that we've settled into the AFE, I think we should roll it into the sysop bundle. Especially so that admins who just want to view private filters (like me =) don't need to add themself into the usergroup. However, please see arguments contra in the last discussion, especially from slakr who does have some compelling reasons against. Thoughts? –
xeno
talk 01:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Changed my position to just add af-view-private to +sysop - vote for the bug below. –
xeno
talk
14:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I support Xeno's original proposal, i.e. add all the AFE userrights into the admin usergroup. There is really no point in separating a userright which a usergroup can give to themselves anyway. Admins have been shown to have the trust of the community, and so we have to trust them not to edit a filter if they don't understand what they are doing! — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 14:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
There are a whole slew of entries for 71.191.53.234 ( talk · contribs) editing on Marijuana (etymology) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) when that user has not edited in close to an hour and there had not been any edits on the article in over a day. -- B ( talk) 04:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
This filter is designed to prevent newcomers from making abusive unblock denials. I think we need a filter to prevent these, on the outside chance that the blocked user is, in fact, one who has a chance of getting unblocked - denials like this need to be stopped before the user sees them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The wording of this template isn't right:
WP:CRYSTAL says "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable". It doesn't say "Articles about anticipated events are not allowed," nor does it say "Articles cannot have details of future albums". Adding well-sourced, verifiable information about future albums is consistent with WP:CRYSTAL, and this filter should make that clear. — Gendralman ( talk) 14:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Could the name of this log be changed, please? I just noticed the other day that I have entries in an "abuse" log for linking to YouTube and for creating articles about Michael Jackson, which triggered a suspicion of vandalism. A few other people are voicing the same concern at AN/I, and someone suggested posting the request here. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, User Ruslik0. User SlimVirgin, you should spend more time at AN/I offering solutions. I don't know why so many wikipedians offer the, "it doesn't bother me to have an abuse filter" defense when there's no point in calling it an abuse filter while denying it is one.
Just for that I'm going to continue editing the garbage created by anybot. Probably only these 900 articles plus maybe a few thousand redirects to delete. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 06:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I changed all system messages. The only remaining steps are moving this page to Wikipedia:Edit filter and changing the name of user group to (I propose) Edit Filter managers. Ruslik_ Zero 09:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Quite happy to see we're removing the word "abuse." -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, they say it's always 20/20. I think "ActionFilter" is better for a number of reasons:
I doubt anyone will want to implement this change (esp. as it was only just changed to "Edit filter"), but I thought I'd mention it anyway. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 23:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As this talk page is getting rather large, is everyone OK for adding a MiszaBot II auto-archive template? It Is Me Here t / c 22:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
What about some kind of systems whereby two different people are required to set a filter to disallow? Or perhaps some kind of follow up dialog when trying to set a filter to disallow asking the admin if they've tested the filter first? Or heck, restricting AFE to people who know what they are doing? I'll be the first to remove myself from the group, even though I have the common sense not to screw too much with things that I don't understand. – xeno ( talk) 16:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Or removing the abuse filter editor rights from abusers, which I'm going to do now. Cenarium ( talk) 17:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
There are several issues here. One, the abuse filter is super powerful, and by extension super dangerous if used inappropriately by people who either don't understand what they are doing or don't exercise adequate care in testing and thinking about specific rules. Reasonable behavior demands that due care and testing be done in order to catch errors and false positives. At the same time, Beetstra correctly notes that some rules can be far more limited than the blocks and protections that we routinely allow admins to unilaterally apply. That is to say, one shouldn't need a huge bureaucratic process in order to deploy a rule that correctly and narrowly targets a specific vandal. Nor would it be a good idea to give a vandal free reign for several days while we discussed it.
I'd suggest the following:
I want to be liberal about granting people the ability to work here, but when your actions have the potential to effect every single edit, they also need to carry a sense of caution and thoughtfulness. And if people make a habit of engaging in careless or reckless behavior then they shouldn't be working here. Dragons flight ( talk) 01:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
What about adding something like this to the guideline: "Any filter that affects a large number of edits (by searching through entire namespaces and/or user groups) should be tested for a few days before being set to "disallow" or "warn"." -- Conti| ✉ 22:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Ignore these mostly. Filter 65 however is warning users from giving themselves userpages, I have seen acceptable userpages not saved by newcomers because of it. --Clark89 ( talk) 19:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
If all admins are able to give themselves the "Abuse Filter editor" position, why not enable it for all sysops by default? After all, that's what the situation is with rollback; admins have rollback by default, since the function is packaged with the sysop user class. Am I missing something...? — Anonymous Dissident Talk 05:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The last diff by KnightLago is weird. Not only is it not clear what exactly was changed, but filter also suddenly seem to have gotten de idea they need reference formatting. - Mgm| (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Should we start putting filter notes at the top of the box, rather than at the end, so that the latest comments are visible without having to scroll down? NawlinWiki ( talk) 16:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I want to discuss filter 117 (the one detecting removal of Category:Living people). Where is the best place to do that? Currently, there are false positives I can't explain (like this) and some I can explain (like this). The latter is simply a case of someone replacing the category with {{ Lifetime}} (which contains the category - people have argued against putting sensitive categories in templates, but consensus seems to support it here when it was raised at a TfD). Another false positive ( here) was where someone added pipe-sorting to the category, but didn't remove it. Typical example here is a correct detection, but it is also a correct edit (saying the person has died). However, it would be nice to have a separate logged stream of such "death announced" edits, so people can check sources were used and confirm the news. And this is just plain wrong. It seems to think that because the category appears on both sides of the diff, it got removed then added. Strange. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Wonderful. Thanks. I did see one edit that got logged, but when I went to the article, the edit wasn't there. Does that mean the edit had triggered more than one filter and had been disallowed by one of them? Carcharoth ( talk) 00:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Can you remove the abuse filter from the website? 69.141.191.77 ( talk) 10:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I see we at the moment have two type of filters in our list (which may be an unintentional separation ..), those which are meant to block vandalism and warn against typical problematic edits, and another set, which may never going to be set to block, warn or whatever, but which enable users to catch problematic edits (which don't actually violate policy or guideline, or which are significantly error-prone), so can then easily be screened later and reverted by hand. I think that the latter is a also great potential of the filter!
However, the 'catching' filters (those that are not going to be set to warn) are of lesser importance than the blocking ones. Still they do take away resources for possibly filtering edits (we get close to having a 100 active rules, I don't know where we hit the limit, but probably 200-250? .. I am not sure if that will be 'enough'). But for the catching filters, it does not matter that they are performed in real-time, they can be done after the edit is saved, and it does not matter that they are slow (a couple of seconds after the edit is saved is still fine, as long as it does not become minutes, and as long as it does not impede the performance of the real wiki).
I know that this would require a new version of this extension, which hooks into a different part of the software, etc. etc. But I think that it would be great to have a separate, catching-only 'filter'. It gives another level of filtering, rules can be tested there without a significant risk of screwing things up too much, etc. etc. It could also be used to test rules and see how they behave in terms of speed etc. etc. Would this be a useful spin-off of the filter? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I found this out when an edit I made got repeatedly blocked for joking around on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales. It used, in part, a common Internet meme, as well as Wikipedia's venerable Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. 192.12.88.7 ( talk) 15:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I found myself having to log in to make the joke, unfortunately. 192.12.88.7 ( talk) 15:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to have a filter set up to do something similar to what is done here? Recent example. Detecting death claims is needed, because false claims are a form of abuse it is good to be able to catch (though it does require people checking the log). That page was set up by User:Sam Korn (who pointed it out to me), so maybe ask him if it involves anything more complicated than detecting a change in category from "living people" to "2009 deaths". He might have managed to successfully detect all the other ways people edit an article to indicate someone has died. The problem with that list, and the changes logged by filter 117 (the removal of category "living people) is that there doesn't seem to be a way to patrol the log, to avoid people duplicating each other's work and checking the same things. Is there a way to patrol a log of an abuse filter? Carcharoth ( talk) 00:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
This filter is triggered quite often when anons/new users either revert a talk page blanking, or manually archive a talk page, which is quite unfortunate. Adding "edit_delta > 10000" to the filter might solve that problem, but I'm not (yet!) an expert with all this, so I figured I better ask here first before making the change. :) -- Conti| ✉ 16:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
& (edit_delta > 10000)
should do that.
Fun
Pika
16:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Any examples? It might be worth killing off the words that are causing problems. BJ Talk 22:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
In email group that have auto-censors, I have run across or heard of disallowals from these false positives:
Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 06:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
There is a discussion on meta to enabled global abuse filters that will affect wikis with the abuse filter extension, including the English Wikipedia. Please give you input. Thanks. Techman224 Talk 01:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is an abuse filter problem per se, but all of the filters have started reporting large processing numbers (2-5 times normal). This occurred even with filters that haven't been changed. I suspect this particular problem is some unrelated high load affecting WMF in general. Filters are certainly capable of creating high loads, but my monitoring suggests it is not our fault (at least this time). So for the moment, don't panic. Dragons flight ( talk) 05:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Could "diff" buttons be added to the AbuseLog to make it easy to revert changes? I understand that at least some of the filters should automate reversion at some point, but for now (and for the filters which don't trigger auto-reversion), it would be a great vandal-fighting tool. – Drilnoth ( T • C) 03:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
A diff view is visible if you click 'details'. Prodego talk 03:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
User:Bambifan101 is a long-time IP-hopping sockpuppeteer devoted to vandalizing articles about Disney-related topics. Would it be possible to craft a filter that works on a combination of their various known IP ranges and topic-dependent words like "Disney" present in either the original article text or the new article text, and then blocks those edits? Autoconfirm isn't any use in this case, because they're known to create sleeper accounts. -- The Anome ( talk) 14:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Just checking to see if there is any movement on this one, as he just struck again with both the IP and a new named sock. -- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 02:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I tried my first filter, # 135, to catch people just holding keys down or copying and pasting 50 times. I'm accumulating improvements from false positives, but also have a few weird ones like this one. Where's the repetition there? Any other comments/ideas? — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to have the filter act based on the deletion of a page? Thanks. Someguy1221 ( talk) 09:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I had to undo a change because a single-quote made the whole regex fail. Anyone know how to include a single-quote in a [ ] group? I tried two single-quotes and preceding with a backslash - no go. Thanks. — Wknight94 ( talk) 12:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Isn't this just the sort of thing the abuse filter is for? I take it this wasn't caught because there were words other than penis in the edit? Rd232 talk 12:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
E.g. "common page move vandalism". Fulfils a purpose previously served by MediaWiki:Titleblacklist quite well without that needing to be private (and still served by it, just to confuse people). Why is it necessary to become an administrator just to find out what you are and aren't allowed to move pages to? Isn't this project supposed to be open or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.77.168 ( talk) 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It's there when I examine an edit, but when I want to use it in the actual filter I get a syntax error. I'd like to use it at Filter 133 so it only catches newly introduced citation errors. -- Conti| ✉ 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
new_html and new_text are fine, the parse operation has to happen anyway. old_html and old_text should in theory be pullable from the parser cache, but I haven't got there yet. — Werdna • talk 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I just removed many (12 or so) old filters with little or no hits for performance reasons. Prodego talk 22:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
This is true, however, if users are reporting edits timing out (and you can test this yourself too) then there is a problem. The best way to deal with it is to ensure we are using our resources in the most efficient way. The table at User:Prodego/Sandbox shows how the filters use resources. This is useful to know, since it lets us judge if a filter is helping or slowing down edits unnecessarily. Prodego talk 20:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Prodego, if there are 5 filters with an average of 3 milliseconds, then that adds 15 milliseconds to the average edit. Indeed, removing 3 of them is a huge improvement (60%!). But if one of those 5 actually has a median at 2 milliseconds, but has a processingtime of 30 milliseconds on the large pages, then removing the 3 fast ones (which are fast except on the ONE page they actually should hit on!) has only an improvement on the whole from 42 to 33 milliseconds (about 25% gain) .. if 40 milliseconds times out, then indeed, having the three disabled solved your problem, but the problem would be better solved with having the slow filter being reduced to 15 milliseconds, as that would enable all filters, especially those which do what this filter was designed for, top abuse! May I again point at my suggestion somewhere else where we have a split off of filters which are NEVER going to set to warn, block or prevent into a after-edit-abusefilter (it could even be in the same system, I envisage that it is easy to first evaluate the action-filters, and if no action is performed that results in the edit being saved, followed by the processing of the non-action filters, that would even be good for testing!), as they do not have to monitor in real time? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm a bit late, but there's no performance burden for new_html and new_text, the page has to be parsed anyway. — Werdna • talk 01:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Just noting here that it's possible to restrict certain actions ('disallow' comes to mind) to a smaller group of users. Is this desirable? It would be possible to require a bit more of a formal assessment of filter performance before setting a filter to disallow. Not sure about whether we want it or not, just raising it as an option. — Werdna • talk 03:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The general implementation is that you can't save a filter with the 'disallow' action if you're don't have a right called abusefilter-edit-restricted. A side-effect would be that the emergency disable mechanism would also disable 'disallow' filters. I do agree with Dragons Flight that some guidelines at least, if not some kind of process (especially for hidden filters), would be helpful. — Werdna • talk 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Abuse filter/Performance. This is still subject to experimentation. It's got about 36 hours of data so far, and hence the (7 day) columns aren't very meaningful yet. Also, the 1 hour column can be quite noisy for a variety of reasons. Please don't use this as a reason to start slashing at things, because the general load is okay right now. But if we do ultimately need to have discussions about prioritizing then this can provide a more tangible and long-term basis for judgment. Dragons flight ( talk) 05:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Based on the data as of 4/8/09
Category | Private | Public |
---|---|---|
Total Filters | 41% | 59% |
Total Hits | 2.5% | 97.5% |
% of Filters that disallow | 83% | 17% |
% of Category that disallow | 80% | 12% |
% of Total Disallows | 28% | 72% |
% of Hits against category resulting in Disallows | 88% | 6% |
Not very interesting numbers, but it does show that private filters are being used to disallow edits with very specific editing patterns as opposed to public disallow filters which have much wider scope, since despite making up only 17% of disallow filters, public filters result in 72% of disallow actions. Burzmali ( talk) 14:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
That is interesting data, thank you! :) — Werdna • talk 02:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Things like this. Unless you want to make 1000000 filters most of which will have 0 hits and slow editing to a crawl. kthx 86.164.203.7 ( talk) 20:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
We are the others Baseball Bugs. The filters are a substantial load, we do have to worry about performance. @Will, generally rotating in more specific ones works for things like Colbert vandalism (which is periodic). Prodego talk 04:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I get some reassurance that things listed on the false positives page will be read and acted upon? Even sampling random log entries while trying to test code for interacting with the logs, I keep finding stuff that shouldn't be there; I'm sure if I actually looked deeper, I'd find a lot more wrong. The paranoid desire to unnecessarily keep most of the details of these filters hidden from me is not exactly helping, either, it's like trying to debug software by examining its output when you don't have the source code. Are posts there likely to be read, or am I better off sending everything to the administrators' noticeboard? Gurch ( talk) 17:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks - and no need to point me in the obvious humor direction for my thread title ;). I got a spam filter notice for ezine.com when I tried to use it as a reference. I looked first to the MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log page, but I can't seem to find the right area to ask. Is ezine.com considered to be an unreliable site for reference? Thanks. — Ched : ? 19:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input folks ;) — Ched : ? 04:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't recall anything like that ever showing up in a watchlist notice. And I don't see the RfAFE's for these people either. -- Random832 ( contribs) 12:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
We seem to be going round and round on something that in my personal opinion doesn't matter. The difference between having a right by default and having the right to add the right is very small. Could someone organize a vote or something so we can try to get some closure on this? Dragons flight ( talk) 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
“ | Should the abusefilter-modify permission be included in the ' sysop' user right? | ” |
This will have the effect of giving all administrators the access to the Abuse Filter settings that is currently restricted to the ' abusefilter' group. This issue is separate from the question of whether the 'abusefilter' group should continue to exist and to whom it should be granted, which should be discussed separately. Please indicate support or opposition below. Happy‑ melon
sysop
package, as Administrators are already trusted with tasks of equivalent sensitivity (e.g. Spam blacklists) and hence should be trusted with this. The inclusion of this right would just save Admins a little bit of hassle, in my opinion; its presence does not oblige Sysops to make use of that right every day. To give a similar example, despite technically
being able to edit others' .CSS and .JS pages (editusercssjs
), upload a file from a URL address (upload_by_url
) and mark rolled-back edits as bot edits (markbotedits
), I have yet to actually use any of those aforementioned rights. This does not mean, however, that they should be removed from me, as they might come in useful one day. The fact of the matter is, Sysops are trusted not to use their rights with malicious intent, and, as such, the situation whereby they can make use of these technical features should remain.
It Is Me Here
t /
c
22:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)I found the entries in Special:AbuseLog overly descriptive, so on another wiki I changed MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-detailedentry into something like
$1: $4: [[Special:AbuseFilter/$3|$3: $7]], $2 on $5, action: $6 ($8) ($9)
so the log entries look like
Just a thought... — AlexSm 15:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
$1: $2 on $5 ($4), [[Special:AbuseFilter/$3|$7]]. Action taken: $6 ($8 | $9)
That's going to stop working soon, because of some changes I've made to global filters $3 will be replaced by a link to the filter, rather than the actual filter. The link text will be in a separate message. I suppose I could pass the filter name to that message, though. — Werdna • talk 02:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
On filter 58, already reverted. Sorry. NawlinWiki ( talk) 02:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I've created a filter (currently disabled) to check AfD !votes. It should be able to flag bolding problems like '''delete''. I've tested it myself several times, but could someone else make sure it works, since I'm new to the abuse filter and it involves the apostrophe (a tricky character)?
Also, I'd like to extent it to the following perhaps:
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to create a filter on svwp which prohibits a certain ip-range from editing certain articles. But when I try to use the ip_in_range thing it either catches every IP or none at all. Presumably I'm doing it wrong! Can you tell me how to use it to catch a certain range? Would be much appreciated. Njaelkies Lea ( talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Can this filter excluse autoconfirmed users (and not just sysops). Its quite clear by looking throught the logs that people tripping it are non-autoconfirmed and that the people who are autoconfirmed are doing so for a reason (IE making a good solid stub compared to incoherible jibberish). I can see no reason why sysops should be excluded from this filter if autoconfirmed users arn't Prom3th3an ( talk) 02:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
For starters, i dont think removing an image (no matter how often it happens) is abuse and therefore within the morals of the abuse filter. Secondly. If i was a vandal I would spam those images (and / or upload images with simiar names and spam those to) on those pages because I know no one but a sysop could remove them which would take some time longer than a user. I think that filter as it stands (as proven above) is flawed and needs to be refined a bit. Prom3th3an ( talk) 02:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Is a joke and outside of the abuse scope by far. Noting that every rule slows the servers down I must wonder why Raul needs his own rule that does absolutly nothing and has no clear purpose. I would stongly encourage its deletion as Prodego already tried. Again, this is an abuse filter not some office clerk. The abuse filter was made to stop serious issues, it however was not made to stop things that we personally find annoying. Prom3th3an ( talk) 02:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Prodego disabled this filter on the 5th of april providing "Too specific, disabling, performance -Prodego" as a reason as well as a detailed explanation on flight's talkpage of why. Within hours [4] of Prodego doing so Dragons flight re-enabled the filter without any additional comment [5] (talkpage or on-filter).
This raises serious questions about why Dragons flight reverted another admin when sufficent reason was provided. I also note he is yet to disable it despite increasing calls to do so. Prom3th3an ( talk) 04:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Occasionally, I find edits that didn't really seem to exist in the filter logs. For example in the log of filter 81, I find
This edit seems to be a complete phantom: it isn't in the history of the article, and it isn't in the editors coontribution history. I'm sure there's a simple explanation, but I don't know what it is, and I'm curious.— Kww( talk) 03:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't consider this a bug, although it may be useful to, as suggested, record which edits succeed. — Werdna • talk 04:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I have seen 2 types of situations where, in my opinion, a psudo-block using the abuse filter could be better:
Both of these should give a disallow message which resembles MediaWiki:Blockedtext. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away Jimbo said adminship is no big deal. But, we now have abuse filter rights built into it. Now it's a much bigger deal. One well intentioned administrator can cause serious damage to the project. We've seen editing shut down for a while due to one admin screwing up applying a new filter.
It's already becoming insanely impossible to become an administrator, and the rate of new administrators is way down. Adding abuse filter into the rights mix just makes all the more reason why people would want to limit who becomes an administrator.
I don't think we need abuse filter editors so badly (hell, we already have over a hundred of them) that we have to permit all administrators the notional ability to do it.
I hate, despise, scream in agony at the thought of creating a new bureaucracy, but something has to be done to separate the rights to abuse filter editing away from administrators. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
This is one of those cases where the only way to know for sure is to wait for the future to come. My prediction is a year from now there will be a vetting process for abuse filters editing ability. Those of you who think I am wrong are of course welcome to your opinions. But please remember your opinion and my opinion have the same value. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we add "Willy on wheels", "on wheels" and various capitalizations. Spate of vandalism earlier today in this regard and obvious historical reasons.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
See these 14 pages created today. These are not all of the ones created today; just the ones I protected out of a larger group, and that I can therefore easily find. We still get Willy on Wheels vandalism, despite that it's all copycat. Unless the abuse filter has a very finite number of things it can look at, I don't see the point of not doing it. And don't lose the second issue. Haggar is active today.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 20:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
.*[OÓÒÔÖÕǑŌŎǪŐŒØƏΌΟΩῸὈὉὌὊὍὋОӨӦӪ][N₦ŃÑŅŇṆΝ][ ]?[WŴẀẂẄẆẈ₩][HΉĤĦȞʰʱḢḤḦḨḪНҢӇӉΗἨἩἪἫἬἭἮἯῊᾘЋΗⱧԋњһh][ÉÈËEĘĚĔĖẺẸẾỀỄễỂểȨȩḜḝĒḖḗȄȅȆȇỆệḘḙḚḛ3عڠeēėèéëẽĕęəẻếềẹ][ÉÈËEĘĚĔĖẺẸẾỀỄễỂểȨȩḜḝĒḖḗȄȅȆȇỆệḘḙḚḛ3عڠeēėèéëẽĕęəẻếềẹ]+[L₤ĹĽḶŁĿΛЛЉ][[S$ŚŜŞŠṢΣЅ].* <moveonly> # Disallows moves with "on wheels" with 2 or more Es .*on wh33ls.* .*on whiels.* .*\bwith wh?iels\b.* <moveonly> .*on rails.* <moveonly> .*on treads.* <moveonly>
As you can see its had the Unicode treatment -- Chris 00:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
We can't automatically block as an action... How about having some notification that a filter is being triggered? Persistent vandals are just continually trying their edits tweaking them until they get around filters (see here). Unless you are sitting on the filter refreshing, there is no way to know. Maybe an e-mail? A talk page message? A note on some page that we could watchlist? Wknight94 talk 20:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Filter 107 should not be private because its specifications are easily accessbile here. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make sense to auto-include an ID string on filter comments added to the edit summary? Something like: [[Wikipedia:AF|AF]]:filter text). In other words, it would produce ( AF:Nonsense movie?) to use the one that caught me out.
I'm a sample of one, admittedly, but I was one confused new page patroller because I didn't even know the filter existed. 19 extra characters will save noobs like me a lot of perplexity. 9Nak ( talk) 18:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Its come to my attention that wether a filter is private or not is largely down to the discression of the administrator who makes it and there are no guidelines as to what should be private and more importantly, what should not. Im of the opinion that all filters should be public unless an elaborate regex rule that could be easily circumvented if the regex was public (IE a meme pattern).
An example of a filter that should not be private is [6] and because it is an "as is" filter that cannot be circumvented. Another questionable regex is [7] «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Since they now show up in contributions lists, as a sort of an urgent action I've gone ahead and created a bunch of less-harsh/less-accusatory tag appearances for several of the tags listed over on
Special:Tags that have gotten hits. No worries about permanence, since they're simply part of the interface (i.e., changing something will basically instantly become visible). Bringing it here for people to come up with better ones + populate the extended descriptions. If you're not a sysop and wanna make a change, I'd say just use {{
editprotected}}
on whatever message's talk page, though it might be better for someone to redirect the talk pages to a centralized location (maybe a subpage of this page?) Anyway, I'm swamped, so talk amongst yourselves. --
slakr\
talk /
01:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
OverlordQ ( talk · contribs) disabled three filters 94, 101, and 156.
The first two are very lightweight, averaging 0.89 and 1.26 ms respectively ( performance data). They are both targeted single page vandalism getting 10 and 8 hits respectively since activation (including 5 and 1 hits respectively in the last two weeks). This kind of persistent targeted vandalism is exactly the kind of thing the Abuse Filter was initially designed for and given that these checks are extremely cheap I am inclined to reactivate these filters.
156 on the other hand is somewhat more expensive (though 5.08 ms is by no means bad) and has drawn 0 hits. It is also so specific in what it targets that it is probably easily avoided by the vandal (who is probably a lone individual, unlike the vandalism in 94 and 101 where there is a decent argument multiple people are involved). The mitigating factor if that 156 is only 4 days old. I probably would have waited several more days to see if there would be any hits before disabling (and would re-enable it in the face of ongoing vandalism), but I generally would agree that this filter seems unlikely to be of much long-term use.
In the interest of encouraging more transparency when it comes to filter use, I wanted to start a discussion about these things. In particular, I'd propose reactivating 94 and 101. Dragons flight ( talk) 19:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Prom3th3an pretty much sums up my views, so there's no reason to restate them here. Quick somebody added a word to an article! Lets add it to abuse filter! There's vandalism and there's abuse. Ten in a month is vandalism. Ten in a minute is abuse. In my opinion, only the latter should get a filter. (This is of course ignoring egregious cases) Q T C 01:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
OverlordQ, Promethean, indeed, we don't need a filter for every single form of hit and run vandalism. But I am sure tht the AFE that wrote these filters wrote them because the problem was broader, and other solutions are causing more aggravation or problems. It still is what the abusefilter was written for, and I do not believe, that it was written to log edits which may be problematic, but for which the editors will never get even a warning. It makes much more sense to disable the log-only filters (not the ones in test phase, of course) and write a bot that replaces those rules (giving similar functionality), freeing up the resources on the wikimedia servers and offloading them to the toolserver, e.g. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I have re-enabled both 94 and 101. In addition to the supportive comments above, I would also like to note that the vandalism targeted by each of these rules has actually occurred during the period they were disabled. Dragons flight ( talk) 08:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Think we could have some sort of filter for non-admins adding protection templates to articles? That may help discourage putting them on pages that are not "officially" protected. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
So... if we have abuse filters, then why is ClueBot still running? Cheers, theFace 19:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I would like to know the code for the filter against possible infringements of copyright. Because I want to install the Wikipedia in Portuguese. Thank you. HyperBroad ( talk) 18:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Who is the operator of the bot? HyperBroad ( talk) 00:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think Special:AbuseFilter/5 needs to be turned on with "prevention" and a custom warning, like testwiki:MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning/selfrename. The last line of code (about user_talk → article) has to be moved to a separate filter with a separate message. — AlexSm 21:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi all. I've been monitoring the false positives page for a while, removing inappropriate reports and commenting on some of the reports that come through. However, I'm not a filter admin, so in the case of filters that might be acting inappropriately or are obviously broken and need fixing, I can't do anything about it.
It seems to me that there are no filter admins monitoring this page, and there is now quite a backlog of requests that could really do with being processed (I'm also unsure of when to move them into the "reviewed reports", and also when to archive them).
I think it is a good idea to have this page, as obviously false positives will occur, but it needs monitoring by people who can do something about it. If it is the case that the existing filter admins don't have enough time to do this, then perhaps a request needs putting out for additional filter admins to come on board? ~~ [ジャム][ t - c 07:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
For starters, There are quite a few false positives for filter 102. Secondly, I request that the ACC group be excluded from all filters that impact on account creation in any way, shape or form. Thirdly filter 102's message (and all filters that impact on account creation) should include a link to ACC to get the account made manually, as well as a link to false positives. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we remove the warn filter for short new articles. Longer articles are better, but short stubs are also useful and can be expanded by others. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 10:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that upcoming albums should be allowed to be posted into the bands page. But I do not think the ablum';s own page should be created unless the album name is known. At the moment both are not allowed. I think it should be fine to write 'Upcoming studio album (year)' and then leave a reference. This is a great resource for fans to see if the band is producing a new album. Who agrees? -- Arnies ( talk) 11:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Whne looking through the hits of Filter 171 (currently set to log only), I found some hits which seem to represent multiple edits, as opposed to single edits. For example, this entry seems to represent this diff, which is actually 2 edits of different users. Does anyone understand why this happens? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Love the AF tagging process - makes vandalism catching much easier. However I've noticed a few (two within the last hour) where long strings of underscores which are appropriately used in org chart pages of family lineage pages tripping the filter. Just wondering if we think this is a safe enough character to excluded from this AF tag (as well as perhaps ascii art or other dashes). Would have to weigh the odds of a vandal using underscores I guess. (Here are two examples: [8] and [9] 7 talk | Δ | 01:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Let's stop beating the dead horse :) -- Luk talk 12:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Information on the performance of abuse filters can be found at Wikipedia:Abuse_filter/Performance.
A client side javascript abuse filter should be developed so that the wiki servers won't get hammered as much. A number of the filters can easily be converted. Smallman12q ( talk) 21:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Support- I believe this would reduce the amount of time between edit saves by moving the processing to client side(there is really minimal processing). Smallman12q ( talk) 15:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I wrote a filter to detect section blanking (as opposed to page blanking). As far as I can see it seems quite correct, but I'd like a second AFE to have a look at it (and I am going away for a couple of days as well), as I think it is good enough for a section-blanking-notice (it is quite often vandalism, though not necesserily). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Could someone add the terms fuck, whore, and horny f(a|e|u)?ck|whor|horny
? (I'm not sure if I got the code right). Thanks.
Smallman12q (
talk)
18:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it worth checking the length in addition to an rlike comaprison? For example (for filter 104)
!("sysop" in user_groups) &
(article_namespace == 0) &
(contains_any(added_lines,"{{helpme}}","{{adminhelp}}"))
or (improved)
!("sysop" in user_groups)
& (article_namespace == 0)
&(length(added_lines) >= 10)
&(lcase(added_lines) rlike "{{(helpme|adminhelp}}")
My question is "&(length(added_lines) >= 10)" needed?
Also, is rlike faster than contains_any? (And is there any link to where these speeds are documented? The documentation for the abuse filter is truly lacking.) Smallman12q ( talk) 20:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Old
(article_namespace == 0)
& (article_recent_contributors == "")
& (new_size < 150)
& !("autoconfirmed" in user_groups)
& !(contains_any(lcase(new_wikitext), "{{surname}}", "{{given name}}", "{{delrev}}", "#redirect", "{{softredirect}}", "{{db-unpatrolled}}"))
& !('disambig' in article_text)
& !('disambig' in lcase(new_html))
Suggested new
(article_namespace == 0)
& (article_recent_contributors == "")
& (new_size < 150)
& !("autoconfirmed" in user_groups)
& !(lcase(new_wikitext) rlike "{{(surname|given name|delrev|softredirect|db-unpatrolled)}}|#redirect"
& !('disambig' in (article_text|lcase(new_html)) //Not sure if this one works
Smallman12q ( talk) 20:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Tag searches shouldn't be especially slow, they're pulled from an index. — Werdna • talk 09:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Could filter 9 and 39 be combined? Smallman12q ( talk) 20:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Now, I love the AF. However, I am inclined to ask... does it even work? After reviewing Special:AbuseLog, I notice that there are a lot of actions that still seem to get through and it lets them do it, even though it triggers the AF. Why doesn't it stop all those actions? — Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!) What I Do / What I Say 22:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Special:AbuseFilter/164 seems to be doing what it was meant to, although it catches a good number of false positives. Namely, editors' using an existing article as a template and failing to remove maintenance tags, or editors' tagging their own articles as unreferenced. I can't tell how many of the deleted or redirected hits came from people monitoring the filter or from everyday newpage patrol, so I was wondering if anyone here could clarify that. Because if it is just newpage patrol catching the more obvious cut & paste moves, I'm planning to remove the unreferenced tag from the search parameters to cut down on the false positives. Someguy1221 ( talk) 08:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This filter pops up whenever I archive a talk page. Is it too sensitive? 70.29.208.129 ( talk) 14:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
For those who haven't already noticed, I've started running a bot to report some abuse filter hits to AIV. This is an extension of the bot I've been running in the abuse filter IRC channel for a few months now. The full details about what it will report are at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mr.Z-bot 7. The lists of filters it monitors are at User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js; any admin can change the lists and it will be reloaded by the bot within 5 minutes. One list is for filters that should trigger an AIV report for all hits - anything that would be considered "block on sight" vandalism. The second list is for all other filters that prevent vandalism. These should be filters that catch what is unambiguously vandalism, preferably ones already set to warn or disallow (so the user gets adequately warned). Mr. Z-man 00:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
On forms to create and edit filters, I see all the controls enabled, but no button to actually save the changes. If I can edit filters, shouldn't there be a button to save the edits? If not, shouldn't the controls be disabled? Neon Merlin 02:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
When tagging a db-copyvio (using twinkle or manually) where the copyrighted URL is on the blacklist the spam filter prevents it. As a workaround I insert a space somewhere in the domain name, but still slows things down a bit.
Would it be possible to have the spam filter ignore text in curly brackets? 7 talk | Δ | 23:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Considering that editors have already been warned once when they trigger the abuse filter, shouldn't vandal fighters immediately proceed to warning level two when reverting vandalism where the abuse filter was ignored? Better yet, shouldn't we make a special series of warning templates for people that ignore the abuse filter? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Please, will someone reply to this request? Having the log of bad charts greatly simplifies my life, and letting the list of charts that the filter detects go stale means that I have to go back to manually searching for them: a tedious and error-prone process.— Kww( talk) 01:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
In this [ edit here] I replaced a speed deletion tag with a hangon tag, and it did not trigger the filter.I was not logged in at the time. A new user has just done the same thing on a page which probably will get deleted. Is this a bug? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin451 ( talk • contribs) 17:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
How do I prevent edits like this (reverts of page blanking) from showing up in the abuse log for this filter? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a major problem, I can't save a redirect over an existing page. It used to let me press save again, but now pressing it ten times in a row results in no save. So I have to save a redirect on top of content instead of clearing the page to do so. This is a very bad error. 70.29.212.226 ( talk) 06:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
This is an interesting case. There are two filters, which only warn and tag ( 28—warn only and 33—warn and tag). However the cumulative effect of their combination is disallow. After the first warns, the second tags, then the first warns again etc (infinite cycle). Ruslik_ Zero 15:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering how my creation of the article John Paskin triggered the tag "large unwikified new article"? cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 09:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
There's a
bug in AbuseFilter
as seen here, that can unfortunately kill all edits if an invalid regex is present in added to a filter. So be sure to click CHECK SYNTAX BEFORE submitting. I had to fix
this filter.
Q
T
C
11:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Bugzilla:19216. The recent update massively broke things. added_lines and removed_lines are behaving erratically. This is most obvious in rule 180, mentioned further up the page, but is also affecting a large number of other rules. Many may simply need to be disabled until this is fixed. Dragons flight ( talk) 15:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that Special:AbuseFilter/172 stopped working, and reading above about the problems other filters, I tried to figure out why the filter stopped working ...
However:
gives a positive result!
Eh, anyone? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The bot to report abuse filter violators to AIV is now approved. Again, the filter lists it uses are at User:Mr.Z-bot/filters.js. Any admin can edit the lists to affect what it will report. Mr. Z-man 20:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if this should be in a filter, or put into Cluebot's code, but would it be feasible to check for the addition of certain html, and tag accordingly.
e.g. <div style="display:none"> like in this
which effectively blanked the page whilst leaving the source there. Of course the time taken for the filter to work might not be worth the hits it gets.
Martin451 (
talk)
22:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
If a user has over 50,000 edits and has been registered for over four years, let's assume they know about copy and paste moves. Stop tagging legitimate edits. Given the number of variables and options available in the AbuseFilter extension, the current behavior is simply unacceptable. Fix the damn filter. Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Nearly 10% of all edits are hitting the condition limit now, so it is rather imperative we reduce the numbers of filters in order to stem this problem. I intend to cut back on the following types of filters: log only, very low hit, tag only, and duplicate filters. Prodego talk 07:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
An user had a valid concern about that filter: it also tags repeating characters inside URLs. Could it be possible to tweak it to ignore such instances without hurting performance and accuracy too much? -- Luk talk 09:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Heh. When someone creates an article with only the words "Dank asshole", I guess I'd rather we not have a filter jump in that says "please consider making your article longer" ... and then inserts that in the edit summary :) - Dank ( push to talk) 14:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that MediaWiki has been updated past r52071, Tags are now wrapped in a span which allows us to identify them. There is now an open discussion on whether we should style tags when they appear in RecentChanges, Watchlist, etc. All commens welcome! Happy‑ melon 09:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
To make Special:Tags more comprehensible, I added descriptions to some tags, all formatted with {{ Tag description}}. It supports the parameter inactive=yes for old tags that aren't used by any abuse filter and thus do not appear in recent changes (those we'll be able to get rid of when T20670 will be fixed). You may want to complete the list if you have inspiration. Cenarium ( talk) 00:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Noel Streatfield ( talk · contribs) triggered the abuse filter 28 more than thousand times, in non-stop, see. This filter is not private and I remember someone having anticipated that vandals could exploit the abuse filter to hinder performance. I don't think it had any major effect besides clogging the log, but reporting here just in case. When approved, Mr.Z-bot may be used to report such users. Cenarium ( talk) 17:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
It sounds a little strange, though, that the abuse filter checks null edits, shouldn't first the software check whether an edit is null, and then the abuse filter analyzes it only if it's not ? I don't know for the impact on performance, is it worth a bug ? Cenarium ( talk) 15:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
No hits for the last two days... probably caused by the recent scap. MER-C 12:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Od Mishehu has asked that I seek group membership in the "Abuse Filter editors" group. He also mentioned that this is probably the best place to ask for it. I am Cobi, the owner and operator of ClueBot ( BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights), one of the antivandalism bots here with over 1.1 million edits. I believe that my work with ClueBot demonstrates my technical ability at writing heuristics to identify problematic edits. Thank you. -- Cobi( t| c| b) 07:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I must oppose non-admins getting this userright, as it is getting admin tools by the back door. I believe this was the consensus on AN as well. (This is no reflection on Cobi whom I am sure is trustworthy and would support at RfA.) Therefore I think the userright should be deactivated. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 14:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Filter 44 hasn't been hit since April. Filter 112 since late May. Filter 137 since early May. Perhaps it is time to disable these? -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 04:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
44 is still active, and responsible for filter 186. Cenarium ( talk) 14:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I disabled 4, 44, 66, and 137, in attempt to reduce the number of hits against the condition limit (was 15%). Now the condition limit is ~7% which is still too high in my opinion, but may be better served by looking for filters to optimize. Dragons flight ( talk) 15:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone point me in the right direction (Mediawiki pagewise or developer-wise) to add a short AF: with a wikilink to an explanation about tags before the tag description? – xeno talk 00:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
[[Special:Tags|Tag]]:
rather than having to create the mediawiki page for every one of them? –
xeno
talk
02:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be something unusual going on with this tag: it was assigned to the George McHugh article. See Revision history of George McHugh. -- Big_iron ( talk) 20:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Please format your tags properly, see at Special:Tags. Cenarium ( talk) 20:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
02:23, 29 June 2009 (hist) (diff) N MediaWiki:Tag-Possible Michael Jackson vandalism (Tag: Possible Michael Jackson vandalism) (Tag: Possible Michael Jackson vandalism)
Special:AbuseFilter/80's current appearance on change lists is " Tag: possibly inappropriate external links". I found this a bit misleading when trying to work out why an edit had been tagged as it suggested to me that the URL triggered it. I had to look at Special:Tags and Special:AbuseFilter/80 to discover that it is triggered by a new user adding several external links within a given timeframe (currently >3 in 20 mins), and the URL is irrelevant, and therefore realise I should examine their recent contributions. Can I suggest that MediaWiki:Tag-possible link spam be changed to something a bit more descriptive such as "New user rapidly adding external links", or if space allows, "New user recently added several external links"? Regards, Qwfp ( talk) 12:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Isn't there a way to check if the page is in a category with the abuse filter (before the edit, and after) ? I mean, not just pages with the category directly given in wikitext, but also when transcluded. That would be tremendously useful, for example for 29 and 189, those filters use workarounds, but they are far from complete, while it would be easy to simply check respectively if the category is in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion before and not after, and in Category:Living people before. Cenarium ( talk) 02:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
If you write a script to create a permanent log calling wikipedia editors abusive vandals you should know a little more about wikipedia than you do.
IPs can't make page moves. Removing articles written by bots that have had 4077 of their articles removed is not vandalism. Being stopped from removing them is vandalism. Your script is preventing me from editing the last 889 of the bad articles this bot created. Now who's the vandal? 889 potentially bad articles, some have evolutionary theory that's worst than an article written by a creationist. Wikipedia looks like an idiot calling bacteria eukaryotes. Now you're blocking qualified writers from fixing it.
Where's the abuse filter's abusive vandalism log for forcing these bad articles go unedited? -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 15:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know what users think about my suggested warning for direct use of stub categories before it goes live. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
... or should the log entries be set to expire after some time (say two weeks) ? After all, they are just meant to highlight possibly problematic edits for review and if an edit hasn't we reviewed in a couple of weeks it's unlikely to get/need attention later. We always have a permanent record of the edit diffs themselves, in case we need to review a user's edits later. Comments ? Abecedare ( talk) 18:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't answer the point of making adding layers of bureaucracy a default value. If there's a compelling reason related specifically to the development mission of this programming, then spell it out, otherwise the log should not be permanent. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 01:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This filter appears to be b0rked in someway, or is extremely poorly designed. Requesting it to be disabled or fixed. «l| ?romethean ™|l» (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, the filter detect BLPs by checking if the page contains Category:Living people in the wikitext, so it can't detect those with {{ lifetime}} et al, if someone knows a way to detect all BLPs, or a larger part, that would be appreciated. Cenarium ( talk) 23:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This is related to our 69.x.x.x algae expert, but I could also see it as a problem that may pop up from time to time. Some folks prefer to edit via their IP and no amount of convincing can get them to register an account. Nevertheless they may be experts in a certain refined field (i.e. phycology) and willing to put in a lot of grunt work to fix problems with articles on the same. What about some way to give certain IPs temporary exemption (I was thinking promote to autoconfirmed but it doesn't seem to be grantable nor can I access an IP's userrights). We could write a hack into the filters they're running into but that's suboptimal (though, could someone do that temporarily for the filter's that are giving 69.x.x.x trouble? [16]). Just telling them to re-submit their warned edits, or even telling them their edits were just "tagged" isn't a solution because other good faith users may see the tag and assume it's a bad edit (i.e. [17]). Thoughts? – xeno talk 12:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Could someone please tell me how to change
!("autoconfirmed" in user_groups)
into "not (autoconfirmed or User:69.226.103.13)" ? – xeno talk 01:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
&(user_name != "69.226.103.13")
to the end of a filter. Thanks Cenarium. I was chatting with Bjweeks about a way to solve this and came up with one way he thought might be "doable" - maybe we could write a hack in the abuse filter that tells it to evaluate "autoconfirmed" as "autoconfirmed and <these IPs>" ? (and we can keep a list of the IPs on a mediawiki page or something) –
xeno
talk 03:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)–
xeno
talk
03:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)Wikipedia rewriting 2 billion years of evolution for the past four months in thousands of articles and getting it copied into cyberspace is a real problem.
And it's not a minute, I'd still have to wait 4 days to be autoconfirmed, and for some of the heuristics I have to be an established user with over 500 edits.
But, go ahead and edit them. I'm not a phycologist by the way, and it's a lot of work for me.
Every exemption is directly related to being able to quickly fix the mess created by anybot, a bot that had its authorization revoked after created thousands of bad articles and redirects that need corrects. If the bot had never been run, and if there were plenty of wikipedia phycologist this would not be an issue. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 03:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Ruslik0 made an exemption for anybot created content, as the problem is the anybot created content. However, if others are not comfortable making an exemption for anybot created content, which removes the IP issue from the discussion and focuses on the real problem issue, then I won't do edits that tag me as potentially unconstructive editor. Let me know.
But if the purpose of the abusive filter is to force people to register, then take up blocking IPs from editing with the community, or stop saying "anybody can edit." The community, though, has already decided the issue of IPs editing, and it is still anybody can edit wikipedia. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 15:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
And I tested it and it works. [18] Done with one click. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 15:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I started going through New user changing redirect or redirecting so I can tag c&p moves, of which there is about 1 per day whenever I check. This leads me to check the user's contributions to find what redirect they removed when they did the c&p move. I wonder if the tag can be modified to look for "New user removing redirect" in addition to changing a redirect; this would be a "companion" edit, if you will. Thx. -- 64.85.216.57 ( talk) 13:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sysop on Persian Wikipedia.How can enable abuse filter in Persian wikipedia?I'm translating massages and translate half of them Amir ( talk) 15:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This filter's heuristics are hidden, but this filter is bad. It is the one that tagged my edit as "possible vandal phrases," while it was referring to an edit made by a different user.
The edit filter should, in the very least, attach the tag to the correct editors. Really bad when it doesn't. See my edit log to find the edit, and note that the discussion and edit in the log are not mine. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 03:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
These edit filters need a work before they start recording incidents and putting them anywhere. No one reading this cares that Edit Filter 23 tags the wrong contributor, and, now, another one, [19] [20] Edit Filter 11, tags the words "New World" as possible vandalism, when it's supposed to be tagging it sucks, meaning that potentially every taxon that ranges both continents will be tagged as a vandalism edit if an IP edits it.
It's supposed to tag "You/He/She/It sucks," just like Edit Filter 23 with its hidden code is supposed to tag the actual contributor of the actual edit. When things that aren't in the code start happening, it's times to stop running it and get it cleaned up.
The IP -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 18:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
What is the differences between filter 9 and filter 97? The former applies to all edits of unregistered users in the main namespace, while the latter to all large (>5000) additions to pages in all namespaces made by non-autoconfirmed users. They frequently overlap. Does it make sense to have two filters? Ruslik_ Zero 16:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
While I was originally unreceptive to the idea, now that we've settled into the AFE, I think we should roll it into the sysop bundle. Especially so that admins who just want to view private filters (like me =) don't need to add themself into the usergroup. However, please see arguments contra in the last discussion, especially from slakr who does have some compelling reasons against. Thoughts? –
xeno
talk 01:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Changed my position to just add af-view-private to +sysop - vote for the bug below. –
xeno
talk
14:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I support Xeno's original proposal, i.e. add all the AFE userrights into the admin usergroup. There is really no point in separating a userright which a usergroup can give to themselves anyway. Admins have been shown to have the trust of the community, and so we have to trust them not to edit a filter if they don't understand what they are doing! — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 14:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
There are a whole slew of entries for 71.191.53.234 ( talk · contribs) editing on Marijuana (etymology) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) when that user has not edited in close to an hour and there had not been any edits on the article in over a day. -- B ( talk) 04:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
This filter is designed to prevent newcomers from making abusive unblock denials. I think we need a filter to prevent these, on the outside chance that the blocked user is, in fact, one who has a chance of getting unblocked - denials like this need to be stopped before the user sees them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
The wording of this template isn't right:
WP:CRYSTAL says "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable". It doesn't say "Articles about anticipated events are not allowed," nor does it say "Articles cannot have details of future albums". Adding well-sourced, verifiable information about future albums is consistent with WP:CRYSTAL, and this filter should make that clear. — Gendralman ( talk) 14:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Could the name of this log be changed, please? I just noticed the other day that I have entries in an "abuse" log for linking to YouTube and for creating articles about Michael Jackson, which triggered a suspicion of vandalism. A few other people are voicing the same concern at AN/I, and someone suggested posting the request here. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, User Ruslik0. User SlimVirgin, you should spend more time at AN/I offering solutions. I don't know why so many wikipedians offer the, "it doesn't bother me to have an abuse filter" defense when there's no point in calling it an abuse filter while denying it is one.
Just for that I'm going to continue editing the garbage created by anybot. Probably only these 900 articles plus maybe a few thousand redirects to delete. -- 69.226.103.13 ( talk) 06:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I changed all system messages. The only remaining steps are moving this page to Wikipedia:Edit filter and changing the name of user group to (I propose) Edit Filter managers. Ruslik_ Zero 09:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Quite happy to see we're removing the word "abuse." -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, they say it's always 20/20. I think "ActionFilter" is better for a number of reasons:
I doubt anyone will want to implement this change (esp. as it was only just changed to "Edit filter"), but I thought I'd mention it anyway. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 23:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)